Legislative Update Booklet 2018

July 2018 Welcome to the 2018 Legislative Update Summary Booklet! Historically, we have provided members with a detailed Legislative Update Book—with dozens of summaries for the laws that passed during the past legislative session.

Unfortunately, most of the work of the Care Providers of Minnesota lobbying team was contained in a large omnibus supplemental budget bill that was vetoed by the governor after the Legislature adjourned. Much of the legislative session was spent discussing the issues leading to maltreatment of older and vulnerable adults; and potential solutions identified by numerous stakeholder groups. While the compromise language included in Article 39 of the omnibus bill (“Eldercare and Vulnerable Adult Protections”) did not become law due to the gubernatorial veto, the issues included in the bill are still valid issues that we expect will continue as part of the discussions in the future.

The next page is a graphic depiction of the provisions included in the final bill—included here so you can get a sense of the scope of the issues of concern from last session as well as future work we can expect next year at the state Capitol. Note that the omnibus bill did not include all of the provisions that were important to some of the stakeholder groups—consumer and family advocates would also like additional enforcement options, enhanced rights for termination of services, and a more directed approach to obtaining assisted living licensure.

Having described what was NOT passed into law, there were a few laws passed during the 2018 session that have some direct/indirect impact on your operations. These laws, as well as a more detailed session summary, are included in this booklet.

If you have any questions or need more information about anything you find in this book, do not hesitate to contact me at 952-851-2487 or pcullen@careproviders.org.

Sincerely,

Patti Cullen, CAE President/CEO

2018 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE BOOK INDEX I. Session Summary............................................................................................................................4–5 II. Articles......................................................................................................................................... 6–21 1. All payer claims data........................................................................................................................................6 2. Veterans’ homes construction.........................................................................................................................7 3. Financial exploitation................................................................................................................................. 8–10 4. Advanced practice registered nurses expansion of duties...........................................................................11 5. Assistance animals................................................................................................................................... 12–13 6. Construction project rate...............................................................................................................................14 7. Controlled substances....................................................................................................................................15 8. Isolation & quarantine provisions............................................................................................................ 16–17 9. Property assessed clean energy (PACE)........................................................................................................18 10. Sexual assault kits.................................................................................................................................... 19–20 11. Workers’ Compensation Advisory Council....................................................................................................21 III. 2019 Session Preview, Important Upcoming Dates, and Interesting Links.............................................. 22

SUMMARY OF FINAL PROPOSAL Including Omnibus bill vetoed by Governor

SESSION SUMMARY 2018 Minnesota Legislative Session wraps with little reform The 2018 Minnesota Legislative Session kicked off on February 20, 2018, with the state’s budget administrators announcing a $329 million budget surplus, which set up expectations for major policy changes. Lawmakers and Governor Mark Dayton at the start of the session were focused on a capital investment bill, a federal tax conformity bill, and a handful of other issues including opioid abuse, MNLARS (the state’s drivers’ license, vehicle title, and registration system), elder abuse, and school (gun) safety. While there were many hearings and negotiations on all of those identified topics, final agreement and additional funding for those solutions never happened when the legislature adjourned sine die at midnight on Sunday, May 20, 2018.

In the final weeks of session, arguments about process on certain matters meant nearly as much as disagreements on policy. Gov. Dayton requested throughout the year that certain initiatives be sent to him as “standalone” bills, including elder care reforms; however, the Legislature preferred more of an “all or nothing approach” as demonstrated in their omnibus budget package. Senate File 3656, the supplemental omnibus budget bill, weighed in at 990 pages—arguably one of the largest pieces of legislation ever assembled. Included in the omnibus supplemental spending bill were a number of changes to laws related to older adult and vulnerable adult protections. Along with new regulations around electronic monitoring, deceptive marketing practices, and termination of services were new task forces to study assisted living facility licensure and crimes against vulnerable adults. Gov. Dayton subsequently vetoed both the tax bill and supplemental budget bill, citing ample warnings to the Republican-led Legislature.

Gov. Dayton did sign a capital bonding bill, which included funding for preservation of existing veterans’ nursing facilities, as well as funding for the development of three new homes. Despite passage of this bill, and a few dozen minor bills, the 2018 session is being largely seen as a “do nothing” session where political maneuvering seemed at times more important than compromises.

