The last week of session played out like a reality TV show-- full of on-the-floor performances, anti-climactic pauses in action, and last minute plot twists.

The Legislature adjourned sine die today at 11:48 p.m., minutes before their midnight constitutional deadline.

One week before the end of session, legislators pushed a budget balancing bill, a tax bill, and a health care reform bill through the committee process, sending all three measures to the House and Senate floors. These bills served as the basis for negotiations between the Governor and DFL leadership. In a step to clear legislative schedules, DFL leaders took a break Wednesday from the floor and committee hearings to spend the day negotiating a final deal. The Legislature reconvened Thursday and worked diligently for days before finally reaching a tentative deal in the early morning hours Sunday.

Final negotiations hinged on efforts to give Minnesotans property tax relief, balancing the state’s budget and passing a health care reform bill. These three substantial pieces of legislation were interdependent on each other in negotiations. The health care reform bill was the first to be released publicly, with taxes and a budget deals right behind. The final deal was hung up on provisions in the tax bill as DFL leaders and the Governor had philosophical differences concerning property tax relief and aid to local governments. Funding for the Mall of America expansion was also said to be a late night negotiation stumbling block. The Central Corridor light rail line and two favorite bonding projects of Governor Pawlenty’s also played into last minute negotiations.

Conference committees for the three key omnibus bills met shortly after a general agreement on the deal took place. Meeting past sunrise on Sunday, the committees finished their work so the bodies could pass the bills off the floor on Sunday evening.

While no one would have benefited from a collapse in negotiations, at times it did not seem a deal would get done. Several times, DFL Leaders expressed frustration with the tone of the negotiations with the Governor and Minority. With that being said, The Speaker and Senate Majority Leader never wavered in their belief that a deal would get done.

The House and Governor benefit the most from the deal getting done on time. The deal allows all House incumbents to campaign over the interim without the specter of a special session or gubernatorial unallotment hanging over their heads. Governor Pawlenty benefits, come GOP Convention time, by not having Minnesota’s business incomplete as he potentially vies for a Vice Presidential slot. While the Senate Majority is not up for reelection this fall, it fought hard for the best deal it could get while still finishing the work for the people.

The Biggest Losers, Details of the Deal:

Deal	No Deal
Health Care Reform. Philosophical differences between the Governor and DFL Leadership fueled the main disagreement of whether or not to expand MinnesotaCare health programs. The agreement will give 13,000 Minnesotans without health insurance an opportunity to apply for MinnesotaCare coverage. In exchange, the governor pushed for language requiring most employers in Minnesota to begin offering Section 125 plans, which will give their employees the ability to pay for health insurance with pretax dollars.	Minimum Wage Increase. The House and Senate passed a minimum wage increase, raising the minimum wage 60 cents in June and an additional dollar in a year. The bill was vetoed by the Governor.
Central Corridor light rail and other bonding proposals. After an initial gubernatorial veto of Central Corridor and various projects, legislators and the Governor agreed to fund Central Corridor (which will now be eligible for federal funding), an out-state veterans facility and Lake Vermillion state park land acquisition.	Primary Seatbelts. Attempts to make not wearing a seat belt a primary offense failed in the last weeks of session. The House and Governor opposed the provision.
Property Tax Relief. The House, Senate and Governor each had separate ideas for property tax relief. The final deal included capping local levies at a rise of less then 3.9% a year. This cap will last three years. To help cities, counties, and townships with the effect of a limit, $60 million was provided. $25 million was set aside to give to homeowners.	Smoking Shacks. Attempts to weaken last years smoking ban came in the fashion of allowing for smoking shacks outside of bars and restaurants. These efforts failed.
Balancing the Budget. Health and Human services took the biggest slash in an effort to balance the states budget. To address the $935 million budget deficit lawmakers made a total of $355 million in state spending, raised revenues of $100 million from a corporate tax change, and withdrew $500 million from Minnesota’s Rainy Day Fund.	Clean Cars. This legislation would have tightened restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The bill was never able to clear the Senate committee process.
Mall of America Expansion. The Mall of America was back at the capitol for the second year for a state approved subsidy package to help fund a MOA expansion. The plan raises public money by allowing the city of Bloomington to raise some city taxes.	Health Insurance. The Governor vetoed a bill that would create a statewide health insurance purchasing pool for school district employees.
Education Reform. In an effort to ease financial stress for school districts across the state, a $51 per student one-time aid to schools was put in as part of the final package.

