Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Non Opioid Directive topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee adopts amendment to non‑opioid directive bill; refers measure to judiciary
Summary
House File 1379, sponsored by Representative Baker, would create a non‑opioid directive that a patient can place in their electronic health record to notify providers they prefer not to receive opioids. The committee adopted an A1 amendment clarifying exemptions and referred the bill to the Judiciary, Finance and Civil Law Committee.
The Health Finance and Policy Committee on March 10 adopted an author's amendment and referred House File 1379 to the Judiciary, Finance and Civil Law Committee. The bill would create a standardized non‑opioid directive that patients could file with the Minnesota Department of Health to flag their preference against opioid prescriptions or administration in a provider's electronic health record.
Representative Mary Baker, sponsor of the bill, said the single‑page form would be created and posted by the Department of Health and is revocable at any time. "A non opioid directive is a tool to help patients advocate for themselves, and can help facilitate this conversation between a patient and their provider by creating a concrete way to begin discussing what can sometimes be a very difficult topic to talk about that carries stigma with your, with your provider," Baker said.
Supporters and testimony: Alicia House, executive director of the Steve Rimmler Hope Network, testified in support and described scenarios in which patients in recovery were prescribed opioids after procedures without full awareness of their clinical history. "Far too often individuals are being administered opioids for procedures without full knowledge," House said, calling the bill "a much needed step towards empowering patients to make informed decisions about their own care, especially those at risk."
Scope and exemptions: The committee adopted an A1 amendment that clarifies exemptions where a prescriber may administer opioids when access to a patient's record is not feasible or when immediate medical judgment requires opioid administration. Representative Baker said the amendment also clarifies exemptions for surgical complications and that the Minnesota Medical Association requested the technical changes.
Why it matters: Sponsors framed the directive as a communication tool, similar in concept to an advance care directive, that allows patients — particularly people in recovery from opioid use disorder — to record a clear preference in their medical record so any provider accessing that record sees the directive. Baker and several members described real‑world situations in which patients or family members felt unheard and said the form could prevent unintended prescriptions.
Action taken: The committee adopted the author's A1 amendment by voice vote and the chair's motion that House File 1379, as amended, be referred to the Judiciary, Finance and Civil Law Committee carried by voice vote.
Outstanding questions: Committee members sought clearer drafting on an exception clause that referenced hospital treatment and emergency circumstances; Representative Liebling suggested clarifying language so that exemptions apply when access to the record is infeasible or in emergencies rather than broadly exempting all hospital care. Representative Baker agreed to refine those points as the bill proceeds through the next committee.
Provenance: Representative Baker introduced the bill and explained the A1 changes (transcript excerpt: "It just makes sure it clarifies a couple of exemptions for surgery complications... The Minnesota Medical Association.") and the committee concluded with a referral after adoption of the amendment (transcript excerpt: "The motion prevails and House file 13 79 as amended is adopted. ... House file 13 79 as amended is adopted and be referred to judicial.").