To add a final political twist to the events of the last six months, Sen. Michelle Fischbach (R–Paynesville) resigned her Senate seat soon after adjournment of the legislative session, to officially be sworn in as the state’s lieutenant governor. Then, in another twist, she signed on to formerGov. Tim Pawlenty’s ticket as lieutenant governor, as

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

he runs to regain the office he left eight years ago. You may remember that the early political tone of 2018 was set by Gov. Dayton’s appointment of his then lieutenant governor, Tina Smith, to the US Senate, supposedly elevating the current Senate President (Fischbach) to that vacant role. The slim 34-33 majority held by Senate Republicans raised the stakes around this action, and now with Fischbach’s resignation, and joining the Pawlenty ticket, we will have a special election wherein control of the Senate hangs in the balance.

The cost of this legislative session full of gridlock has yet to be measured. That measuring will occur in the November 2018 general election when all 134 seats of the Minnesota House, all congressional seats, and all constitutional offices, including governor, will be up for election.

2018 Legislature issue overview/2019 preview Healthcare

Similar to other policy areas, healthcare in 2018 was more about what did not pass at the end of the session.

Addressing the opioid epidemic, proposals to reform regulations around nursing facilities and assisted living, and payments to disability providers all began the year as bipartisan priorities and yet did not become law because those provisions were wrapped into the vetoed omnibus supplemental budget bill. Expect to see all of these revisited in some way next year.

Three major topics will likely dominate healthcare discussions for the 2019 Legislature, regardless of how the November elections turn out: 1. What to do with MinnesotaCare? With the provider tax scheduled to sunset in 2019, the state will have a decision to make regarding how to fund the longstanding public health insurance program. The choices will be fraught with real-life and political challenges: reinstating taxes is never popular, but potentially eliminating the health insurance of the working poor poses great political consequences.

2. Transparency, transparency, transparency— Both parties continue to trend towards increased transparency around healthcare pricing, whether that be how much a particular medical procedure will cost, or what charges go into the prices of prescription drugs. This past session did see some tension between the desire to know everything about prices and the private nature of certain healthcare contracts, but it is certain these conversations will continue next year.

4

3. Elder care/older & vulnerable adult protections— Advocates have denounced the inaction during the session and plan to hold town hall meetings around the state to continue to demand change.

Care Providers of Minnesota has vowed to continue to work with stakeholders to try to find compromise and changes to address a number of items from the advocate list including: licensing of assisted living, dementia care standards or certification, electronic monitoring, and other hot topics.

Transportation

In 2006, the Legislature passed a proposed constitutional amendment asking voters if proceeds from motor vehicle sales taxes should be used for transportation purposes, rather than deposited into the state’s general fund. In November of 2006, voters said yes, and that funding stream is now an integral part of the highway and transit system funding. Similarly, in the final days of session this year, the Minnesota House passed a proposed constitutional amendment allocating all sales tax revenues from motor vehicle parts and repairs to the state’s highway construction fund. A portion of these sales taxes were statutorily dedicated last session. Prior to 2017, they were funneled into the state’s general fund. The proposed amendment, contained in HF4437 and authored by Rep. Paul Torkelson (R-Hanska), passed off the House floor 76-54.

In the last few years, a broader acceptance of a funding inadequacy has replaced a view largely held by GOP members that existing funds, used more wisely, could meet the state’s transportation needs. Differences remain, however, concerning the best funding approach.

Republicans believe using general fund resources is the best approach because those funds are supposed to reflect the state’s evolving needs landscape. Minnesota sets a new budget every two years, and Republicans say that now is the time to set these funds aside. Democrats maintain that the proposed auto parts sales tax transfer is not enough to meet the needs, and siphons money away from other crucial needs. Despite not doing so when the DFL held legislative majorities during Dayton’s first term, most leaders on the left believe a fuel tax increase is the best way to fund roads and bridges.

While the bill passed a number of Senate committees, it was not brought up for a vote on the Senate floor and, as a result, will not be on the ballot this fall. Additionally, all of the other transportation policy and finance proposals failed to become law and were vetoed along with everything else in the supplemental budget bill.

5

Capital investment

The even-numbered year of the biennium is traditionally the year the Legislature passes a bonding bill. Although the Legislature passed a bonding bill last year, Gov. Dayton proposed a $1.5 billion public works bill this January. In the bill, Dayton focused on infrastructure at state colleges and universities, clean water, and state buildings. Leaders of his own administration at Minnesota Management and Budget said that based on the budget forecast, the state could afford a roughly $800 million bonding bill this session.

