[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6363124,"mediaKeyId","2166698-dae69ccf078dd841eb4b93f80aff358a","parentId",2166698,"title","Committee approves grants, sunset and study language for developmental disability provider proposals; refers main bill to appropriations","audioSeconds",948,"startMs",3311000,"endMs",4259000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2166698-dae69ccf078dd841eb4b93f80aff358a&start=3311&end=4259","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2166698-dae69ccf078dd841eb4b93f80aff358a/thumbnail_3311000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6363124/North-Dakota/Committee-approves-grants-sunset-and-study-language-for-developmental-disability-provider-proposals-refers-main-bill-to-appropriations","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6363124-0cb727d8e276346a5d11637aa953b089/orig.mp4?Expires=1776085850&Signature=hX2XvfSAs87iTVgM8YsTSGU7Ocr8SEm7yLLAzA6bSrTsuOrKnogQs0OWMOp2v4h9V1CexJ5xdDhWF9rYWGSU~vOfOqFlUKD25GDDNPFsQDydXm9OqpUI3tgP3z1SQWDoJu2FvMb7zqgqnSGvMpOBYJgac3CuFQ~i4HIR3zyGuiDVlvX6bxCo6H4YFEuk41gAz6Pz5Jq-zey4ZOwKjXEGQWGbacNO-wUOk3yGfNuX-ES4yVJncuWk20jVAW4d9ab6SaGRCdolhz8Ycd1WhbMJ8C05hzsFwetubA4OSPdqdfD3kOceNUPF7ZyhNZ7nyOwZRhbHNARdsXfkC33VtdxZLw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Senate Human Services, ND","date","2025-01-29T00:00:00Z","article","The committee considered a multi‑section bill (variously referenced in discussion as 20112/21112/2192) that includes funding and program provisions for community providers and the Life Skills and Transition Center (LSTC). Members adopted an amendment that added a sunset date (June 30, 2027), required semiannual reports from the Department of Health and Human Services during the biennium, and added reporting requirements on the number of non‑eligible children served and barriers to community‑based services. The committee also adopted language clarifying that grants or certification supports are for community providers serving individuals with developmental disabilities.

Why it matters: The actions authorize near‑term funding and require reporting that will inform the Legislature about utilization, barriers and recommended statutory changes. Committee members discussed fiscal notes and whether the request required referral to appropriations; after amendment and debate, the committee moved the bill as amended and re‑referred it to appropriations.

Key votes and language: The amendment adding a sunset and study/reporting provisions passed on a unanimous roll call. Later the committee approved a do‑pass as amended motion and re‑referred the bill to appropriations; the committee recorded a 6-0 vote and members volunteered to carry the bill. The committee also approved a targeted technical amendment to specify grants or provider reimbursement language “serving individuals with developmental disabilities.” The session included discussion about whether the proposed funding fully covered provider costs and whether a rate review would be required.

Ending: Committee members asked the department and legislative staff to continue refining fiscal and implementation details in preparation for the appropriations review.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Human Services Jan 29, 2025\t","oneSentenceSummary","The committee amended a bill to add a sunset, required semiannual reports, and language specifying grants to community providers serving individuals with developmental disabilities; it approved the amendment and voted to refer the bill to appropriations.","taxTitle","Human Services, Senate, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28905,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6363128,"Committee discusses 24‑ vs. 72‑hour emergency evaluation window; directs staff to draft 'as medically necessary up to 72 hours' language",299,2458000,2757000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2166698-dae69ccf078dd841eb4b93f80aff358a&start=2458&end=2757","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2166698-dae69ccf078dd841eb4b93f80aff358a/thumbnail_2458000.jpg","/articles/6363128/North-Dakota/Committee-discusses-24-vs-72hour-emergency-evaluation-window-directs-staff-to-draft-as-medically-necessary-up-to-72-hours-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6363128-d020f37cdd40be5c8560ce0bc981d131/orig.mp4?Expires=1776085850&Signature=jd4dCIVbgdAqUvSuV8TGxRpnOf8B3mtN5k5zp2XK4QwPKYqYLsku2LokB3PQhnww8RDCspjG8tEuUDBJqfaifr-q6UI1xRbY2CAcYHP8TXmxAc5P301wfMi7xHG~xyEbEyCjFEPhSehQZUn4CJQ3RzH6exFsFLo3CqoJBOHtk8PdiO3djJ76aaFLfkd7Li0qxU96AUXqD1l-~ussS0fYQgOh9St7VBQCMFtG2oWxe9kAZuMCHuNDqN8Yc1vVzv-02pdQVPI2F6XMzoHNTWAyb--gUPzo-38PsEi-nb~fzD2CRLhg4IElIw8F-EDO68360hg6e~sAS2Plo3BAUlENeA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Human Services Committee discussed proposed language for emergency detention and evaluation timelines under the civil‑commitment process, including whether the statutory evaluation window should be 24 hours or 72 hours. Department of Health and Human Services staff and clinical consultants participated in the discussion and the committee directed legislative staff to draft an amendment establishing the period as \"as medically necessary, up to 72 hours.\"

