Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Care Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to require DPHHS customer‑service improvements for Medicaid applications moves to appropriations with fiscal questions
Summary
Representative S. J. Howell presented HB 885 to require DPHHS to improve client communications and technology for Medicaid applications and renewals, including text/email notifications, a hotline with wait‑time information, and mobile‑first client tools.
Get email alerts on the Health Care Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative S. J. Howell testified in support of House Bill 885, which would require changes in the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) client‑facing systems for Medicaid applications and renewals. Howell said the bill is a pared‑down version of earlier language that went through Human Services and that the amended bill needs a new fiscal note.
Howell and proponents described the bill’s aims: improved customer service, use of text and email communications for applicants who provide contact information, the creation of a hotline with expected wait times and callback options, targets for ex parte renewal rates (a minimum of 60% by the end of FY 2026), and a requirement to make client technology “mobile first.” The sponsor said the amended bill reduces previously larger appropriations and that assumptions 5–7 of the existing fiscal note total roughly $564,000 (with a general‑fund cost of $174,902) and that the bill includes a one‑time appropriation of $200,000 in general fund.
Proponents included Heather O’Loughlin of the Montana Budget and Policy Center and Travis Hoffman of Summit Independent Living, who said improved telephone and online access would help people with disabilities navigate application processes. Informational witnesses from DPHHS — Chappelle Smith (Human and Community Services Division administrator) and Andrea Goetsch (fiscal bureau chief) — answered committee questions about costs and feasibility.
Committee members asked whether $200,000 would be sufficient to meet the listed requirements. DPHHS staff said they were still analyzing the bill and that “off the cuff” it appeared the cost might be higher than the appropriation. Howell closed by reiterating the proposal is intended to be a one‑time investment that brings a federal match and builds a more efficient client system; the committee did not take a final vote at the hearing.
