Legislators probe Human Services Board procedures, access and caseload pressures

Legislators on a standing committee reviewed a bill to study operations of the Human Services Board and heard testimony on whether hearings are accessible and legally sound for people appealing agency decisions.

The hearing's sponsor, Representative McPhon, said the bill responds to complaints that people appearing before the board — often individuals with disabilities or low incomes — feel treated as if they were in a courtroom and unable to present evidence. “They felt as if they were poor,” McPhon said, recounting a family’s repeated, distressing experience with hearings that the family perceived as adversarial.

The committee heard an overview from Joe Reiner, chief hearing officer of the Human Services Board. Reiner said the board is a seven-member citizen panel appointed by the governor; the board appoints hearing officers, and the officers’ recommendations are usually forwarded to the board for final action. “There are, including myself, there are 3 hearing officers for the board statewide,” Reiner said. He said the board’s staff totals five people: three hearing officers and two administrative staff.

Reiner told the committee the board has seen a surge in appeals in the last two years, driven in part by general assistance housing cases and the post-pandemic Medicaid eligibility “unwinding.” “We have experienced a very high number of cases over the last couple of years in part to the GAs, and in part due to the fact that the Medicaid, the unwinding of Medicaid eligibility that occurred post pandemic,” he said. He cautioned the spike is likely straining the board’s ability to process cases and said the board hopes caseloads will decline or that it will receive additional resources.

Committee members asked how hearings are conducted and what supports are available for unrepresented petitioners. Reiner said hearings can be by phone, video or in person, and that the board provides written materials and a “preparing for the hearing” packet that describes accommodations and how to request them at no cost. “If you have a disability and need assistance in connection with your hearing, call the board,” the packet states, Reiner noted. He acknowledged that the process is legalistic and that hearing officers must follow rules of evidence, but said staff try to accommodate pro se litigants and schedule status conferences to help parties prepare.

Several legislators and participants described a tension between following formal evidentiary rules and ensuring petitioners can tell their stories. One committee member urged clearer notice to petitioners that the agency often appears with counsel, saying that mismatch between expectations and the hearing environment can create a power imbalance. Reiner said hearing officers sometimes allow fuller attempts to introduce material and then decide later whether it is legally admissible, but also emphasized limits on open-ended hearings and the need to develop a record that will withstand judicial review.

Reiner cited the board’s historical grounding in due-process law, noting landmark case law such as Goldberg v. Kelly as part of the context for the board’s role in benefit appeals. He also described one statutory exception in which a hearing officer may issue a final decision for expedited Medicaid appeals and a separate category in which intentional program-violation decisions (for example, food-stamp fraud findings) may be issued as final by a hearing officer.

Committee members and participants asked about data: Reiner said he could provide figures on the share of petitioners who have legal representation and on how often the board departs from hearing-officer recommendations, but he did not have those breakdowns at the hearing. Reiner said the board does not receive many formal complaints relative to its case volume but acknowledged the committee’s examples of families who felt shut out of the process.

The committee took testimony about practical steps the board already uses — written guidance, options for accommodations, status conferences and outreach to legal aid — and discussed whether clearer notice or changes to procedural practices should be part of the bill. Reiner said the board has met periodically with advocates and legal aid on certain issues, including general assistance housing, but does not maintain standing, formal collaboration with all advocate groups.

No final action or vote on the bill was recorded during the hearing. Committee members said they would consider Reiner’s staff and caseload details and the examples given by petitioners as they refine the proposed review.

The meeting closed after a roughly hour-long discussion in which members prioritized clarifying how the board’s processes are communicated to petitioners and whether additional staffing or rule changes are needed.