Bill: SB 547, 85(R) - 2017
Committee
Senate Health & Human Services
2nd Chamber Committee
House Human Services
Companion Bill
HB 3409
Vote Recommendation
| Vote Recommendation |
Economic Freedom |
Property Rights |
Personal Responsibility |
Limited Government |
Individual Liberty |
| No |
Negative |
Neutral |
Neutral |
Negative |
Neutral |
Author(s)
Lois Kolkhorst
Sponsor(s)
Stan Lambert
Bill Caption
Reating to creation of a schedule of support services a state supported living center may provide and procedures for establishing applicable fees for those services.
Fiscal Notes
From the LBB: No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
Bill Analysis
This bill would allow a state supported living center (SSLC) to provide nonresidential services as long as the services do not interfere with services given to residents. The bill would remove several eligibility requirements for people to qualify for nonresidential care provided by an SSLC. The bill would also allow the executive commissioner to establish a list of services that an SSLC can provide and would allow the commissioner to establish a fee schedule using the reimbursement rate for the applicable service under Medicaid or a modified rate with a written justification after holding a public hearing on the modification. The bill would also allow an SSLC to negotiate with a managed care organization and use a different fee schedule than the one provided by the executive commissioner.
Vote Recommendation Notes
We have three primary objections to this legislation. Removing eligibility requirements for nonresidential SSLC services would essentially remove means testing which may allow people who can otherwise afford to pay normal rates for care to pay the far lower medicaid or MCO rate. Expanding the nonresidential services that these state supported (taxpayer subsidized) facilities may offer could lead to unfair competition with private sector providers. Finally, it is our view that SSLCs should be consolidated and phased out over time. This bill would likely make that more difficult by making more people dependent on low-rate state subsidized services.
It is our view that SB 547 violates free market and limited government principles and for these reasons we oppose the bill.
