[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-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],{"_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",6557244,"mediaKeyId","3307943-b17241281974f7d753f86a19c8407253","parentId",3307943,"title","Conference committee adopts ban on requiring binding arbitration in assisted living admissions","audioSeconds",1381,"startMs",912000,"endMs",2293000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3307943-b17241281974f7d753f86a19c8407253&start=912&end=2293","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3307943-b17241281974f7d753f86a19c8407253/thumbnail_912000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6557244/Minnesota/Conference-committee-adopts-ban-on-requiring-binding-arbitration-in-assisted-living-admissions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6557244-04a4a21d7f337103095ac70a7704943f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775579903&Signature=fKyytLxz6XEzdMNR7oR03HLz2qW8Eq2eExJIllUay0xDfqdK-ZRqdn0owfwJg8GRUiaTiM5P~dq1s51fzLwpbMZkui8mHq3F-ZyZP1ptux7Xa9xY~SVQDjBSK1SrHTd0DuSJLSoH0L02Mhpj3BvZ9Bbl2FreS8NhkeS6cCE1MYrurRdmJurisnH6FIjElr9rJYuPs6Xdn7e1Rhev2a9Mq9F8KFVUE2h2H3jUGObwGLtDLHaAf4FEKs3gJKeUMfL1B34OlWwK1bgl1UOv5XNNNEdUF6Nc9aWO5L5CkM9xoMhVRfMtoVgbZ62OTYnnEp66o3oYUkqf7vcJD3oPoaSpeg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Minnesota Legislature","date","2025-05-14T20:38:22Z","article","The conference committee on the health and human services budget approved language barring assisted living facilities from requiring residents or their representatives to sign binding arbitration agreements as a condition of admission or to continue to receive care.

Supporters, including Senator McQuaid, said the three-line provision (Article 2, section 25 as carried in the Senate language) preserves a resident’s right to a day in court and does not prevent voluntary arbitration. “We shouldn’t have to sign away our right to have our day in court to receive care,” McQuaid said during the committee debate.

Opponents, led in committee remarks by Representative Schumacher and by Senator Abler’s request for a no vote, said the change had not been fully vetted in the House and that arbitration language had been part of a negotiated assisted-living licensing compromise adopted in 2019. Industry representatives said they were concerned about unintended operational impacts and asked for more time to review the language. Aaron Kiepert of the Long Term Care Imperative and other industry witnesses said statutes and licensing rules already set conditions for contract termination and nonpayment.

Regina (Office of the Ombudsman for Long-Term Care) and consumer advocates said binding arbitration can impede residents’ ability to pursue justice and that eliminating mandatory arbitration as a precondition protects residents from coercive situations. A consumer advocate on the record said the scenario of a facility pressuring an existing resident to sign arbitration to remain in place could occur and would place the resident in a “very difficult position.”

Committee members repeatedly asked whether federal rules — including Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) protections against pre-dispute arbitration in some long-term care settings — apply; witnesses said CMS rules limit pre-dispute arbitration in certain federally regulated facilities but that the interplay with assisted living and private-pay contracts needed careful review.

After debate and public- and industry-facing testimony, Senator Fata moved to adopt the Senate language (Article 2, section 25). The motion was approved by voice vote in committee.

The provision as adopted prohibits facilities from requiring a resident or the resident’s representative to sign an agreement for binding arbitration as a condition of admission or to receive care; it does not prevent a resident from voluntarily agreeing to arbitration.

Committee discussion made clear the language had not been the subject of a full House hearing during this session; several members asked for further Department of Human Services and House review if the provision proceeds beyond the conference committee.

