[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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],{"_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",6568050,"mediaKeyId","3219421-6381d3d3c35da33b8a069a13e0a657a2","parentId",3219421,"title","Senate passes human‑services omnibus after contentious floor debate over nursing‑home cuts and county cost shifts","audioSeconds",7565,"startMs",2420000,"endMs",9985000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3219421-6381d3d3c35da33b8a069a13e0a657a2&start=2420&end=9985","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3219421-6381d3d3c35da33b8a069a13e0a657a2/thumbnail_2420000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6568050/Minnesota/Senate-passes-humanservices-omnibus-after-contentious-floor-debate-over-nursinghome-cuts-and-county-cost-shifts","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568050-0dc4a16fc508426760a5ffeb35c0e7bb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770491169&Signature=Q2De-P7Oe1U0vUhkEZ8j3q3xFehkvvuLH3U8tAnoaqJonMTM~9kFBx7Rwf3KCjzLE2qWD5yUT1VuYG9sIuqW9dh~-Egit6tRdaylLUMdKbKW~KEascNhridTZ3aODackOeQmpmQgUIszfIoGJFWW5~P3iPK3QL5xskS51oEClOEnbY5xLAWozB6RED4XACgooWZ40LUrSX1U1dqyxq3466V7QnsZts88JqkXAMEPMWxW~IfuCWtR10VPrTmUSmQ-2NgkAdk3K2Ex1ohVrC-zdxFsjcPO1wKz-jsc8wuYg26SPNkY3FCO-L4BpdcDH-M5nAbq2t6oAnzoirlbyy82Dg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Minnesota Legislature","date","2025-05-07T20:09:42Z","article","The Minnesota Senate passed House File 24‑34 on May 7 after several hours of floor debate and a string of amendments. Sponsors described the measure as a bipartisan compromise intended to protect core services while managing an emerging budget shortfall; critics said the bill contains substantial cuts to nursing homes and some disability services and objected to how priorities were set.

Why it matters: The human‑services budget governs spending for long‑term care, disability services, direct care and treatment (DCT), substance‑use programs, and other social services that largely affect older adults and people with disabilities. Senators spent much of the floor time debating whether to shift costs to counties, how to grow capacity for DCT, and whether to redirect spending from other items to soften cuts.

Major floor actions and amendments
- A19 (Abler): Senator Jim Abler offered the A19 amendment, described on the floor as eliminating the proposed county share and making a series of programmatic reforms and investments (for example, restoring certain disproportionate‑share assisted‑living payments, capping some waiver growth, and investing in assessments and training). Abler said the amendment would eliminate county cost shifts in the bill and identify reforms to produce savings. The A19 package was adopted by voice vote after debate and an amendment to the amendment (A23) addressing newborn screening/rare diseases was also accepted without roll calls.
- A1 (Abler): A technical amendment clarifying autism early‑intensive intervention licensing and provisional licensure for early intensive developmental behavioral intervention (EIDBI) providers was adopted.
- A24 (Gruenhagen): A proposal to prorate grants to pay for program‑integrity AI tools (reductions across many grant lines to fund data‑analytics tools) failed on a roll call; opponents said it would cut funds for services without sufficient detail on implementation.
- A52 (Rasmussen): Reallocated unspent funds within an existing loan program to critical‑access nursing‑facility supports; adopted.
- Other actions: Several amendments addressing newborn screening, licensing, and targeted investments were adopted; at least one amendment (A30) was ruled not germane and removed after a point of order and appeal.

Votes and final passage
The final recorded vote on House File 24‑34 as amended was 35 ayes and 32 nays. The Senate clerk recorded the bill as passed and the title agreed to. Several roll calls on amendments and points of order punctuated the day.

What sponsors said
Senator Lindsey Hoffman (chair, Human Services Committee) framed the bill as a difficult but necessary response to a worsening fiscal outlook: \"This budget makes responsible reductions... while still upholding our duty to serve Minnesotans with dignity,\" he said on the floor, and noted specific reductions across the biennium referenced in his remarks.

Senator Jim Abler, who offered major amendments tied to county relief and program reforms, argued his changes would prevent county property‑tax increases and generate savings through process reforms and targeted investments: \"We do not believe we should tax our counties 1p more for the budget distress that the state is in,\" Abler said.

What opponents said
Senator Glenn Gruenhagen and other critics argued the bill continues to fund some contentious items while imposing cuts on nursing homes and disability services. Gruenhagen repeatedly raised the question of MinnesotaCare expansion and federal match, and other senators representing rural districts described projected multi‑million dollar reductions for nursing homes in their districts.

Implementation and next steps
The bill contains multiple programmatic provisions that will require Department of Human Services (DHS) and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) actions, targeted investments in DCT capacity (including a $75 million Miller Building item referenced on the floor), and several studies or task forces to pursue savings. Conference negotiations with the House will determine final spending decisions.