Why it matters: The statute sets the timeframe for courts and treatment facilities to complete an initial evaluation and either release the individual or pursue further involuntary commitment procedures. Committee members noted practical challenges in obtaining lab results and clinical assessments within 24 hours and expressed concern for border and cross‑jurisdictional cases where neighboring states use different timelines.

Key clarifications: Department staff explained the process and forms used: medical facilities complete an application for evaluation and emergency admission (GN5) and request law‑enforcement transport (GN6); upon arrival at a treatment facility the facility provides notice of purpose and rights (GN8) and then the 24‑ or 72‑hour clock begins at the treatment facility’s admission. Committee members asked whether law enforcement needs a separate court order for transport; the department said law enforcement may transport to a treatment facility under existing statute without a court order in most situations.

Decision and next steps: Committee members asked staff to draft an amendment that would set the detention/evaluation window as medically necessary up to 72 hours, and asked that the draft return for review at the next meeting. The committee approved a motion to draft and consider that language and will view the drafted amendment on the scheduled Monday meeting.

Ending: Members noted the need to balance patient safeguards and provider legal clarity and asked staff to return language that preserves medical judgment while setting a clear maximum period.","Committee members debated whether the statute triggering civil‑commitment evaluation clocks should be 24 or 72 hours and directed staff to draft an amendment stating detention for evaluation may be conducted \"as medically necessary, up to 72 hours.\"",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6363132,"Committee amends bill to study state health‑insurance mandates and approves the study",465,2005000,2470000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2166698-dae69ccf078dd841eb4b93f80aff358a&start=2005&end=2470","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2166698-dae69ccf078dd841eb4b93f80aff358a/thumbnail_2005000.jpg","/articles/6363132/North-Dakota/Committee-amends-bill-to-study-state-healthinsurance-mandates-and-approves-the-study","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6363132-2db66865b155d0c2e112740f9faeb00c/orig.mp4?Expires=1776085850&Signature=jU2hgBuWfc72mfrKbdHMVjHl4vQKHwm8vFcjeQ~L4inc5i7BIEzLMJ7W1VPDAQTPwEyscrRiab27zPgGub3Fa-Z6jQeVKpXbd0NdbC9135WHfSoZw2l~4nB3oK5yILsfqzq4rLmf2PnTgugOyogZ5Juv~DeHQDy~bo0QsJkZq-0PcCgZA35PVbIvyxrQ19IXFr-eG1IX1VORYxWSg73FAzd6NcRTHppEDLch5csrMCVyxgNbc7K~zj8RtY6byFHOU7Mu~tbxGQBx3b3X9B3YwVagLtYvxMPWaKuhQuWrnToW2pMjPp~GPq-fGjF9n1lfPBui8w3jLZbyo-ZknYPvsw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Human Services Committee amended a bill (referenced in discussion as 2249) to convert part of its text into a study of state health‑insurance mandates and approved the amendment unanimously.

Committee members requested the insurance department’s comparison chart of mandated covered benefits and recommended staff use that as the starting point for the study, which would review historical mandates, current relevance, and whether any mandated benefits should be revised or repealed. The amendment passed on a 6-0 roll call.

Why it matters: The study aims to inventory mandated benefits (examples cited include breast reconstruction after mastectomy and dental anesthesia), assess whether mandates remain appropriate given changes in medical evidence and market practices, and provide recommendations to legislative management. Committee members discussed dates and asked staff to use a consistent historical baseline for the review.

