Committee hears wide‑ranging case‑management reform bill amid strong support and opposition

Representative Jeff Fisher introduced House File 36666, a sweeping proposal to address what sponsors described as a fragile waiver case‑management system. The bill, as introduced, would reorganize statute for clarity, require grievance processes and contract audits, create a permanent waiver case‑management advisory working group, and include a timeline to phase out county contracting for waiver case management (a date discussed in testimony as July 2029). Fisher moved to lay the bill over for committee consideration.

Proponents — including family advocates and some county leaders — told the committee that contracted case‑management arrangements have produced high turnover and poor continuity of care. "Parents and families tell us they go through 2 to 3 case managers per year who are contracted employees with little experience and who never really establish a good relationship with their clients," said Jim Clapper, a parent and co‑founder of a family advocacy group, who testified in support of the bill’s direction to increase state oversight and accountability.

Other testifiers, including Ramsey County officials, statewide county associations and multiple community providers, urged caution. They argued contracted partners provide culturally competent services, preserve client choice, and allow counties to meet demand, especially in places where internal county staffing capacity is limited. "This bill moves toward eliminating contracted case management before we fully understand what's driving the challenges in the system," Katie Mullin, Ramsey County deputy director, told the committee. Several providers warned that a rapid phaseout could destabilize services and urged a deliberate, data‑driven transition with a rate study and stakeholder work group.

Representative Gilman offered an amendment to create an ongoing waiver case‑management advisory working group and a rate study; she withdrew a more prescriptive competing amendment after negotiation with the sponsor so the committee could pursue collaborative drafting. Several members pressed the sponsor on fiscal costs and implementation timelines; the sponsor said a fiscal note had been requested while noting flexibility on the phaseout date and reiterating the intent to protect clients during any transition.

After extensive public testimony and member discussion, Representative Fisher renewed his motion and the committee laid HF 36666 over for further work. Lawmakers signaled continued negotiations, including stakeholder input from counties, providers, families and advocacy groups, and potential technical fixes to the statute and implementation schedule before any final action.