Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Integrity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances DHS policy package sections, including anti-kickback provisions and data-sharing changes
Summary
House File 2260, a judiciary portion of a larger DHS policy bill, was amended and advanced; provisions include anti-kickback penalties for assistance programs, expanded data access for investigations, changes affecting Direct Care and Treatment billing, and adding human services judges to personal-data protections.
The House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee on March 20 took up House File 2260, a collection of judiciary-related provisions split out of a larger Department of Human Services (DHS) policy bill. Committee members adopted an amendment and voted to re-refer the measure to the Committee on Public Safety, Finance and Policy.
Ari Dinhian, legislative director for the DHS Office of Inspector General, described the bill as a “clone” of portions of the larger DHS policy package. Dinhian said the bill contains provisions that clarify background-studies processes, expand DHS’s ability to access investigative and arrest data, and extend an existing limited set-aside for certain provider types. He also said the amendment corrected an effective date error from prior legislation.
Dinhian outlined a multi-part “anti-kickback” proposal that would add criminal penalties and administrative disqualification for kickbacks in the medical assistance and childcare assistance programs. He said the medical assistance component mirrors existing federal Medicaid law and that other states have enacted similar criminal penalties: “There are, I think, at least 36 other states have added criminal penalties for kickbacks,” he said. The committee discussed the proposal as a program-integrity tool intended to give DHS and law enforcement additional tools to investigate and prosecute fraud and misuse in human services programs.
Other provisions added in the amendment included updates tied to Direct Care and Treatment (DCT) services and county liability for competency restoration services, permissive language allowing DHS to share when it has issued a payment withhold against a provider, and a transfer of eligibility determinations for the behavioral health fund from counties to DHS — with a carve-out for tribal nations that determine eligibility for tribal members.
Dinhian noted language to add human services judges to a 2024 personal-data-protection statute (chapter 480.4) so those judges would receive the same protections currently afforded to administrative law judges. Christie Graham of DHS told the committee the agency has seen violent threats against human services judges and described an incident last year when a judge and their family were temporarily relocated after threats.
Members asked about potential conflicts of interest and whether DHS employees might exploit private business relationships. Dinhian said employees working on grants must file conflict-of-interest disclosures and that mitigation steps are taken when conflicts are identified.
By voice vote, the committee adopted the amendment and then approved re-referral of HF2260 to Public Safety, Finance and Policy. Sponsors said related provisions remain part of a larger DHS policy package that will be reconciled as bills move through their respective committees.
The committee record showed no detailed roll-call tallies for the voice votes recorded during this item.
