Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forensic Exam Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee moves to formalize SARN draft that would create single‑payer reimbursement for sexual‑assault exams
Summary
SARN staff urged the committee to back a single‑payer system to pay for sexual‑assault forensic exams, recommending higher reimbursement rates and a dedicated budget; the committee directed staff to draft a provisional committee bill based on the SARN proposal.
The Sexual Assault Response Network (SARN) told the Law and Justice Interim Committee it recommends establishing a state single‑payer system to reimburse forensic sexual‑assault exams and related training, and asked the committee to consider carrying the proposal as a committee bill.
Hope Stockwell, SARN coordinator at the Montana Department of Justice, told the panel that the existing FREP program has paid $600 per exam since 2005 but hospital invoices and surveys show actual average costs can be much higher. "The average cost of an exam that was billed to FREP in 2023 and '24 was almost $2,100," Stockwell said, urging a higher reimbursement rate.
The SARN committee recommended a two‑tier reimbursement in a draft the department brought to the panel: $1,000 for exams when a kit is collected and $500 when no kit is collected, with an annual CPI adjustment. Witnesses from hospitals, law enforcement and victim‑services groups supported a single‑payer system, saying local agencies and small hospitals struggle to budget for the variable costs. Whitney Brothers, forensic nurse coordinator at St. Peter's Health, told the committee her facility’s average unrecovered cost per exam is roughly $1,500 and urged support for a higher budget.
Committee action: Senator Usher moved that staff adopt the draft language the panel provided and return a formal provisional committee draft; the chair called the voice vote and the motion was adopted. Committee staff clarified they will prepare a provisional committee draft, allow stakeholders to refine it, and return the draft at a future meeting for final approval.
Funding and next steps: DOJ and SARN representatives suggested marijuana tax revenue as a potential funding stream but noted the committee and appropriations process could consider other sources. SARN asked the committee to consider a larger initial appropriation than a prior $300,000‑level ask and proposed a phased budget, including funds for training and a CPI adjustment. Committee members asked for the SARN committee’s finalized budget and additional data on kit processing costs and lab expenses before formal bill drafting.
Ending: Committee formally directed staff to prepare the provisional draft; members voted in favor and the motion carried. The draft will return for committee review and potential referral in the next legislative cycle.