After the legislature adjourns the Governor has 14 days to act on bills presented to him. If the Governor does not act on a bill, it does not become law.

By the end of the legislative session, Governor Pawlenty put the veto pen to a total of 25 bills. This included a number of line-item and full bill vetoes, such as bill to increase the minimum wage, an education finance reform bill, a health care reform bill among others.

The Amazing Race

The first few weeks of session set an unprecedented pace for passage of large policy bills, looking more like The Amazing Race than Armageddon. The House and Senate worked together to expedite bills to the Governor, avoiding conference committees. It was clear early on that DFL Leadership worked during the interim to come out united and strong to get priority legislation passed. The action included passage of a $925 million bonding package, a large omnibus tax policy bill—much of which was vetoed in the 2007 tax bill—and a transportation funding package that was vetoed and eventually overridden in a bipartisan fashion.

Transportation Funding Package, 20 Years in the Making
After a losing 2007 session for transportation advocates and the I-35W bridge collapse in August, many expected passing a transportation funding bill to be a legislative priority. The House and Senate introduced and discussed identical transportation funding packages the very first day of session, simultaneously moving the measures through committees. In tandem with these efforts, House Democrats began working on crafting a veto-proof bill. The bill passed through both bodies and was promptly vetoed by the Governor the morning after its presentation. The next work day, the Representatives on both sides of the aisle voted to override the Governor’s veto. The $6.6 billion price tag on the override was the first successful override of a Pawlenty veto.

Bonding Projects
Both House and Senate capital investment committees began hearing bonding proposals within the first week of session. With aggressive deadlines, the bonding committees were able to come together and send a bill to the governor by the first week in March. The price tag of the bill was $100 million over the governor’s proposal, which led to a gubernatorial line-item veto. The price tag of the final bill was $925 million, with the Governor’s cuts totaling $20 million, about $100 million deeper than what was expected. Despite being included in the Governor’s and Legislature’s original plans, the cuts included $70 million for the central corridor light-rail line linking St. Paul and Minneapolis. The Governor’s decision to cut the central corridor money signaled he was preparing to hold items back to use for final negotiations.

2007 Tax Bill, Resurrected
Much of the vetoed tax bill from the 2007 legislative session came back in the form of a large omnibus tax package within the first weeks of session. Tax chairs Representative Ann Lenczewski (D-Bloomington) and Senator Tom Bakk (D—Virginia) released identical bills that quickly moved through the process, and the Governor signed it.

Balancing the Budget, A Near $1 Billion Deficit
Shortly after the legislature convened in February, state economists forecasted a near $1 billion deficit for the 2008-2009 biennium. Declining corporate income tax revenue and a weakening U.S. economy were both cited as major contributing factors to the growing deficit. After the Governor sent the legislature his own budget-balancing proposal, the House and Senate went to work on counter proposals. Budget negotiations continued to play into the politics this session, down to the last night of session.

Deep Impact, Newsworthy Legislation

I-35W Bridge Compensation Fund
Months before the legislature convened, House Representative Ryan Winkler (DFL—Golden Valley) was set to introduce legislation for compensation of the victims of the August 1, I-35W bridge collapse. Lengthy negotiations continued throughout session, with debate focusing on a cap in the amount of money an individual could receive. In the last weeks of session a final deal was cut between the Senate and House position, and the Governor’s office. Modeled after the September 11 victims’ relief fund, the bill includes a $24 million fund for all eligible victims, with a cap of $400,000 per individual and an additional $12.64 million fund for individuals whose medical expenses and other losses exceed the $400,000 cap.

NWA—Delta Merger
Potential job loss and negative economic impact troubled lawmakers when news of a Northwest Airlines-Delta merger made headlines. Legislation that would require the state to enforce any past agreements and permit the state to seek all damages related to breach of these agreements, was introduced but did not become law. Lawmakers cited their desire to enforce past agreements made between the state, Metropolitan Airports Commission and Northwest Airlines. Lawmakers joined Governor Pawlenty in a commitment to monitor merger developments and consideration of a special session to address the merger's impact on Minnesotans.

On the Ballot This November, Arts & Outdoors
Voters will be deciding whether or not they want their sales raised 3/8th of 1 percent and dedicate the $276 million in revenue raised to wildlife habitat, clean water, parks and the arts.

