Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves new video remote interpreting provider license with $150 fee
Summary
The Senate Health and Welfare Committee approved administrative rules establishing a new video remote interpreting provider license and a $150 fee covering up to five sign-language interpreters; supporters said the fee will not affect the state general fund and drew some questions about the five-person cap and fee level.
Get email alerts on the Licensure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Senate Health and Welfare Committee approved administrative rules to create a new "video remote interpreting provider" license for the Speech, Hearing and Communication Services Licensure Board, with a proposed fee of $150 that would cover up to five sign-language interpreters at a business.
"This license type allows for businesses to be licensed as video remote interpreting providers," Ryan Bernard, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Chief at the Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses, told the committee. He said the board received "0 comments from the public" during rulemaking and that the fee would have "0 impact on the state's general fund," and that, among states with similar licenses, Idaho's proposed fee would be the lowest in the country.
Committee members asked for context on the design of the fee. Senator Blaylock questioned the cap on coverage, asking why the license would be limited to "up to 5 employed sign language interpreters." Bernard said the board set the cap to keep the license affordable while providing proportional benefit to small and large businesses. Senator Lenny pushed back on the fee level, noting that the remote-interpreter fee was "three times the base fee" and suggested the state should be encouraging remote technology rather than imposing a higher charge.
After discussion, Senator Wintrow moved to approve docket 24-2301-2501; the motion was seconded and passed on a roll-call vote reported as 5-3. The committee did not record public opposition during the negotiated rulemaking or comment period.