Provenance: Floor debate opening remarks by committee chair Senator Hoffman began near 2420.26 seconds into the transcript; final passage and title agreement are recorded near 9984.86 seconds.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Floor Session - 05/07/25","oneSentenceSummary","The Minnesota Senate passed the human‑services omnibus budget, House File 24‑34, after hours of debate and multiple amendments addressing county cost shifts, nursing‑home funding and program integrity.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MN, Minnesota","taxId",77817,"location","Minnesota","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},6568055,"Senate approves tougher ignition-interlock rules, extends look-back period to 20 years",1492,845000,2337000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3219421-6381d3d3c35da33b8a069a13e0a657a2&start=845&end=2337","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3219421-6381d3d3c35da33b8a069a13e0a657a2/thumbnail_845000.jpg","/articles/6568055/Minnesota/Senate-approves-tougher-ignition-interlock-rules-extends-look-back-period-to-20-years","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568055-1d9574b415fb52263a3529f8e727d16a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770491169&Signature=Qlhb2To2IvmRaiCCnVBAjd3FXAR~daKDV7SxWW0OwhqRxkr8ZNCF-oymsEldenN8Gmf9fw80gFdsQvQsMLPVNvPh7DOZH67WikEp2dbD3~Xwsbm9PVg-~0J9BqY3Qo-CfF~qir~ZrqmxsQ1N1Zy5BhNXdGrGqrDSnK9FdrM~G~tPZikHNQsz0zWQTuFsEZKtNK26jejLkQCgLcAMbuPVv0y67hMqEogAEe2PRAuVyCM~mfyhEPTdRaQWYyJWlDNdpBbPkW~uWM~AYLoju9xoUsfzVOWNXy7l3h9YYIXIFYsgFDK6Zthjg-QsZHhX3UjKW9h8yh-T4hiEPoY~KHH4dA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Minnesota Senate on Wednesday passed House File 21‑30, a public‑safety bill that widens and lengthens requirements for ignition‑interlock devices for people convicted of alcohol‑related driving offenses.

The measure, carried on the floor by Senator Latz, extends the look‑back period used to trigger an interlock requirement from 10 years to 20 years and creates a more escalatory set of interlock durations tied to the number of prior offenses. \"If a person has a prior alcohol related driving offense on their record within the last 20 years and they get another offense, they will be required to use the interlock in their vehicle in order to drive lawfully,\" Senator Latz said, describing the bill's central change.

Why it matters: Supporters said the bill will increase the number of drivers who are required to use interlocks and lower barriers to joining the program, while opponents raised concerns about scope and specific wording in amendments. Sponsors also added provisions to increase penalties for driving without a required interlock, require completion (not just start) of treatment before exiting the program, allow counting of out‑of‑state priors for the look‑back, and clarify timelines and judicial review procedures.

Key provisions and floor action
- Look‑back period: The bill extends the look‑back window for prior alcohol‑related driving offenses from 10 to 20 years, increasing the number of people who would be placed on interlock. Senator Latz said that change would have captured the Park Tavern case discussed at the start of his remarks.
- Escalating duration: The bill replaces a fixed six‑year cap with a system that escalates the required interlock term based on the number of priors.
- Financial and administrative changes: The bill allows license reinstatement fees (currently a set $680 payment) to be paid over time during the interlock period rather than all up front, raises penalties for driving without a required interlock, and permits sticker‑style plate impoundment (and criminalizes removal or damage of the sticker).
- Treatment completion and judicial review: The bill requires completion of treatment to graduate from the program and adds language on judicial review of extension decisions.

Amendment adopted: Senator Champion offered the \"A2\" amendment to permit temporary suspension of participation if a participant's vehicle becomes inoperable and to credit prior time in the program if the suspension was involuntary. Champion said the change was intended to avoid forcing people to \"start over\" and to prevent a financial penalty for people who lose access to an interlock vehicle for legitimate reasons. Senator Latz told the chamber he supported the amendment as addressing glitches in program administration.

The A2 amendment passed on a roll call, 39‑28. After the amendment was adopted, the bill received its third reading and passed final passage on a separate roll call, 67‑0.

What supporters said
Senator Latz: \"For the 35 or so of people who are required to have interlock who use it, it's a very, very effective safety device on our roads.\" He described the bill as a package designed both to increase uptake and reduce barriers to participation.

Senator Champion (on A2): The amendment recognizes that people may lose or transfer a vehicle and that they should not be forced to \"pay twice\" or restart program time if they notify the commissioner and later reenter the program.