Back To "The Real World." Legislative Retirements

The end of the legislative session also signals the end of some legislative careers. A number of legislators decided they would not seek re-election:

Rep. John Berns (R-Wayzata)
Rep. Chris DeLaForest (R-Andover)
Rep. Brad Finstad (R-Comfrey)
Rep. Bud Heidgerken (R-Freeport)
Rep. Scott Kranz (DFL-Blaine)
Rep. Frank Moe (DFL-Bemidji)
Rep. Aaron Peterson (DFL-Appleton)
Rep. Dennis Ozment (R-Long Prairie)
Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Eden Prairie)
Rep. Connie Ruth (R-Owatonna)
Rep. Kathy Tingelstad (R-Andover)
Rep. Neva Walker (DFL-Minneapolis)

LGN Health Session Wrap-Up

May 19, 2008

After nearly a year of work of accumulating ideas and drafting a comprehensive proposal for health reform, the legislature approved a bill that will seek to contain the rapidly rising costs of health care. Rep. Tom Huntley (DFL-7A) and Sen. Linda Berglin (DFL-61), who worked extensively with the Minnesota Departments of Health and Human Services on developing ideas for health reform, characterized this year’s bill as "steps" toward a larger objective.

The final bill will give more than 13,000 Minnesotans without health insurance access to health coverage, and will also give many people tax credits for the premiums they are currently paying. The bill also seeks to make it easier for consumers to understand what they are paying for in terms of health care services, and lays out the groundwork for eventually rewarding providers for helping patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes, asthma and others better manage their illnesses.

The original proposal contained a number of controversial items that stakeholders from the health care provider community, insurers and employers cautioned would have generated a host of unintended consequences. The concerns led to an unlikely alliance of Republican legislators who felt the state was being asked to take too much responsibility and a surprisingly large coalition of Democrats who believe health reform can be achieved by some form of a single payer system and rural legislators.

In addition to the politics at play, legislators needed to grapple with a projected budget deficit of $935 million which significantly hampered the amount of resources that could be invested in the health reform bill. More than 70 percent of the spending cuts in the supplemental budget passed Sunday came out of the Health and Human Services budget.

Legislators spent nearly the entire session wrestling with these challenges, and crafted a compromise that did not go as far as the original proposal, but still may result in savings to the system. The final health reform bill was approved by the Legislature Saturday night, and is expected to be signed into law by the Governor.

The article below will lay out the details of the health reform bill, the supplemental budget, a number of other legislation discussed in 2008 and take a look at what health care debate may look like in future sessions.

Health Reform Bill
The public health portion of the bill underwent a series of changes, with conferees removing a section laying out the goals of the Statewide Health Promotion Plan. This section of the bill also includes a competitive grant program that local communities can apply for. Local communities will also be required to provide matching funds to qualify for grants. The grants will be paid for using the Health Care Access Fund which is an improvement as this section of the bill at one point was going to be funded by a new tax on hospitals and health plans.

The Health Care Home section of the bill remained largely intact. The one change of some significance was the change of the definition of a "care coordinator." The definition for care coordinator now lists a number of specialties who can serve as care coordinators vice leaving it up to the provider to decide who their coordinator will be.

By 2011, all providers, insurers, group purchasers, prescribers and dispensers must establish and maintain an electronic prescription drug program that uses either HL7 messages or the NCPDP SCRIPT Standard for transmitting, directly or through an intermediary, prescriptions and prescription-related information using electronic media.

Beginning January 2009 and every 6 months thereafter, health plans and third party administrators will be required to submit encounter data to a private entity designated by the Commissioner of Health. This data will be used to help the Commissioner of Health develop a peer grouping system for providers based on a combined measure that incorporates risk-adjusted cost of care and quality of care. The Commissioner shall contract with providers, insurers, state agencies and other organizations in developing this system. Beginning July 1, 2010, the Commissioner shall disseminate information to providers on their cost of care, quality of care and the results of the grouping based on the data collected. Providers will have 21 days to appeal if they do not agree with the findings.

The Commissioner of Health will also be required to develop a uniform method of calculating providers’ relative cost of care, defined as a measure of health care spending including resource use and unit prices, and relative quality of care. In developing this method, the commissioner will be required to address a number of issues including provider attribution to cost and quality, appropriate adjustment for catastrophic cases, patient demographics and health status, specific types of providers and services and a variety of other factors in calculating the relative cost of care.

