Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Long Term Care Review Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Counties raise implementation concerns over proposed long-term care review process in conference package
Summary
County officials told the conference committee that a new short-timeline review process for long-term care eligibility determinations would add administrative burden and costs; the Department of Human Services confirmed system costs and co-chairs agreed the item should be considered in the budget process.
County officials warned the conference committee that a House-proposed review process inserted between notice of action and the formal appeals process for long-term care eligibility would create additional administrative steps and costs for counties.
Matt Freeman of the Association of Minnesota Counties and the Minnesota Association of County Social Service Administrators told members counties were generally engaging individuals around benefit changes but were concerned that the proposed new review step—with a 10-day response requirement—would add burdens to an already strained workforce. Freeman said counties want to improve clarity in the notice-of-action form and engage constructively, but that adding a mandatory new timeline and step would raise costs and staffing demands.
Representatives of disability advocates and legislators stressed the policy intent: advocates sought a quicker review so individuals facing denial, suspension or termination of services could obtain timely reconsideration. Representative Neuer and other proponents said the policy responds to concerns that paperwork or processing delays have led to inappropriate denials and adverse outcomes for vulnerable people.
Department of Human Services staff told the committee the provision carries systems costs for the department. DHS witnesses and county representatives suggested the policy might be better pursued as part of the budget process, where funding for system changes and county supports can be evaluated.
Committee counsel and members discussed procedural options (dividing motions, placing language in a budget bill). Counsel advised that the set of related provisions could not be divided as proposed by some members because they were considered a single topic. After discussion, committee chairs indicated willingness to continue conversations with DHS, counties and advocates and, where appropriate, consider funding trade-offs in the budget process rather than finalize the new review timeline in conference language.
The committee did not adopt new state-wide implementation deadlines in committee record; members instead asked for further work on notice-of-action forms, stakeholder engagement and potential budget language to cover systems costs.