What opponents raised
Some senators questioned whether particular amendment language (for example, wording around \"planning to operate\" a vehicle) could create unintended openings that weaken enforcement. Senators asked for clarifications about voluntary versus involuntary terminations and whether the text would create opportunities for people who relapse to evade supervision.

Next steps
House File 21‑30 passed the Senate as amended and the bill title was agreed to. The transcript indicates final passage on the Senate floor; further steps will depend on any required enrollment or messages between chambers.

Provenance: The discussion introducing the bill began with remarks by Senator Latz at the floor record starting about 845.4 seconds into the transcript and concluded with the bill's third reading and final passage recorded at about 2302.10–2337.49 seconds.","The Minnesota Senate on Wednesday passed House File 21‑30, expanding ignition‑interlock requirements by extending the prior‑offense look‑back period and lengthening interlock terms.",{"_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},6568045,"Senate adopts human‑services policy bill with new autism provider rules and data protections",3442,10020000,13462000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3219421-6381d3d3c35da33b8a069a13e0a657a2&start=10020&end=13462","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3219421-6381d3d3c35da33b8a069a13e0a657a2/thumbnail_10020000.jpg","/articles/6568045/Minnesota/Senate-adopts-humanservices-policy-bill-with-new-autism-provider-rules-and-data-protections","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568045-9cf54a5b14acb71c5dbc84766e320b0b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770491169&Signature=N~KYzpj-d2NXhzPEoexILgYeZvL3cMuLc0bDLwW~KSaUusEa9QrN1CbRPMZtfehH5rNKeGfsvU49QbrDLEcI7DAp32eU0EqhitnTk8MMthJTgfzW1hiDWIECvHYi5FRWu2OCJk9CbYAVZc0Z0ZxN4JCY-bPIwmhhCRjN1cF62l9wiSADh39K06J2FE0dKM6wliYZ~Av0~4I5ShlwnAfQiRRiCZGfa2FFhlA8bo~GZoxrS9JijUk7TPqnNtEue1H41pTJpb5gsCvpRqD70jOhr7diXmOGH1APQMqrvWhlxrSg4cqIVqwS1ujAKE7gTal3zLN3Yun7-Pl6JK55ZzbYkg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Minnesota Senate passed House File 21‑15 after debate over staffing, provider licensing, and protections for personally identifiable information related to disability services.

What passed
Senators adopted a set of policy changes that include technical fixes, provisional licensure for certain early intensive developmental behavioral intervention (EIDBI) providers, and new requirements for supervision and program oversight for autism intervention providers. Senator Abler described the licensure language as establishing provisional licensure and stronger supervision requirements (for example, a supervisory in‑person visit at least every three months) and giving DHS authority for unannounced site visits to enforce quality and safety.

Data‑privacy amendment adopted
Senator May Quaid offered an amendment (A50) intended to prohibit license holders in certain statutes from sharing personally identifiable information (names, birth dates, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses and biometric information) for the stated purpose the author identified on the floor (preventing the creation of an identifiable registry or similar uses). The amendment to the amendment clarified that the list includes biometric information; that change was accepted on the floor, and the A50 as amended was adopted. Sponsors said the change does not impede de‑identified research data used by university or agency researchers.

Other floor actions
- A1 (technical) was adopted to align policy language with changes made in the budget bill.
- A6 (targeted language for an assisted‑living facility on the National Register of Historic Places) was adopted.
- A4 (a proposal to require MDH to evaluate cost and effectiveness before imposing new mandates on nursing homes) failed on a roll call.

Votes and final passage
The final recorded vote on House File 21‑15 as amended was 35 ayes and 32 nays; the clerk recorded the bill as passed and title agreed to.

What supporters said
Senator Hoffman, the committee chair, said the bill updates standards for long‑term‑care protections, modernizes training requirements and includes provisions intended to protect resident rights. Senator Abler described the provisional licensure as a measured approach to quality while trying not to overburden experienced providers.

What opponents said
Some senators voiced concern about new training and regulatory requirements that they said could add cost and administrative burdens to already strained nursing homes and provider networks; one floor amendment (A4) sought to require MDH to demonstrate a direct positive safety impact and lack of financial hardship before ordering new mandates; that amendment did not pass.

Provenance: Floor remarks introducing the policy bill by Senator Hoffman began around 10005 seconds; the bill's final passage was recorded around 13422–13462 seconds.","The Minnesota Senate passed House File 21‑15 after adopting provisional licensure for certain autism intervention providers and a data‑privacy amendment banning dissemination of personally identifiable autism‑related information for the purpose described by the sponsor.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate passes human‑services omnibus after contentious floor debate over nursing‑home cuts and county cost shifts

Senate approves tougher ignition-interlock rules, extends look-back period to 20 years

Senate adopts human‑services policy bill with new autism provider rules and data protections