HEALTH CARE POLICY
Legislative Session Overview Examining some health care bills BY ZACHARY BRUNNERT
M
uch like the rest of the country, the Minnesota Legislature “returned to office” in a hybrid fashion at the end of January. With the Senate operating mostly in-person, the House’s operations continued to be split in-person and virtual, with floor sessions in-person and committee hearings being held online. As session has progressed, the House announced the further reopening of offices in late March, and in another step towards normalcy, Rathskeller Café reopened their doors in the building. With lawmakers and advocates again filling the halls of the state house, the hustle and bustle has returned to St. Paul. The state is in the middle of the two-year budget cycle, which runs through June 30, 2023, and projections of the estimated surplus continue to grow. Initially, surplus expectations were around $7.7 billion, but the latest estimate in February forecasted a $9.25 billion surplus. In response to the updates from the Office of Management and Budget, Governor Tim Walz and Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan released a revised budget plan. Their new proposal includes direct payment to taxpayers, $500 for single filers and $1,000 for those filing jointly, and $215 million to recruit certain
Minnesota Physician digital access now available Visit mppub.com to activate your digital subscription and read us online wherever you go. · Never miss an issue
· Instant access anywhere
· New reader-friendly format
· Read back issues · Opt out of paper delivery
www.mppub.com 18
APRIL 2022 MINNESOTA PHYSICIAN
frontline health care workers over a three-year period. The so-called “Walz Checks” have received a tepid response from Senate Republicans who would prefer to lower the tax burden on Minnesotans. Their proposal would lower the first tier of the state’s income tax from 5.35% to 2.8%. Additionally, there continues to be jockeying between the chambers on how to distribute payments to frontline workers. The 2021-2022 biennium has seen over 4,500 bills filed in the House of Representatives, and over 4,200 filed in the Senate. That is a very large number of bills competing for committee time prior to deadlines. For 2022, those deadlines included March 25 for committees to act favorably on bills in their house of origin, the April 1 deadline for committee to act favorably on bills or companion bills that met the requirements of the first deadline, and then the April 8 deadline for committees to act favorably on appropriation and finance bills. If bills meet these deadlines, then it is a sprint to win approval in both chambers before session adjourns on May 23. Given the breadth of health care bills filed, we’ve outlined some of the topics being discussed by policy makers. Reinsurance: Over five years ago, lawmakers passed the Minnesota Premium Security Plan, a program that partially reimburses health plans in the individual marketplace for high-cost claims to control these costs. This was initially funded with state dollars, but some of that cost has shifted to the federal government after the state received a State Innovation Waiver from CMS. Minnesota estimates that the costs of these individual health plans are roughly 20% less on average than they would be without this program. This session, HF 3717 sponsored by Representative Zack Stephenson and SF 3472 sponsored by Senator Dahmns, Senator Utke, Senator Benson, and Senator Rosen, are moving through the legislature to extend the sunset of this program to 2027. The Senate version of the bill is now cross chambers and in the House having superseded the House bill. Access to Diagnostic Mammography: SF 989 sponsored by Senator Nelson and HF 447 by Representative Acomb look to expand access to health care services regarding the diagnosis of breast cancer by prohibiting cost-sharing requirements for follow-up diagnostic mammography. This legislation will allow citizens greater access to essential women’s health care at a time when it is estimated that nearly half of annual breast cancer screenings and other diagnostic studies were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting limitations on elective procedures. Prohibitive cost barriers can limit access to these essential follow-up services and a patient’s inability to pay should not prevent them from obtaining a potential lifesaving early diagnosis. This increased ease of access will directly impact the health outcomes of patients by requiring coverage for additional follow-up services at no cost to the patient. White Bagging: Some provider groups are pursing legislation to limit a new payer practice known as “white bagging”. Insurers, in certain cases, have been requiring clinically administered medications, like ones you would find at an infusion center, be dispensed by a pharmacy designated