Key details and next steps: Insurance department staff said they maintain a side‑by‑side mandated‑benefit comparison chart that the committee can use. Legislative staff (Evan) will draft amendment language and return it to the committee; members asked for the draft to be available for review on the next meeting day.

Ending: The committee approved the amendment to create the study and directed staff to draft the specific verbiage and timeline; members signaled broad interest in using the study to clean up outdated mandates.","The committee amended a bill to include a legislative study of health‑insurance mandates, approved the amendment unanimously and asked staff to draft language using the insurance department’s existing mandated‑benefit chart as a starting point.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":92,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6363137,"Committee moves to recommend ‘do not pass’ on step‑therapy expansion after questions about need and definition",430,1575000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2166698-dae69ccf078dd841eb4b93f80aff358a&start=1575&end=2005","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2166698-dae69ccf078dd841eb4b93f80aff358a/thumbnail_1575000.jpg","/articles/6363137/North-Dakota/Committee-moves-to-recommend-do-not-pass-on-steptherapy-expansion-after-questions-about-need-and-definition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6363137-86be4ca4ae137a31b45bc7a315ff3c54/orig.mp4?Expires=1776085850&Signature=lK-RCQ7PT6stc1L5EtXU2P2-du60S6FsHNrLPfW2y-Si~qjG~ccNtygT~BoEPAew4t2UnZfkaz3BOgVVXAS~VRSdSXqZm6omCnnFtBRBZhe3hcXBcQ3ti866AjvDVY~3BtSuCP5wKtVZRjAjr2cnPyRYuaYBheU4-BN-sUupFfrB6h-2YXmadILIbN5cYr9fjmZsQ4nQtKxFNIawa896Ow2Kb2Oko882vRh1MmG7q63BsYFRxsO4k3nUj-Qq1MGFYc3P-QY-udlguVwCjKFvijVCnVG6aXv3YmwIQLRf-I8i-s-pD4td4EkYG36~YUVwCVwPNAOQJpKYU5~8V8CmNg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee reviewed Senate Bill 2248, a proposal to expand restrictions on step therapy protocols by adding the phrase “associated conditions” for metastatic cancer and other diagnoses. After extended discussion about implementation challenges and whether the law already prohibits problematic step therapy, the committee voted to recommend “do not pass.”

Why it matters: Step therapy rules affect how insurers require patients to try lower‑cost treatments before approving others. Committee members said existing state law (Century Code chapter referenced in the hearing) already prohibits step therapy in certain situations and that many major carriers already do not require step therapy for the affected conditions. Members expressed concern that “associated conditions” is undefined and could be difficult to implement or could be used cosmetically to say a mandate exists without a demonstrated need.

Key discussion points: A witness referenced Century Code chapter 19‑02.116.03 as already prohibiting step therapy for metastatic cancer; committee members said that adding “associated conditions” without a clear definition could create ambiguity (for example, whether nausea related to cancer qualifies while pre‑existing migraines would not). Committee members discussed that a majority of residents are covered by employer (ERISA) plans, which state mandates cannot regulate, and that a large share of plans already lack step therapy in practice.

Vote and outcome: Senator Hogan moved “do not pass,” seconded by Senator Weston; the committee recorded a 6-0 vote for do‑not‑pass. The committee discussed pursuing a narrower approach or a study if stakeholders present additional implementation details.

Ending: Members suggested that, absent a clearly defined problem or carrier practices demonstrating the need, the committee was not prepared to expand statutory prohibitions. The motion to recommend do‑not‑pass will be reflected in committee reporting to the next stage.","Senate Bill 2248, which would add ‘associated conditions’ to the state’s restrictions on step therapy, received skepticism from committee members about implementation and necessity; the committee voted to recommend a do‑not‑pass on the bill.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6363142,"Senate Human Services clears two medical marijuana bills after changes on telehealth, edibles and ID rules",698,15000,713000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2166698-dae69ccf078dd841eb4b93f80aff358a&start=15&end=713","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2166698-dae69ccf078dd841eb4b93f80aff358a/thumbnail_15000.jpg","/articles/6363142/North-Dakota/Senate-Human-Services-clears-two-medical-marijuana-bills-after-changes-on-telehealth-edibles-and-ID-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6363142-12636d6a1b921070683304c798ae7c28/orig.mp4?Expires=1776085850&Signature=Vg~D0Z5iVwt0S-u9SUA1CicwSgEQrqS6PzAGTVHmT7xW6CP8YGn7uuu7nRRdt~L7np6vm0riay19G1J6CyDq4KyqSx4znRX-tYarHDDQr0Fem-24FJHTNVm40KLcDasld4jYSes~sQHByMdv-WvEqVp7fNKfsveN2bumHIv93JVaScPWIYtDfK0fzCr5NNQ1D9EZjI6x0SVRdNKCvDKUmEppbXDe9~7aFsiyOaJ5ke8JmI~KJCUA9pzrH2KUbuENuZ1p3J35jFh8EnKedzYpH2WFxz~SSldZz4Xmplz-jKuzv1l2Eou9txkhjiSwSt2SvRhmXE9aKoSPTKEGVxjBbw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Human Services Committee on an unspecified date advanced two companion medical marijuana measures, amending one and voting to pass the other. The committee approved Senate Bill 2293 (concentrate/dispensing) on a 6-0 vote and Senate Bill 2294 as amended on a 5-1 vote.

