Bill Update for the Week of March 7

Bills Previously Filed with Action Last Week:


HB 2, Protect Health Care Freedom (Barnhart, Stam, Hollo, Murry sponsors). This bill seeks to prevent the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (i.e., healthcare reform legislation) provision that mandates individual health insurance. It also mandates that the Attorney General shall either join or bring a lawsuit challenging this provision. In last week's update, I reported that the Governor vetoed the bill. The House voted to override the veto last week but fell short.  However, due to some parliamentary maneuvering, the House could make another attempt to override the veto this coming week.

HB 115, North Carolina Health Benefit Exchange Act (Dockham, Brubaker, Wray, Murry Sponsors).  HB 115 seeks to establish a Health Benefit Exchange to make available qualified health benefit plans beginning in 2014.  This bill creates a version of the exchange that is governed by a board that includes insurers as voting members and less consumer protections than have been discussed previously at the NC Institute of Medicine Health Benefit Exchange workgroup. The bill was heard but not voted upon in the House Health and Human Services committee last week.   Insurance Commissioner Wayne Goodwin presented an alternative model for board governance of the new NC Health Marketplace.  Rather than allowing insurers on the board of the marketplace, there would be a core board of experts in health care economics, markets and policy – all without financial conflicts of interest.  But there would also be several official board advisory committees to the Marketplace:  one of insurers, one of providers, one of consumers, one of businesses, etc., who would all offer their expertise to the board through individual ex-officio non-voting members.  Disability Rights NC and the Citizens for Responsible Health Care are very appreciative that this process has slowed down and that some thoughtfull consideration is being put into this very important issue.

SB 8, No Cap on Number of Charter Schools (Stevens sponsor). This bill eliminates the existing cap of 100 charter schools and makes a number of changes to the existing statute governing charter schools. A new Proposed Committee Substitute was heard in House Education last week but not voted upon.  Although the language that we remain concerned with regarding discrimination in admissions remain unchanged, a number of other changes were made that continue to take the bill in a positive direction - including a new provision that gradually raises the cap by 50/year, creates a Public Charter School Commission under the State Board of Education (with the majority of the appointees coming from the legislature), and a number of changes to the local funding that will not transfer to the charter schools.  It is scheduled to be heard again this Tuesday.

 

SB 13, Balance Budget Act of 2011, (Stevens, Brunstetter, Hunt sponsors).  SB 13 seeks to reduce the current year's budget by at least $400 million, and directs transfers from various funds. The Governor vetoed the bill on February 22.  The Senate voted to override the veto on March 9.

SB 22, APA Rules: Increasing Costs Prohibition (Brown, Rouzer sponsors).  SB 22 seeks to limit new agency rules by amending GS 150B-19 to add that an agency may not adopt a rule that results in additional costs on persons subject to the rule unless the rule adoption is required to respond to a serious and unforeseen threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, an act of the General Assembly or United States Congress, a change in federal or State budgetary policy, a federal regulation, or a court order.  Several amendments were attempted when the bill was heard on the House floor, including removing the unforeseen language regarding public health, safety or welfare, but each failed.  The bill passed 2d and 3d reading in the House and now goes back to the Senate for concurrence.

Newly Filed Bills:


HB 247, Enhance Charter School Accountability (Glazier, Cotham, Rapp and Lucas Sponsors). HB 247 was filed this week as the Democrats’ response to SB 8, also lifting the cap on charter schools. It was referred to the House Committee on Education, and then to Finance and Appropriations. As stated above in the update for SB 8, it continues to head in the right direction, so perhaps there will be a meeting of the minds with some of the additional language in HB 247. In particular, Disability Rights NC supports the amendments HB 247 proposes to 115C-238.29F(g)(5) regarding discrimination in the admissions process.


HB 249, Update Archaic Disability Terms (Ross Sponsor). HB 249 recommends several changes throughout the statutes regarding appropriate terminology for people with disabilities. It reflects recommendations made by the General Statutes Commission. It has been referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee A.  SB 248 (Hartsell Sponsor) was also filed in the Senate.  SB 248 was referred to the Senate Committe on Health Care where it is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday.

HB 267 and HB 287, Mental Health Workers’ Bill of Rights (Bell Sponsor).  Both bills seeks to enact an Artilce 8 in Chater 122C to establish a bill of rights for mental health workers, which includes among other things, the right to protect oneself from harm, to refuse work that poses a danger to one's health and safety, to adequate staffing levels, adequate and updated equipment and techniques to insure safer working conditions and quality care for the patients, and to refuse excessive overtime.  HB 267 includes two additional rights that HB 287 does not: the right of workers to evaluate the performance their supervisor as one of the criteria for their raises and ongoing duties; and the right to belong to a union and engage in collective bargaining over terms and conditions of work. HB 267 has been referred to the House Rules committee and HB 287 has been referred to the House HHS committee.

SB 316, Additional Section 1915 Medicaid Waiver Sites (Hartsell Sponsor).  SB 316 authorizes DHHS to allow additional 1915 (b)/(c) Medicaid waiver sites and to allow third-party billing for state facilities.  This would allow further expansion of 1915(b)/(c) waivers beyond PBH, Mecklenburg and Western Highlands, without legislative approval.  It has been filed but not yet referred to a committee.  As we have previously expressed, Disability Rights NC remains concerned about the expansion of the use of the 1915(b)/(c) waivers on numerous grounds.