Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonemergency Medical Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee tables nonemergency medical transportation bill amid fiscal questions
Summary
Senate File 2896, proposing changes to Minnesota’s nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) system, was laid over after committee members pressed for fiscal analysis and assurances about rural access. DHS staff estimated an initial reduction in MA spending tied to reimbursement changes; members asked for further detail.
ST. PAUL, Minn. — The Senate Human Services Committee on Wednesday heard testimony on changes to Minnesota’s nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) program and deferred action after sustained questions about whether proposed reimbursement changes would reduce access in rural areas.
Senator Coleman, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure largely mirrors proposals in the governor’s budget affecting how NEMT is administered and that it had already been heard in other forums. Provider representatives — including Phil Stahlberger of Medical Transportation Management and Buck McAlpin of the Minnesota Ambulance Association and EMT Coalition — testified in favor of moving to a single administrator and software‑based solutions intended to improve coordination.
Mr. McAlpin urged action, saying rural Minnesota must be a focus: "We really need to do something this session...as we look at an RFP process to find some type of solution that's very software focused," he said.
Nut graf: Committee members, particularly those representing rural districts, said they were concerned that the governor’s projected savings could reduce service where NEMT is scarce. The committee laid the bill over to allow further fiscal review and follow‑up with DHS.
Fiscal questions and DHS estimates
During questioning, DHS fiscal staff outlined where the budget changes would show up. DHS staff said the change pages associate a reduction in Medicaid (MA) spending of about "$35,500,000 in the first biennium and about just under $150,000,000 in the tails." Staff explained the reductions reflect experiences in other states after shifts from fee‑for‑service to managed arrangements and that the department anticipated savings would be reflected in MA appropriations.
Several senators urged caution about assuming savings without a plan to preserve rural capacity. Senator Asherson and others noted that some counties lack any NEMT services and that transferring funds out of NEMT without reinvestment could force ambulances to fill gaps.
Committee action
After extended questioning and requests for additional analysis, the committee "laid over" the bill for possible inclusion at a later time. Sponsors and supporters said they would continue to work with the committee on fiscal details and safeguards for rural access.
Ending: Supporters argued the bill would modernize and centralize NEMT administration and reduce duplicative spending; rural lawmakers asked for explicit assurances that any savings would not reduce access in counties where services are scarce.
