Committee lays over bill allowing limited indirect billing for individualized home supports

The House Human Services Finance and Policy Committee on March 12, 2025, laid over House File 10 95 after testimony that the bill would allow limited indirect billing for individualized home supports (IHS) when an individual makes an informed choice to permit support tasks outside direct contact.

Representative Frederick, the bill author, said the measure is intended to compensate support workers for necessary indirect work — for example, scheduling medical appointments, coordinating with case managers, and follow‑up communications that occur outside the time a worker is physically or remotely with a client. He said the change preserves the service recipient’s autonomy and requires informed choice before indirect time may be billed.

Ken Bence, director of research, analysis and policy for ARM, testified that the IHS rate framework currently includes a small fixed program plan‑support component but that the component has not been adjusted in more than a decade and does not reflect modern communication demands. Bence said other unit‑based services and housing stabilization services already permit indirect‑time billing under defined conditions and that the bill would align IHS with those practices. He told the committee he did not expect the bill to increase the number of authorized units but that it would allow providers to be paid for time they already spend on client support work.

Larissa Beck, Senior Director of Program Services at Reach for Resources, gave a concrete account of a crisis day to illustrate current billing limits. Beck said an in‑home staff member spent 15 minutes on a remote call while the person served was suicidal and then spent an additional 12.75 hours coordinating crisis response, contacting police, the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center, school staff, and other team members; for the day the agency could bill only for the 15‑minute remote support unit ("we will be reimbursed for $12.95"). Beck said the provider performed required follow‑up and coordination but was not reimbursed for the majority of that time because IHS pays only for direct contact.

Committee members asked about HIPAA and device security; Beck and providers said staff use agency‑issued devices with passwords and encryption and follow release‑of‑information procedures. Representative Noor and DHS asked about fiscal implications. DHS witness Christy Grom said the department anticipated possible utilization increases and some administrative costs to monitor program integrity and documentation, and that DHS would prepare a fiscal note for the committee. Grom also raised program integrity concerns about duplication with case management and documentation requirements.

Representative Frederick renewed his motion to lay over House File 10 95; the committee approved the motion and the bill will be carried forward for fiscal review and drafting of implementation details.

Provenance: The IHS discussion begins with Representative Frederick’s opening and includes testimony from Ken Bence and Larissa Beck, DHS comments on fiscal and program integrity issues, and committee questions. The file was laid over after discussion.