Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Long Term Care Regulatory Changes topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee adopts technical amendment to HF 4338 and hears long‑term care testimony

Human Services Finance and Policy Committee · March 24, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

House File 4338 (as amended) would update attorney‑fee recovery thresholds, clarify assisted‑living call‑button exceptions with a person‑centered standard, and make technical cross‑references; the A1 amendment was adopted and the bill was laid over after testimony from industry and an ombudsman raising resource and implementation questions.

Representative (author) moved House File 4338 and the committee adopted an A1 technical amendment that updates department cross‑references related to assisted‑living call‑button devices. The bill revises the state’s approach to attorney‑fee recovery under Minnesota’s Equal Access to Justice principles by removing MDH and DHS from a prior exclusion and by updating the maximum annual revenue threshold for eligibility from $7 million (the year 2000 level) to $13.5 million to reflect inflation. The author said the change should not have a net fiscal cost because fee recovery applies only when the department’s action is overturned.

Testifiers from long‑term care providers and associations, including Kyle Parent and Kayla Kang, supported the person‑centered exception for devices that residents cannot reliably use and urged that the attorney‑fee change be implemented carefully. An Office of the Ombudsman for Long‑Term Care representative expressed support for the person‑centered approach but raised concerns about the impact on MDH resources if fee‑shifting increased contested‑case payouts.

Members asked whether the bill would require referral to judiciary on contested‑case implications and how many providers would newly qualify under the $13.5 million threshold; sponsors said fiscal staff and agency technical assistance would help quantify impacts. The author renewed the motion to lay the bill over for possible omnibus inclusion after the amendment was adopted.