Legislative Update
March 2020
The legislative session is running fast towards the endzone with floor sessions going long hours each day. The target end of session was March 20
th
, however, to date the house has killed 6 appropriation bills so there is little chance they make the deadline. I do expect they will be done be the end of the month. The Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee (JFAC) finished setting budgets this morning, including the over $3 Billion Medicaid budget. JFAC also has approved a $2 million supplemental appropriation for coronavirus response within the current budget year; the money will come from the bill Congress recently passed, from which Idaho is expected to get about $4 million. Now JFAC will have to go back and reset adjusted budgets for those budgets that failed, with the hope of setting budgets that will pass the fiscally conservative House of Representatives.
The referendum to implement Medicaid Expansion went into effect January 1
st
, and to date approximately 60,000 Idahoan’s have signed up. The legislature continues to struggle with the funding mechanism for the expansion ($100 Million). There is pending legislation to tap counties to help fund the state’s share of Medicaid expansion, end the County Medical Indigency Program as well as the State Catastrophic Health Care Fund program.
All legislative seats are up for re-election this fall. The window of time to file for office has ended. There have been 10 legislators who have announced they will not be running again. There is typically a 10%-25% turnover in seats. This summer will be a good time to connect with current legislators and those who are running to educate them on the huge impact Optometry has on the health care system in Idaho.
I will have a sine report for the IOP when the legislature does adjourn, in the meantime,
Have a Happy Spring!
Kris
Optometry related bills
HB 317 Optometry Act Rewrite:
Despite overwhelming support in the House, HB 317 failed to get enough votes in the Senate Health and Welfare Committee to proceed to the floor. The opposition had a full court press of misinformation and outright lies that caused much angst and lead to a 6-3 no vote. Chairman Martin worked very hard to give the bill another go and there was an effort to send the bill to the amending order, but even after having been told by legislators they would support this motion, the effort died on a 5-4 vote. It is a disappointing outcome, but a lot of good relationships with legislators have been forged and it will be critical to future efforts to continue and strengthen those grassroots efforts.
HB 582 Willful and Reckless Misconduct:
This legislation is coming from the Idaho Liability Reform Coalition and is to address the supreme court decision that ruled against a provider, partially because there was not a definition of willful and Reckless Misconduct in the liability limitation statute. The bill defines Willful and Reckless as: “conduct in which a person makes a conscious choice as to the person’s course of conduct under circumstances in which he person knows or should know that such conduct both creates an unreasonable risk of harm to another and involves a high probability that such harm will actually result”.
HB 515 Collections Requirements:
This legislation has been dubbed the Patient Protection Act, and also the Frank VanderSloot Bill. It will require several actions to take place within a timeline in order for a provider or facility to be able to take a patient to collections. This bill has been reprinted to address the many concerns from providers and although it does, in my opinion, add significant bureaucracy to the process there clearly have been abuses of the system. There have been several patient examples of getting a bill for the first time over a year after discharge, and it includes a late fee and interest or even being sent to collections.
HB 342 Tele-health Legislation:
This legislation has been introduced by Representative Blanksma. It will allow more options in tele-health but will still require providers to maintain the community standard of care. Therefore, if the standard of care is to only see patients face-to-face on the initial visit, HB 342 will have no impact on the practice. The bill also adds language that requires the provider to take appropriate steps to establish a provider-patient relationship using telehealth that is sufficient to conduct a patient evaluation and appropriate to diagnose and treat the patient.
This legislation was amended slightly in the Senate.
HB 392 Volunteer Provider Immunity:
This legislation expands the list of providers who are exempt from civil litigation if they are providing professional services without compensation. NPs were already a part of this section, but HB 392 would also provide liability protection to a student working under the direct supervision of a licensed provider.
HB 443 Vaccine Discrimination:
This legislation would prevent any person or company that contracts with the state (i.e. Medicaid) from discriminating against any person due to lack of a vaccine. There has been a lot of discussion in the hall on how this might pertain to an employee who chooses not to get a flu shot for example. Can you require them to wear a mask?
Kris Ellis
