Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Non Emergency Medical Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee pauses non‑emergency medical transportation bill amid fiscal concerns
Summary
Senate File 2896, which would change non‑emergency medical transportation (NEMT) administration, was presented and discussed at length. Committee members expressed concern about assumed savings, rural access, and the fiscal target; the bill was laid over for further work.
Senate File 2896, a proposal to change the state’s approach to non‑emergency medical transportation (NEMT), drew extensive discussion in the Minnesota Senate Human Services Committee about potential cost savings, rural access and how reductions would appear in the budget.
Sen. Ann Rest (chairing discussion for the author in the transcript) introduced the bill as consistent with the governor’s proposal on NEMT changes and said prior hearings had covered the issue. Industry witnesses — including Phil Stahlberger of Medical Transportation Management and Buck McAlpin of the Minnesota Ambulance Association and EMT Coalition — described the bill as aligning Minnesota’s approach with other states and emphasized the need to preserve rural access and avoid diverting too much money away from the fund that pays for NEMT.
Committee members repeatedly pressed for detail on fiscal effects and the practical consequences in rural counties where NEMT services are sparse or non‑existent. Sen. John Marty’s colleagues expressed concern that switching reimbursement models could reduce program funding dramatically. DHS staff said the change pages associated with the bill would reduce MA (Medical Assistance) spending by an estimated $35.5 million in the first biennium and just under $150 million in the tails, reflecting savings the governor assumed would result from shifting reimbursement structures.
Sen. Greg Clausen and others urged caution, pointing out that rural counties such as Otter Tail and Traverse have limited or no NEMT providers; one senator warned of increasing pressure on rural ambulances if NEMT options vanish. The author and witnesses discussed an RFP approach and software‑based solutions to improve coordination.
After the fiscal and access concerns, the chair and members agreed to lay the bill over to allow additional review and to reconcile where any assumed savings should be booked in the budget process. The author moved to lay SF 2896 over; the motion carried and the bill was “laid over for possible inclusion.”
