Senator Weber’s legislative update for April 13, 2018

Dear neighbors,

The legislature is back after a short spring recess – although it certainly doesn’t feel like spring! Next Friday, April 20, we’ll be at our third and final committee deadline, meaning most finance and policy bills must have made it through the committee process by that time. Until then, most committees will continue in earnest hearing various bills and budgets to supplement the comprehensive budget passed by the legislature last year. The legislature is constitutionally-mandated to adjourn by May 21.

A number of other issues have come to the forefront this week. Here’s what you need to know:

Ridiculous: buffer penalty increase proposal

Late last week, Governor Dayton’s administration issued a proposal to increase penalties on farmers and landowners in noncompliance with the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) buffer strip mandate. The proposed penalties would cost family farmers and landowners tens of thousands of dollars.

The proposed penalty falls well above the maximum fine of $500 as written in state law and exactly the opposite of what the legislature was told by the BWSR last year. The head of the BWSR told the agriculture committees last year that fines for noncompliance could be “…up to $500 and cannot exceed […] $500 in any case.”

As we agreed on last session, any decision to issue penalties for buffer noncompliance should be left to local soil and water conservation districts, counties, and watershed districts – the best people to make decisions that affect their own communities.

BWSR backed off after receiving overwhelming pushback from myself, my fellow legislators, and most importantly, members of the public. BWSR indicated to the legislature they will be dropping their proposal for penalty increases, but rest assured, the legislature will be keeping a watchful eye to ensure this sort of action does not take Minnesota by surprise again from the BWSR or other state agencies.

On Monday, I posted a Facebook video where I discussed the proposal at length:

Health care price transparency

This week, my colleagues and I held a press conference on several initiatives aimed at lowering the cost of health care, increasing cost transparency, and save people money on prescription drugs.

The proposals include:

  • S.F. 3033 – Requires health care providers to post transparent prices for their 25 most commonly billed services and procedures in the reception area of the clinic and on their website.
  • S.F. 3480 – Requires health care providers and health insurance plans to provide a good faith estimate of the total health care costs a patient will be required to pay for a visit.
  • S.F. 2746 – Requires health care providers to disclose hidden facility fees a patient might be required to pay for services or procedures.
  • S.F. 2836 – Saves consumers money on prescription drugs by allowing pharmacists to inform consumers when the cash cost of a prescription is less than the insured cost.

Two of the proposals require health care providers and health insurance plans to provide clear cost estimates to consumers, while S.F. 3480 allows consumers to request a good faith estimate for expected services, giving providers having a set window to respond. One bill also requires health care providers to publicly post pricing for many of their most commonly billed services, including the provider’s cash pay rate, the insurance reimbursement rate, the Medicare rate, and the Medical Assistance rate.

If we allow patients to not only ‘shop around,’ but also have free and open conversations with their pharmacists and physicians, the cost curve will go down. In this age of e-commerce, we are accustomed to quickly comparing prices for nearly any product or service we wish. I see no reason why health care should be any different.

In addition, another proposal puts an end to hidden “facility fees” that patients are often unaware exist until they get the bill. For example, two competing clinics may charge similar rates for a procedure, but if one also charges a facility fee, then the out-of-pocket cost of the procedure may be significantly higher at that clinic. Our proposal guarantees patients understand what they’re being charged by requiring disclosure of facility fees up-front.

Finally, we have legislation to lower the out-of-pocket cost of prescription drugs for consumers by lifting the pharmacy “gag rule” — a common clause in pharmacy contracts which prevents pharmacists from telling consumers when a drug could be purchased cheaper with cash instead of billing through insurance. Under our legislation, consumers will save money by allowing pharmacists to provide the best possible price for a prescription.

Childcare crisis in Greater Minnesota

Emergency mental health care

Since the shutter of Minnesota’s state hospitals decades ago, Minnesotans experiencing mental health crises have often been left in the dark. As a result of this lack of access to care, the burden has fallen on local law enforcement and hospitals to deal with these crises despite not having the resources or expertise to do so effectively. This needs to change.

We’re looking at legislation to bridge the gap in this area:

  • S.F. 2161 – $30 million in grants for crisis centers to care for people with mental illness or substance abuse disorders.
  • S.F. 2159 – Housing infrastructure bonds to create permanent supportive housing for those who need a longer stay or extended monitoring to get back on their feet.
  • S.F. 3679 – Grants to support students’ mental health needs via telemedicine.
  • S.F. 2555 – Funding for mental health counseling support for farm families and business operators.
  • Various bills – Funding for safe schools that can be used for school counselors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, and alcohol and chemical dependency counselors.

Experts from the medical field, law enforcement, and county governments stood in support of the legislation that would allocate $30 million in bonding funds to construct six mental health crisis centers across Minnesota. These crisis centers would fill a dire need for additional mental health beds and take the burden off those emergency rooms and jails overflowing with patients they are ill-equipped to help.

Additional legislation would specifically support the mental health needs of students and farm families — two demographics with elevated suicide rates. In fact, 30 percent of high school students have experienced symptoms of depression in the last 12 months, while rural farm families have a suicide rate significantly higher than other occupations. As more attention and focus is directed toward mental health concerns, we will continue to advocate for rural communities with unique needs and challenges.