Bill would require standards, audits for state‑funded pregnancy resource centers, sponsor says

Representative Liz Conmey: “When the state provides this large amount of money, we need to require some accountability.”

The House Human Services Committee heard testimony on House Bill 1595, a measure to create minimum clinical standards and reporting requirements for pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) that receive state funds. Representative Liz Conmey, sponsor of the bill, said the state has committed approximately $1 million in the current biennium and that the proposed legislation would set credentialing, record‑keeping and audit standards for any center receiving public money.

Nut graf: HB 1595 would require PRCs that get state grants to document provider credentials, follow HIPAA rules, report client counts and service hours and submit independent financial audits. The sponsor said the rules are standard expectations for organizations delivering health services with taxpayer support; medical witnesses and the Department of Health and Human Services described specific patient‑safety concerns and explained the current reporting mechanisms.

Conmey said the bill does not attempt to limit the centers’ mission to encourage continuation of pregnancy but instead aims to make sure pregnant people who receive services funded by taxpayers get reliable medical information and that the state receives accountability for how funds are spent. “If the funding requirements are too onerous for the centers, there are lots of other organizations that we could give that money to that help pregnant women,” Conmey told the committee.

Dr. Anna Tobias, an obstetrician‑gynecologist and maternal‑fetal medicine specialist, urged a do‑pass recommendation and described clinical problems she has seen after patients received pregnancy dating or ultrasound results at some PRCs. Tobias said volunteers or inadequately trained staff sometimes provide ultrasound dates that later prove inaccurate, potentially delaying needed prenatal care or leading to unnecessary testing. “Pregnant individuals in this state deserve to receive evidence‑based, high‑quality information from healthcare professionals who are appropriately trained,” she said.

Department of Human Services maternal‑health specialist Angela Reinert described how the department currently administers the program: the centers submit client‑level data via Qualtrics surveys, and grant payments are based on a funding formula that considers unduplicated client counts and hours of service. Reinert told the committee the department inherited the existing reporting approach when administration moved to HHS for the current biennium and offered to provide the committee the survey instrument and data definitions on request.

Supporters and opponents both emphasized patient safety and accountability but differed on the reach of state oversight. Conmey said she had asked PRCs to work with her on bill language but was told by some centers that they were advised not to speak with her; she said the response reinforced the need for transparency when state funds are involved. The bill would require centers to submit prequalifying information — including budgets, staff lists and license details — and to maintain client records and HIPAA compliance.

The committee did not take a final vote during the hearing. Sponsors said the bill’s aim is limited to centers that receive state funding and intends to ensure that public dollars support professionally run services; department staff said they already collect program data and will provide the committee with the existing survey instrument and the funding formula.

Ending: Committee members asked for the department’s survey instrument and further data; the hearing closed without a committee vote.