Votes at a glance: Motion to adopt Senate language, Article 2, section 25 — moved by Senator Fata; outcome: adopted (voice vote; “aye” recorded).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Conference Committee on H.F. 2115 - Human Services Omnibus - Part 2 - 05/14/25","oneSentenceSummary","The conference committee approved a provision banning assisted living facilities from making signing a binding arbitration agreement a condition of admission or continued care.","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},6557230,"Committee backs certification plan for recovery community organizations; critics urge oversight and inclusivity",1231,3994000,5225000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3307943-b17241281974f7d753f86a19c8407253&start=3994&end=5225","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3307943-b17241281974f7d753f86a19c8407253/thumbnail_3994000.jpg","/articles/6557230/Minnesota/Committee-backs-certification-plan-for-recovery-community-organizations-critics-urge-oversight-and-inclusivity","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6557230-e42930f19fdaecbad9b9fae670b14c40/orig.mp4?Expires=1775579903&Signature=cH~qthzDYpDrT~CgRWV1xAl2Pk-wfqKfLYfEOqxAhkKpyTlj-VMzppXrXzl8StH7oKnLp5aSZsIQxEDatHL3YyOuDE1Ur8mDuVVxVKht0JXrdt2d3tAs~8K~OC5zfX99JrN4lRYseHeG8oxqzMaAZltBYXt-FrizR85F~Xgw9Y~e0E2atS8glsItx8cJblMeSzEUfJncKBVP7g22IKNfArMIZ43b~n3MRCIKDNGLnnyCLZnoKrO9mcHv7jW5PBLCLil4kzITVW3sREDkjf8ulep8v0MP1oPG6mC2CXEctPULuNBRid6VDW0-qTCjCUxRgNlorA8mjkJUoL0YxizBpg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Conference conferees adopted language that identifies the Minnesota Association for Recovery Organizations (MARCO) as the primary certifying entity for recovery community organizations (RCOs) that enroll to bill Medicaid, but includes a mechanism for the Department of Human Services (DHS) to designate another certifier if MARCO becomes nonfunctional.

Representative Frederick moved an amendment that reduces the number of named certifiers to one (MARCO) while giving DHS authority to identify a replacement if MARCO were to cease operating. Frederick and other sponsors said the change addressed earlier problems in the certification process, reduced fraud risk and reflected outreach to RCOs statewide. Frederick said the amendment was a compromise: entities that received temporary administrative law judge rulings in prior years would be required to later attempt formal certification.

Opponents in committee, including Senator Abler, said they remembered earlier controversies under a prior national certifier (ARCO) and that some tribal and regional groups had felt excluded during earlier certification efforts. Abler said past hearings revealed concerns that some certifying boards were provider-heavy and displayed a proprietary stance that discouraged certain organizations. He said he intended to monitor implementation closely and reserved the right to oppose the approach if MARCO’s practices did not change.

DHS witness Christy Grama explained that MARCO (a Minnesota association distinct from the prior national ARCO) now holds a DHS contract and that DHS has contractual enforcement tools if MARCO diverges from expected certification standards. DHS staff and proponents said they had convened outreach—including a statewide virtual town hall—to test the proposal with RCOs; sponsors said they received no opposition from RCOs who participated.

After extended debate, the committee adopted the amendment and later passed the underlying sections in Article 4 implementing RCO certification and fraud controls. DHS staff said they would retain oversight through contracting authority and could step in if MARCO failed to meet requirements.

Votes at a glance: House amendment a9 (authorizing MARCO as primary certifier and DHS backstop) — moved by Representative Frederick; adopted by voice vote.","Conference committee adopted an amendment naming the Minnesota Association for Recovery Organizations (MARCO) as the primary certifier for recovery community organizations (RCOs) for Medicaid billing, while adding delegation ability to DHS if MARCO ceases operation. Opponents in committee raised past concerns about selection and inclusivity.",{"_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},6557234,"Counties raise implementation concerns over proposed long-term care review process in conference package",823,2878000,3701000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3307943-b17241281974f7d753f86a19c8407253&start=2878&end=3701","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3307943-b17241281974f7d753f86a19c8407253/thumbnail_2878000.jpg","/articles/6557234/Minnesota/Counties-raise-implementation-concerns-over-proposed-long-term-care-review-process-in-conference-package","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6557234-893a0a0708478cf52a118c4f6a79b366/orig.mp4?Expires=1775579903&Signature=oOhPdPNgUQ8xUHnqN4WVHpmDm~UsxkdnDlBW7aWWMcbm3zlgL1GldmQVwt3LtGj0DMdZc4KnFuSFqHlul4spGcOmDQo7k16-50f6BKN5c7Zt4xKhktWPl3C7dL0Ws4Z0xfuGQmEKXiZvrAKBzIQZ0gxUksqq~NO9LWGNeGiajJiBVor7DB1460woGuCt8q6t7NH~a~j-H~uW2Hz1KdYpbvYSxIIIkF~t7sfeRRjoDdS63a7d5MRfvUZMo3kezEP~PKVpP5bI1eZAclXux7~JW33sYpgFKCUjI4EIYivKOiHXQIQXkoVEs1qu4kiSmB3Jfkgm7muV14ea3daychGuGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County officials warned the conference committee that a House-proposed review process inserted between notice of action and the formal appeals process for long-term care eligibility would create additional administrative steps and costs for counties.