Levels 1 and 2 of payment reform are still in the bill; however, Level 3 is gone. The bill now authorizes the Commissioners of Health and Human Services to form a minimum of 7 baskets of care that providers can volunteer so submit bids for in 2010. The Commissioners reserve the right to invest in the services of a nonprofit entity to aide in crafting these baskets, and shall form work groups consisting of "members appointed by statewide associations representing relevant health care providers and health plan companies and organizations that work to improve health care quality in Minnesota."

The single pricing language, which drew the concerns of health care providers, would apply exclusively to these voluntary baskets of care. Once the baskets are formed, and the aforementioned entities have developed a mechanism for determining uniform prices for the services identified in these baskets, providers would not be allowed to vary the price of services for these services. Keep in mind; these are services that providers would have to volunteer to submit bids for. The Commissioners would not be allowed to factor services provided to patients through workers compensation insurance, no-fault auto insurance or public programs into the calculation of these single prices. Providers would theoretically have the option of submitting bids for these baskets of care in 2010.

The bill also authorizes the establishment of a Health Care Reform Review Council consisting of members of a host of stakeholder groups including the Minnesota Medical Group Management Association, the Minnesota Hospital Association and the Minnesota Medical Association. This panel would meet periodically to receive reports on the progress of the reform process. When reviewing the multiple work groups and the review council focused on payment reform, the conference report provides multiple opportunities for stakeholders in the health care industry to get involved with the reform process. It will be up to stakeholders to take advantage of these opportunities.

Some eligibility expansions to Minnesota Care were included such as allowing single Minnesotans and families at or below 250 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines to apply for Minnesota Care coverage. Citizens at or below 215% are currently eligible. The bill also authorizes a sliding scale that will be used to determine Minnesota Care premiums. The scale will base the level of premium on what beneficiaries can afford to pay using the Federal Poverty Guidelines as a measuring point. There are a number of provisions in this bill requiring state agencies to increase coordination to identify beneficiaries of other state programs such as children on the school lunch program who might be eligible for Minnesota Care. The bill also authorizes some changes making it easier to maintain coverage.

All employers with 11 or more employees will be required by July 2009 to establish and maintain Section 125 plans to allow their employees to purchase individual market or employer based insurance with pre-tax dollars. Employees may opt out of this requirement by appealing to the Department of Commerce.

There is also a study of the uniform claims review process that will be conducted by the Department of Health. A work group will also be created to make recommendations for the design of a health benefit set that provides coverage for a broad range of services and technologies. Another study will look at ways to provide health coverage to employees at Long Term Care facilities.

Finally, the commissioner of health will be required to make recommendations to the legislature on community benefit standards to be required of nonprofit health plan companies doing business in the state. The community benefits will be required to include efforts focusing on public health, improving the art and science of medical care and addressing the need for financial assistance to access ongoing coverage. The commissioner shall seek public input regarding the range of options to be considered under this study. The recommendations will be required to include a procedure in which the health plans must report to the state and the public regarding their compliance with the requirements established by the study.

Supplemental Budget
After weeks of negotiations, the legislature and the governor agreed to terms of a supplemental budget seeking to balance a projected deficit of just under $1 billion. Hospitals bared the brunt of the cuts with an outpatient rate reduction for hospitals of approximately 3.4 percent, but will be phased out over time. Additionally, an identical inpatient rate reduction for hospitals was also included and will also be phased out over future years. The rebasing for hospital rates has also been delayed by two years.

Federal funds allocated to Minnesota hospitals who deliver a higher amount of uncompensated care under the Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) program were spared from cuts. Safety net hospitals and other providers who deliver a large portion of their care to low income populations fought to ensure the DSH funds were not transferred to the General Fund.

Reflecting a request from the Governor, the Supplemental budget uses the $50 million from Health Care Access Fund to balance the budget, but backfills the money used with monies the legislature is projected to save as a result of policies passed in the Health Care Reform Bill. The $50 million used out of the HCAF replaced money the legislature planned to raise by reinstating caps on the health plan reserves, and implementing an assessment on the monies above that cap.

Employees from nursing homes received a temporary 1 percent Cost of Living Adjustment increase which will sunset in one year. Employees of Long Term Care facilities did not receive a cost of living increase, and Sen. Linda Berglin (DFL-61) reminded Senators that advocates from both of those parties will return to the Capitol in 2009 requesting public dollars.

