MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Sixty-seventh Session
May 4, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services was called to order by Chairman Jan Evans at 1:24 p.m., Tuesday, May 4, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Jan Evans, Chairman
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman, Vice Chairman
Ms. Kathy M. Augustine
Ms. Marcia de Braga
Mr. James A. Gibbons
Mr. Dean A. Heller
Mr. William A. Petrak
Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom
Ms. Stephanie Smith
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
Mr. Wendell P. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kerry Carroll Davis, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Michael McMahon, Association of State Welfare Directors
Jeanette Hills, State Welfare Division
Mrs. Evans noted for the record SB 69 would not be heard today and indicated it would be rescheduled for a future date. She requested committee introduction of the following Bill Draft Requests:
BDR R-1078 Urges State Board of Health to extend time during which physician is required to evaluate person admitted to facility for care of adults during day.
ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR R-1078.
ASSEMBLYMAN HELLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (ASSEMBLYMAN AUGUSTINE WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE).
BDR 38-1901Sets goals and means for aid to dependent children.
ASSEMBLYMAN FREEMAN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 38-1901.
ASSEMBLYMAN DE BRAGA SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (ASSEMBLYMAN AUGUSTINE WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE).
Mrs. Evans opened the hearing on Senate Bill 104.
SB 104 Revises definition of "county of residence" for purpose of determining eligibility of indigent person for benefits from county.
Michael McMahon, Nevada Association of County Welfare Directors, spoke in support of SB 104 and indicated the bill was drafted in order to make a technical correction. The specific requirement for residence was unconstitutional.
Mrs. Freeman noted this issue had been discussed during the previous session. Mr. McMahon said yes, Washoe Legal Services and LCB had worked out the details.
Mrs. Segerblom inquired if this bill would preclude county hospitals from paying for indigents. Mr. McMahon said it would make it easier for the county where a person falls ill to take care of the medical bills. This bill would eliminate county-to-county disputes.
Ms. de Braga asked if any proof was required for intent to reside. Mr. McMahon stated this was done on an informal basis. It would be up to the individual counties to put specific requirements into their policies and procedures.
Ms. Augustine called attention to the 30 day residency requirement. Mr. McMahon discussed problems regarding the period of time involved in the transfer of services from one state to another. The state was obligated to cover the cost of an indigent person who was not a resident of Nevada. Mr. McMahon clarified there were two requirements in NRS 428. One was the residency requirement and the other was eligibility.
Mrs. Freeman asked to see a copy of the legal opinion regarding the constitutionality of the statute. Mr. McMahon replied he would provide a copy of the opinion to the committee members.
Mrs. Freeman noted if the State of Nevada was required to treat people who were indigent but not necessarily residents, it would be the same for every other state under the Medicaid guidelines. Jeanette Hills, State Welfare Division, indicated under the state guidelines there was no durational residency requirement for Medicaid; therefore, anyone who came into the state would be considered for assistance.
Mrs. Evans asked what benefits would be included. Ms. Hills responded only those county match programs where the counties were paying non-federal share for people who were in care.
A copy of the legal opinion was passed out to the committee (EXHIBIT C).
Mr. Heller asked if this change in the statute would have any impact on the counties. Mr. McMahon responded it would have an impact but the counties would still administer their own programs. This would simply eliminate problems with county-to-county interactions.
Ms. Augustine inquired how long the statute had been on the books and why it was now considered unconstitutional. Mr. McMahon believed it was brought to the attention of the legislature during the last session. There was no action taken at that time. The Davis case made it unconstitutional for a state to restrict access based on a time limitation.
Mr. Toomin asked to see a copy of the counties' regulations. Mr. McMahon reiterated this language was unanimously approved by the Association of County Welfare Directors.
Mr. Petrak wanted to know who testified in the Senate on this bill. Mr. McMahon indicated he was the only one who testified and there was no opposition. He felt the legislation was important because he did not want the state to be subjected to litigation.
Ms. Augustine noted in 1989 the statute was enacted and at that time only bona fide residents of Nevada were eligible for public assistance. Mr. McMahon said yes, but the State Aid to the Medically Indigent Program (SAMI) was also in existence. It was shortly after SAMI was stricken from the books that Chapter 428 was created which deals with county welfare departments.
Mrs. Evans said the committee needed some time to review the legal opinion. There would be no action taken today and the bill would be rescheduled.
Mr. Toomin was concerned about the possibility of fraud and asked for information regarding enforcement.
Mrs. Evans called attention to SB 311 which was on General File. Mr. Carpenter had asked how this might impact hospitals in Elko. Mrs. Evans noted the bill was put on the Chief Clerk's desk pending clarification.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 1:54 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
CONNIE CAMPBELL
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services
May 4, 1993
Page: 1