Lawmakers hear broad support to make Nebraska’s Prenatal Plus program permanent and extend postpartum coverage
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Sen. George Dungan’s LB773 would remove a sunset on the Prenatal Plus program and extend services through 60 days postpartum; supporters, including hospitals, physicians and maternal‑health groups, said the program improves outcomes and can save Medicaid dollars, while some senators questioned fiscal-note assumptions.
Sen. George Dungan, D‑District 26, told the Health and Human Services Committee on Feb. 9 that LB773 would make permanent Nebraska’s Prenatal Plus targeted case management program, extend services to the sixtieth day postpartum and push reporting requirements through 2034. The program provides case management, nutrition counseling, lactation support and targeted mental‑health referrals for Medicaid‑enrolled pregnant people.
Dungan said Prenatal Plus completed its first year with 68 people connected to targeted case management and that expanding postpartum services would provide a ‘‘warm handoff’’ and avoid the cliff many patients face at delivery. He cited evidence — including an older Colorado analysis — that upstream prenatal interventions can yield savings by reducing preterm births and neonatal intensive‑care admissions.
Clinicians and statewide organizations urged the committee to keep and strengthen the program. Robert Wergin, president of the Nebraska Medical Association, said prenatal case management ‘‘addresses risk factors through prebirth intervention’’ and could reduce NICU admissions and long‑term costs. Nurse managers and neonatal nurse practitioners described cases where early connection through Prenatal Plus enabled timely referrals, mental‑health screening and care coordination that likely prevented higher‑cost outcomes.
Providers and advocates also disputed elements of a fiscal note that estimates much higher enrollment than experienced to date; Senator Dungan and several witnesses said early enrollment suggests slower uptake and that the fiscal estimate (based on broad enrollment) may overstate short‑term costs. Supporters urged the committee to consider federal funding blends — including FMAP reimbursement — and said many program costs are already federally matched.
Lawmakers pressed program proponents about reporting and the apparent jump between early enrollments and the fiscal‑note assumptions. Dungan and witnesses said more data collection would be useful, that early implementation costs reflect start‑up activity and that the program could be folded into stable departmental budgets if evidence of impact continues.
The committee did not vote during the hearing. Dungan said he would work with members on technical changes to address fiscal concerns and implementation details.