Proposed cuts that did not make the final bill included a 3 percent reduction to physician reimbursement rates for public programs. Another proposed amendment stated that more than 60 services listed in the Oregon Health Plan would no longer covered by MA, GAMC or Minnesota Care. Sold to conferees as a "technical amendment" dropping reimbursement for "obsolete medical procedures," the list of services included broken toes and multiple medical procedures across numerous medical specialties that are used frequently. Fortunately, this proposal was also eventually scuttled.

The Future Debate on Health Reform
While the health reform bill passed this session is sure to make some waves, the discussion on reform has only begun and more changes are sure to make their way through the legislative process. Senator Berglin and Representative Huntley—who have led the charge this session in trying to change how health care is delivered and paid for in Minnesota—characterized this year’s bill as "steps" toward a larger objective.

So what does this say about future debates? For starters, the work groups, commissions and advisory committees authorized in 2008 will hold their meetings and attempt to find a more efficient way to pay for health care. Tracking this process in and of itself is going to be a full time job, and is sure to generate new ideas.

Additionally, there is a growing sense of urgency to reform health care, and many legislators feel this bill does not go far enough. Employers are having an increasingly difficult time paying to provide health coverage for their employees. Unions are having a harder time negotiating better salaries for their workers because of rising health care costs, and the number of citizens without health insurance is continuing to grow.

Health care providers attribute the cost increases to a variety of factors including low reimbursement rates that force providers to shift costs to patients with commercial products. The cost of new medical technology, medications and administrative efficiency are also being called into question.

Providers also point out there is a serious need for better coordination of care among health care providers. The challenge is the current health care payment system rewards reactionary treatment and discourages preventive care. The Health Care Home language in the health reform bill seeks to change this by changing the payment system so preventive care and coordinated care are rewarded and not penalized. This proposal is sure to save money in the long run.

On the other side of the coin, HMOs who were created to help contain cost seem to be driving costs up. Health plans have received additional money from the state to manage public programs offered in Minnesota, but have failed to pass any of those monies over to providers. In fact, some of these plans actually used those funding increases to put more money into their reserve accounts. As a result, health care providers are currently being reimbursed 21 percent below cost every time they see a patient covered by a public program.

Consumers are becoming increasingly frustrated because their premiums, like the money in health plans’ reserves, continue to increase while the services covered seem to decrease. Plans argue this is because the state keeps stepping in and requiring plans to cover various services.

Republicans remain committed to relying on the private sector to contain costs, but remained stumped by the market’s perceived inability to deliver affordable coverage to a growing number of citizens. Democrats generally believe the state has an obligation to step in and provide coverage to people who cannot afford it. Defining who those people are and what the role of Government should be is also an evolving debate even within the Democratic Party. The House saw a caucus of 25 Democrats form who were committed to authorizing a health care system where the state provided the vast majority of insurance coverage in Minnesota.

Termed the "Single Payer Caucus," this group at one point in the session teamed up with Republicans to challenge the health reform bill on the House floor. This unlikely alliance forced House leadership to agree to an amendment removing a number of controversial provisions from the reform bill because both groups believed the bill in its initial form was headed in the wrong direction.

The fact that advocates for a single payer system—opponents of this idea have made a career out of demonizing the concept and anyone who speaks in favor of it—were unapologetically willing to stand up to party leadership and win is a very interesting occurrence. With an election on the horizon that is expected to deliver a new flock of Democrats to public office, the "Single Payer Caucus" may maintain enough support to continue influencing the debate.

Senior members of the legislature have observed these philosophical trends with interest, and have noted the momentum may lead to new changes. The question is whether the legislation passed in 2008 will satisfy the public, and what will happen if it doesn't.

Other Bills
In addition to the Health Reform bill and the supplemental budget, there were a host of other initiatives that surfaced this session. Some were successful while others are sure to resurface.

Constitutional Amendment
In the wake of the debate over the appropriate use of the Health Care Access Fund, Sen. Linda Berglin (DFL-61) introduced and started actively pushing S.F. 3835, which proposes a constitutional amendment stating that the monies in the Health Care Access Fund must be used exclusively for supporting the MinnesotaCare program and efforts to increase access to health care in underserved populations and geographical areas of the state. The amendment also specifically prohibits using the fund to supplant general funds. This proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit using the HCAF to balance the budget in future legislative sessions. Introduced late in the 2008 session, Sen. Berglin has already expressed an interest in pursuing this legislation in future years.

