Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Health Workforce topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bill to protect reimbursement for services by clinical trainees is laid over after testimony on workforce impacts

Minnesota House Commerce Committee · March 18, 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

Representatives and providers told the committee that a commercial payer's decision to stop reimbursing services by clinical trainees threatens the mental-health workforce; the committee left House File 3904 over for further discussion and possible inclusion.

Representative Hansen introduced House File 3904, saying the bill would "clarify the historical norm" that commercial plans reimburse services provided by clinical trainees supervised by licensed clinicians.

"This bill is not seeking to address any challenges providers are having with Medicaid or fee for service," Hansen said, arguing that the measure restores a long-standing reimbursement practice after one major payer changed its policy without legislative authorization.

Julie Short, CEO of Saint David's Developmental Therapeutics Inc., testified the organization serves thousands of children and currently employs 42 clinical trainees — "about 20% of our staff" — and that approximately 600 children were waiting for openings in their mental-health programs. She said removing reimbursement for trainee-delivered services would shrink provider capacity and lengthen wait lists, especially in greater Minnesota.

Kurt Andersen, representing a statewide association of child and family services, described trainee compensation and organizational practices; Sam Smith of the Department of Commerce said the department's read was that the bill "does not alter what services are covered by a plan" and that provider reimbursement adjustments would not fall under certain statutory requirements. Committee members raised cost and domino-effect concerns; sponsors and supporters urged further work. The bill was left over for additional discussion and possible placement on the General Register.