Lawmaker seeks to repeal PERS-era insurance-mandate process; PERS urges retention or amendment

Representative Robin Weiss told the House Industry, Business and Labor Committee that House Bill 1248 was introduced to repeal section 540328 (as cited in testimony) and to remove procedural requirements that have, in his view, made the insurance-mandate review process cumbersome. Weiss said the statute’s original purpose was to require a cost-benefit analysis before a committee took up an insurance-mandate bill and later added steps—including PERS review and a requirement that PERS request introduction of carryover legislation—that have created procedural conflict and delay.

“This process isn’t really working,” Weiss told the committee, arguing the statute’s steps can produce contradictory timing and that PERS should not be required to introduce legislation on mandated coverage. He suggested, alternatively, extending the PERS review period to a full biennium so the PERS actuarial analysis would be more robust.

Rebecca Fricke, executive director of the North Dakota Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), testified in opposition to the portion of the bill that would remove PERS and the Employee Benefits Programs Committee from the current statutory process. Fricke said keeping the process in place allows PERS to commission independent actuarial analysis and to provide timely, technical comments about federal compliance and the state-plan impact—materials she said are critical to informed legislative decision-making. Fricke told committee members that the PERS actuary’s work on the interim bills this cycle has cost the system about $115,000 so far and that, without the current multi-step process, PERS would often have to rely on carrier-provided cost projections for fiscal notes.

Dylan Wheeler, head of government affairs for Sanford Health Plan, also urged preserving a pilot-incubation period. He said the PERS pilot program can provide useful, real-world experience and cited insulin-pricing and manufacturer responses as examples where the pilot period produced actionable market changes.

Representative Schauer and Representative Ruby asked about the timing and costs of analyses; Representative Weiss reiterated that if the committee keeps an upfront process, PERS should have more time to analyze proposals. Fricke offered an amendment (attached to her testimony) that would remove the problematic Section 2 from HB 1248 so the current PERS-related process would remain; she said PERS would be neutral on the bill if that amendment were adopted.

Committee members asked procedural questions about how a future mandate would proceed if HB 1248 passed as written; Representative Weiss answered that a legislator could still introduce a mandate bill, but the upfront PERS review and mandated cost-benefit steps would be removed.

The Department of Insurance’s deputy commissioner, John Arnold, testified about the practical cost and contracting process for the department’s cost-benefit analyses and said the agency must budget for uncertain future costs tied to unpredictable numbers of requested analyses. He noted legislative council historically entered into vendor contracts but the department is the entity carrying invoices.

No vote on HB 1248 occurred during the hearing; the committee closed testimony and said it would hold the bill for further work and potential amendment. Committee members discussed options including repeal, extending PERS review periods, or leaving the mandate process intact but adjusting which entity introduces carryover legislation.