Legislation Watchlist

In each legislative session, there are a great number of different bills introduced.  Even in a "quiet" session like this one, we have seen hundreds introduced, and several proposals from last year see new life.  Some will become law on their own, many will be combined into larger bills, and others will be tabled and perhaps introduced another year.  We watch bills for a variety of reasons.  We monitor those that are the most likely to become law as well as those that even if unlikely might have a big impact on the mental health community.  The following bills are currently high priorities.

Current Legislative Deadlines: 

Pass from committee in the house of origin: March 15

Pass from committee in the other house: March 23

Pass from committee for major finance/spending bills: March 30

Constitutional Amendments

With majorities in both House and Senate, some GOP legislators have looked at constitutional ammendments as a way to push priorities that might face a veto from Gov. Dayton.  There are several that are very concerning to MHAM and other non-profits that support mental health care.

Three proposals would sharply restrict the ability of the legislature and governor to make budget decisions.  These summaries come from the Minnesota Budget Project, and reflect the concerns of many in nonprofit sector.  The deficits we have faced in the past would have been made all the more difficult to solve and harmful to vunerable Minnesotans if some of these restrictions were in place.

  • House File 1598/Senate File 1384 would require a three-fifths supermajority vote in each body of the Legislature in order to pass a tax increase.
  • House File 1612/Senate File 1364 would limit all spending in the biennium to the amount of all revenues collected in the previous biennium. Excess revenues could only be used for two purposes: to pay back one-time shifts and to provide for the public peace, safety or health as a result of a declared national security or peacetime emergency.
  • House File 1661/Senate File 1378 would limit general fund spending in the biennium to 98 percent of forecasted revenues, with the remainder going into a reserve account. Any spending above the 98 percent could only be used to respond to emergencies and would require a three-fifths majority vote in both bodies of the Legislature. Once the reserve account reaches five percent of state revenues, a reduction in the sales tax would be triggered.

We also oppose proposals to require Voter ID. This was a concern that we heard a lot about this fall when we were traveling around the state.  People in more rural areas talked about their difficulty getting to government centers to get the needed documents together, and the difficulty they would have voting under these new rules.  A recent hearing featured many of the stories of the people who would be affected, but very little show of a reason serious enough to justify that harm.

All of these bills would be placed before the voters as potential constitutional amendments in 2012. We are concerned about this method of legislation. The legislative process is about compromise and debating to make good laws. There are too many opportunities in these bills to limit participation in the process.

HF 1986

 HF 1986 would expand the health care voucher system down to 150% of federal poverty level, shrinking the population covered by Minnesota Care.  We appreciate that mental health coverage is required for people on this voucher, but the downside is that folks who are living paycheck-to-paycheck could be facing a deductible that is over 10% of their pre-tax income. 

HF 1979/SF 1699 "ARRM Bill"

ARRM has proposed a bill that would change many aspects of adult foster care.  However, they approach the issue almost exclusively from the perspective of developmental disabilities.  Many of the provisions and changes they would like to make do not make sense for our community.  Other provisions directly exclude us when naming the groups who would be invited to help shape policies and priorities.

Some provisions are openly disrespectful to residents, including only requiring that the AFC “notify” residents instead of seeking their permission to bring an additional resident in for respite/crisis care.  This is their home, and the law ought to give them respect for the stability they need, not just be concerned with the profitability of the operation. 

Right now, we have more questions than answers.  Will adequate protections remain if providers have decreased liability for clients, or will the right balance be struck that gives people more freedom and independence?  We understand that much of the language is changing, and some of the most troubling language may be struck, so we will continue to monitor this bill and let you know about the final form that it takes.  Right now, our priority is to make sure we are clearly heard and at the table as these discussions go forward.

HF 1994

 HF 1994 is one of two bills put forward by DHS. It contains technical fixes, but also extends the opportunity for AFCs to add a 5th bed in certain circumstances.

SF 1506, 1507, HF 1919, HF 1889/SF 1535

 These bills contain several changes to public assistance programs. Some of the proposed language would require drug testing of all recipients, or in cases where a person displayed certain behaviors. The indicators specified, such as involuntary twitching or difficulty speaking, would be highly prejudicial for people with mental illnesses. One bill would deny benefits for three years after a positive test. We know that some people with mental illnesses self-medicate, but withholding food assistance is not going to get anyone sober. Another proposed change is a 60-day waiting period, with no exception granted for someone who has no other source of food or shelter.

SF 1556/HF 1907

 SF 1556/HF 1907 would repeal the 20% PCA rate cut when a family member provides the service.  

SF 1626

 SF 1626 would allow payment for services performed by volunteer providers for Critical Access Dental Providers for MA.  We continue to hear how difficult it can be for MA clients to find adequate dental care, this might alleviate that problem.  Another bill, HF 1962 would authorize additional preventative dental services under MA for individuals with a severe and persistent mental illness when it is needed.  This is a positive change.