Prairie St. John's
Legislation requesting an exception to the hospital moratorium to build an inpatient psychiatric facility in Woodbury proved to be a bill to watch through the 2008 legislative session. At the eye of the storm was Prairie St. John's, a Fargo-based for profit hospital wishing to build a new 144 bed facility in the Twin Cities. Representatives from Prairie St. John’s stated that more than a third of their Fargo facility's revenue comes from patients in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, which conveyed to them a need for more mental health beds in that area.

Prairie St. Johns' proposal received a less than stellar analysis from the Minnesota Department of Health. MDH reviewed the proposal for and found the project was not in the public interest. According to Julie Sonier, Director of the Health Economics Program with the Minnesota Department of Health, there is significant room for improvement regarding the mental health system in Minnesota, but additional capacity does not fill that need.

Sonier said there is currently not a need for additional mental health beds in the twin Cities, but there is a need for additional mental health professionals. Adding another provider to the network, according to MDH, would likely have a negative impact on existing hospitals’ ability to maintain their staff. Additionally, the Department was considered about the fiscal implications of the state being unable to use federal Medicaid funds for any patients treated there.

Shortly after the Department's analysis, Senate Health and Human Services Budget Division Chair Linda Berglin (DFL-61) was quoted in the Star Tribune, saying she had "no quarrel with the findings." Undaunted, Prairie St. John’s revised its proposal, asking for 66 beds, and continued pushing the bill through committee after committee. The bill eventually passed the House, but was unsuccessful in gaining comparable momentum in the Senate.

The Prairie St. John's debate was tremendously successful in compelling legislators to have a serious discussion about the availability of mental health beds and providers in Minnesota. This is an issue that has often been paid lip service in recent years, but the discussion brought forward in this bill prompted more discussion than previously seen. The dialogue is certain to continue in future sessions, and Prairie St. John’s may very well be a part of the equation.

Medical Debt Privacy Act
Introduced by Rep. Diane Loeffler (DFL-59A) in the House and Sen. Linda Scheid (DFL-46) in the Senate, the Medical Debt Privacy Act would prohibit health care providers from disclosing an individual patient's financial or medical debt information to another entity. Health providers would also be prohibited from obtaining or using information from any entity that gathers, maintains, evaluates, or distributes individual patient financial or debt information until after health care services, products, or devices have been provided by the health care provider to the patient.

This bill was an initiative led by the Attorney General, and its purpose was to prohibit companies that attempt to assign credit scores to a consumer’s medical debt, then selling that information to health care providers. Although the bill was introduced with the best of intentions, its contents had some potential negative ramifications.

As an example, some providers engage in interest-free financing with patients on services that are not generally covered by health insurance such as LASIK. Additionally, with the advent of Health Savings Accounts and high deductible health plans, providers have adapted, and provide some consumer-friendly options such as setting patients up on payment plans to pay for their deductibles, interest free. If a provider is going to enter into such an arrangement with a patient, it only makes sense from a business standpoint that the provider is going to want to run a credit check on the patient.

While the attorney general's staff attempted to alleviate the concerns of health care providers with a number of modifications, the final product still had some problems, and was ultimately vetoed by the Governor. It is sure to return in 2009.

Modified Physical Therapist Bill Becomes Law
The legislature passed, and the governor signed into law legislation changing the requirement that physical therapists refer patients to a physician after 30 consecutive days of treatment to 90 days. Known as the "Physical Therapist bill," this measure has been floated in previous legislative sessions, but has garnered little support. This bill’s success was attributed to off session negotiations between the Physical Therapists Association and the Minnesota Medical Association.

Radiation Oncology Moratorium Bill
Legislation became law this session imposing a moratorium on the construction of any radiation facility located in 14 counties across the state. The new policy would not apply to the relocation or reconstruction of any facility owned by a hospital if the relocation or reconstruction is within one mile of the existing facility. Legislation was passed in 2007 imposing a two year moratorium on the construction of new radiation facilities in these regions, and this bill would make the moratorium permanent.

Proponents of the bill, including Sen. Linda Berglin (DFL-61), Kathy Saltzman (DFL-56), Linda Higgins (DFL-58), Ann Lynch (DFL-30) and Yvonne Prettner Solon (DFL-7), said the purpose of the moratorium was to put a stop to the "medical arms race," implying that an abundance of these facilities was driving up the cost of health care.

Opponents of the bill including Dr. Thomas Flynn with Minnesota Oncology Hematology expressed concern that the moratorium would likely stifle innovation in medical technology and give patients fewer choices in the market.

www.locklaw.com

Disclaimer