Committee weighs H.25 to scale impaired-driver rehabilitation fees to income

Montpelier ' Lawmakers on the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday discussed H.25, a bill that would require the Department of Health's impaired driver rehabilitation program (IDRP) to impose screening and education fees based on an individual's annual gross income compared with the federal poverty level.

The bill would require participants who request a fee reduction to disclose income, direct the Department of Health and the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to adopt rules for a graduated fee schedule and set deadlines for rule adoption and an effective date. The committee took testimony but did not vote on the measure.

Supporters and experts told the committee that IDRP is one of the few interventions shown to reduce impaired-driving recidivism and that current flat fees create a barrier to enrolling and regaining driving privileges. "We very much support this bill. We think this is a very good idea," said Marshall Paul of the Office of the Defender General, who testified that fees make it harder for clients to complete IDRP and get licenses reinstated.

The committee heard that the current statutory caps and fees differ: statute allows the education fee to be up to $250 and screening up to $200, while the Department of Health currently charges $180 for the screening and $220 for the education program. Ben Lobrowski of the Office of Legislative Council said the bill would "require that the fees associated with [IDRP] be imposed based on an individual's gross income as compared to the federal poverty level." The draft would eliminate fees for people at or below 175% of the federal poverty level and allow discounts up to 575% of that level.

Department of Health deputy commissioner Kelly Dougherty told the committee that IDRP providers currently collect participant fees, remit a small administrative percentage back to the department, and that fee revenue covers about 81% of program costs. She said the department serves about 1,150 participants per year, that the total annual participant fees are roughly $510,000, and that program operating costs are about $630,000. Dougherty said preliminary estimates indicate the bill as drafted would reduce fee revenue by roughly 57% while increasing program costs during implementation; the department estimated one-time implementation costs of $50,000 to $100,000 and ongoing personnel costs of $175,000 to $250,000 to process eligibility and collect graduated fees.

Providers and diversion program directors described clients who delay or skip IDRP because of cost, including older adults on fixed income and people who must drive to meet family or work obligations. Meg Rizzo, executive director of the Washington County Diversion Program, described a client living on a fixed income who could not afford IDRP and instead signed a driving plan that the office used to achieve a diversion outcome. Maggie, executive director of the Rutland County Restorative Justice Center, said roughly 75% of her program's IDRP-related cases identify the fee as a barrier and that inability to pay lengthened program participation and strained staff resources.

Committee members pressed for clarity about financing alternatives. Dougherty outlined existing supports: HireAbility sometimes pays IDRP for clients engaged in job services; the DMV offers a 50% reduction on ignition-interlock device costs for people enrolled in certain public benefits; and the department uses federal substance abuse block grant funds to fill some gaps. The deputy commissioner said several providers have left the program in recent years because fees have not kept pace with costs.

Committee members asked for more data and fiscal analysis before acting. Kelly Dougherty offered to provide follow-up information in writing; Representative Maslin and others said they would request a fiscal note from the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) and coordinate with the Ways and Means liaison to evaluate revenue and program impacts.

The committee recessed and planned to continue testimony on the bill at a later session; no motion or vote was taken on H.25 during the meeting.

Ending: The Judiciary Committee left H.25 pending further information, requesting written follow-up from the Department of Health and a fiscal analysis from JFO to clarify the financial and operational consequences of implementing a graduated fee schedule.