Matt Freeman of the Association of Minnesota Counties and the Minnesota Association of County Social Service Administrators told members counties were generally engaging individuals around benefit changes but were concerned that the proposed new review step—with a 10-day response requirement—would add burdens to an already strained workforce. Freeman said counties want to improve clarity in the notice-of-action form and engage constructively, but that adding a mandatory new timeline and step would raise costs and staffing demands.

Representatives of disability advocates and legislators stressed the policy intent: advocates sought a quicker review so individuals facing denial, suspension or termination of services could obtain timely reconsideration. Representative Neuer and other proponents said the policy responds to concerns that paperwork or processing delays have led to inappropriate denials and adverse outcomes for vulnerable people.

Department of Human Services staff told the committee the provision carries systems costs for the department. DHS witnesses and county representatives suggested the policy might be better pursued as part of the budget process, where funding for system changes and county supports can be evaluated.

Committee counsel and members discussed procedural options (dividing motions, placing language in a budget bill). Counsel advised that the set of related provisions could not be divided as proposed by some members because they were considered a single topic. After discussion, committee chairs indicated willingness to continue conversations with DHS, counties and advocates and, where appropriate, consider funding trade-offs in the budget process rather than finalize the new review timeline in conference language.

The committee did not adopt new state-wide implementation deadlines in committee record; members instead asked for further work on notice-of-action forms, stakeholder engagement and potential budget language to cover systems costs.","County officials told the conference committee that a new short-timeline review process for long-term care eligibility determinations would add administrative burden and costs; the Department of Human Services confirmed system costs and co-chairs agreed the item should be considered in the budget process.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6557239,"Conference committee sets assisted-living contract effective date for Jan. 1, 2026",395,2274000,2669000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3307943-b17241281974f7d753f86a19c8407253&start=2274&end=2669","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3307943-b17241281974f7d753f86a19c8407253/thumbnail_2274000.jpg","/articles/6557239/Minnesota/Conference-committee-sets-assisted-living-contract-effective-date-for-Jan-1-2026","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6557239-877d5684187b2037bca1f1b806ac68d3/orig.mp4?Expires=1775579903&Signature=lla4y1H2Ma9-13e1uVwh8ScKlsPgBfvEZUCSIinsBkoPSq-SQPXICw4JiLD6yIeOB59VcbLkIIuTVWFikOBEtq58d7QzduBdbIXNi4ZUeXDThiup3dqaaBQL3i8m0Ge8I3rXr0BjxGwsghYbcMuRC3s-KXJSiK2Pm2kC7Y3tfVQ58C~bfmCdtCK5NhSFer3ZKjr3HArNUxjBCe7ZdrqxambOL3VBvdAyB5z0IsOcXlYUBuyLOo3BBVEHSFxxa3aSB133KVJE~C2M8i7FHRtWIjkoHUe1XWpR05UMmW8UYAhAJCfFesq22C1HiHOuFn-Q1xC~jPp70xVDgHSVqO4Khg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Conference negotiators added a uniform effective date—Jan. 1, 2026—to several assisted-living provisions in the conference package and aligned related sections so the provisions apply to contracts executed on or after that date.

Committee co-chairs explained the insertion of a special effective date into the House sections that were being merged with the Senate language. Nonpartisan staff read back the amendment: the sections in question would be effective 01/01/2026 and “apply to all assisted living contracts executed on or after that date.” Staff said the change was intended to align three related statutory changes as a package rather than leave some provisions on the standard August 1 effective date.

A committee member asked whether the change would affect existing contracts; staff and Chair Schumacher said the amendment would affect contracts going forward beginning Jan. 1, 2026. The committee also discussed a related provision on change of ownership: the current language requires a new licensee to honor the terms of an assisted-living contract in effect at the time of an ownership change until the end of the contract term; witnesses confirmed that referenced contracts are the agreements between the assisted-living facility and the resident.

After a short discussion about which lines to remove and how the three sections interacted, the committee approved the amendment by voice vote and later adopted a package of noncontroversial assisted-living sections with the new effective date.

Votes at a glance: Motion to insert special effective date (01/01/2026) applying to assisted-living contracts executed on or after that date — moved by Representative Schumacher (oral amendment); adopted by voice vote.","The committee added a special effective date to several assisted-living-related sections, clarifying that the prohibition on requiring mandatory arbitration and other contract provisions apply to contracts executed on or after Jan. 1, 2026.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Conference committee adopts ban on requiring binding arbitration in assisted living admissions

Committee backs certification plan for recovery community organizations; critics urge oversight and inclusivity

Counties raise implementation concerns over proposed long-term care review process in conference package

Conference committee sets assisted-living contract effective date for Jan. 1, 2026