Committee hears informational DHS policy packages on licensing, program integrity, behavioral health and housing

Committee members received informational presentations from agency staff on several large packages of DHS and MDH policy proposals. Ari Didion of the DHS Office of Inspector General summarized an OIG policy bill that includes background‑study disqualification updates (e.g., adding orders of protection for financial abuse of a vulnerable adult), migration to the NETStudy2 system, and licensing changes that close change‑of‑ownership loopholes and ease access to nasal‑spray opioid antagonists such as Narcan for relevant programs.

Didion also outlined program‑integrity proposals to strengthen stop‑payment and pre‑payment review authorities, expand DHS site‑visit authority, and codify a definition of fraud into statute. Committee members raised due‑process concerns and stressed the importance of narrowly‑drawn triggers for withholding payments and the need to avoid sweeping actions that could harm compliant providers.

Christy Graham (DHS) presented a healthcare administration package with technical changes to MinnesotaCare and the Medicaid streamlining rule, clarifying premium and coverage language and codifying the department’s practice of disenrolling providers who have not billed in 12 months. Gina Savage (DHS Behavioral Health Administration) walked through behavioral‑health proposals that include peer recovery support statute cleanup, tobacco‑use education requirements for SUD and mental‑health settings, supervision limits for mental‑health professionals, CTSS and IRM technical alignments, and a shortened timeline for MARCO certification of recovery community organizations.

Lorna Schmidt (DHS Homelessness, Housing and Support Services) summarized a housing package with targeted corrections for PATH allowable activities, expanded eligibility to better account for SUD presentations, emergency general assistance reporting requirements to DHS for centralized publication, and transparency requirements for housing support agreements.

Committee members asked technical questions about background‑study vendors, vendor capacity in Greater Minnesota, the scope and burden of surety bonds, and processes for appeals when payments are withheld. Members generally treated the packages as informational and advised agencies they would follow up as bills are formally introduced.