Committee members said they removed a requirement that certain medical records or in‑person evaluations be required where an applicant cannot obtain an ID because of a medical condition, and they inserted language allowing “other department‑approved documentation” for applicants who are homebound. The committee also adopted an amendment striking the phrase “in person” from a medical‑records requirement and struck a section numbered 7 that the committee described as duplicative.

Why it matters: Committee members framed the changes as technical fixes and conservative, incremental policy steps intended to preserve a medical program while addressing practical problems for patients who cannot travel or who lack conventional identity documents. Members said allowing approved telehealth initial assessments should reduce predatory behavior by out‑of‑state or high‑fee providers and help homebound patients obtain access.

Most important actions and language: The concentrate/dispensing bill includes a one‑gram limit per the committee discussion and reestablishes a 21‑year minimum age for designated caregivers. The companion bill allows telehealth for initial patient assessments provided a licensed provider documents the evaluation and maintains records in accordance with medical standards; the committee struck “in person” so the statute no longer requires a face‑to‑face visit in the health‑records subsection. The bills also include a process allowing the department to accept alternate documentation if an applicant cannot obtain a North Dakota ID because of a medical condition.

Committee members discussed edible products, emphasizing conservative restrictions (packaging/labeling and product design) to reduce appeal to children; members cited Colorado emergency‑room incidents involving children and said the proposed limits are intentionally narrow. The committee discussed veteran applicants and agreed the bill should allow attestations from non‑VA providers rather than requiring a Veterans Affairs medical record.

Votes and next steps: For SB2293, Senator Rohrer moved a “do pass” motion, seconded by Senator Hogan; the committee recorded six “aye” votes and the motion passed. For SB2294, the committee first approved an amendment (strike “in person” and remove section 7) on a 6-0 roll call, then approved “do pass as amended” on a 5-1 roll call (Senator Clemens recorded a “nay”). Committee members said a senator would volunteer to carry each bill to the floor.

Quotations from the hearing: “This is really a technical corrections bill,” one participant said during discussion of SB2293. A senator who objected to an earlier age‑50 provision on an unrelated section said, “That's what I objected to,” and the committee removed that provision. On telehealth, a member said the change should “help with that predatory behavior that we have by couple of providers.”

Background and fiscal notes: The committee discussed registration fees (one‑year $25; two‑year $40 referenced in committee comments) and noted prior fee reductions. Members said they would contact the department to confirm revenue estimates. The committee also noted historical fixes were needed after the original initiated measure had inconsistencies with existing statutes.

Ending: With the amendments in place, committee members described the bills as cautious steps aimed at maintaining a medical program and reducing barriers for homebound patients; they moved both bills forward to the next legislative stage.","The Senate Human Services Committee voted to advance two medical marijuana bills after amending language to allow telehealth assessments, narrow edible rules and add alternate documentation for homebound applicants; one bill passed the committee unanimously and the other passed 5-1.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee approves grants, sunset and study language for developmental disability provider proposals; refers main bill to appropriations

Committee discusses 24‑ vs. 72‑hour emergency evaluation window; directs staff to draft 'as medically necessary up to 72 hours' language

Committee amends bill to study state health‑insurance mandates and approves the study

Committee moves to recommend ‘do not pass’ on step‑therapy expansion after questions about need and definition

Senate Human Services clears two medical marijuana bills after changes on telehealth, edibles and ID rules