House and Senate bonding committees met throughout the session but had yet to pass a bonding bill as the clock was winding down. The Senate, in fact, took up and failed to pass a version of the bonding bill with 10 days to go in session. Bonding bills require a supermajority of each body, not a simple majority like most bills. During the final weekend of session, negotiations began in earnest and the Legislature passed and sent to the governor a $1.43 billion bonding bill. Of the $1.43 billion, $825 million is general obligation bonding. The remaining comes from trunk highway bonds, the Minnesota Rail Service Improvement Fund, the general fund, and the Environment National Resources Trust Fund.

The bonding bill funded transportation to the tune of $543 million for state roads and bridges, but none of it went for transit expansion (read: Southwest Light Rail). It also includes about $180 million for higher education, $32 million for new veterans’ homes in three communities, $28 million for mental health crisis centers, and $90 million for water and wastewater needs across the state.

The governor signed the bonding bill into law after line-item vetoing a $1 million grant for a new regulation on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The bill this year is in addition to a significant bonding bill that was passed and signed last year totaling $990 million in general obligation bonds.

Future work

The summer and fall promise to be filled with campaigns and candidates as the entire House of Representatives is up for election, along with Minnesota electing new constitutional officers (governor, attorney general, auditor) eight US representatives, two US senators, and at least one state senator. Since the 2019 legislative session is the start of the next biennium, it is also the session where the biennial budget will need to be developed and passed into law before July 1, 2019. Opening day of the 91st session of the Minnesota Legislature is Tuesday, January 8, 2019, at 12:00 PM.

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

ALL PAYER CLAIMS DATABASE EXTENSION Chapter 180 | SF2675 | Effective: August 1, 2018 Short description

This change extends the all payer claims database until 2023 and clarifies that the commissioner shall not require self-insurers governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to comply with the section.

Summary

In 2008, the Minnesota Legislature passed groundbreaking health reform legislation that, among other initiatives, charged the commissioner of health with developing a system to create greater transparency of provider cost and quality. As one component of the system, Minnesota Department of Health staff and contractors developed, with input from community advisors, the Minnesota Health Care Claims Reporting System (MHCCRS), also known as Minnesota’s All Payer Claims Database (MN APCD).

While the MN APCD was originally limited to support Minnesota’s Provider Peer Grouping (PPG) initiative, the 2014 Legislature recognized the importance of using MN APCD as a tool to address other key questions to inform healthcare delivery system reform. MDH was authorized to perform relevant analyses about variation of cost, quality, utilization, and disease burden, in addition to using the data for certain evaluation activities. This year the Legislature extended this until 2023.

The continued authorized uses for MN APCD now include: 1. evaluating of the performance of the Health Care Homes program; 2. studying hospital readmission rates and trends, in collaboration with the Reducing Avoidable Readmissions Effectively (RARE) campaign; 3. analyzing variations in healthcare costs, quality, utilization, and illness burden based on geographical areas or populations; 4. evaluating the State Innovation Model (SIM) testing grant received by the departments of health and human services; 5. conducting a one-time study of chronic pain management procedures (completed in January 2015); 6. assessing the feasibility of conducting state-based risk adjustment in the individual and small group health insurance markets; and 7. studying trends in healthcare spending for specific chronic conditions and risk factors.

Implications

Care Providers of Minnesota continues discussions with the representatives of the APCD to dive more deeply into uses of the database. The ongoing collection will provide for richer data to use in these discussions.

Bill language

Chapter 180: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2018&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=180

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

6

VETERANS’ HOMES CONSTRUCTION Chapter 214 | HF4425 (bonding bill) | Effective: August 1, 2018 Short description

Money for asset preservation for existing, as well as, predesign, design, construct, furnish, and equip new veterans’ homes was included in the bonding bill.

Summary

Money for asset preservation improvements and betterments of a capital nature at the veterans’ homes in Minneapolis, Hastings, Fergus Falls, Silver Bay, and Luverne was included in the bonding bill.

Money for predesign, design, construct, furnish, and equip a veterans’ home in Bemidji, Montevideo, and Preston were also included in the bonding bill.

Implications

Veterans’ homes can present competition for employees to some of the members of the Association.

Bill language

Chapter 214, Article 1, Section 19: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2018&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=214

7

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION OF OLDER ADULTS Chapter 161 | HF3833 | Effective: August 1, 2018 Short description

This law provides financial exploitation protections for adults aged 65 or older and vulnerable adults by permitting broker-dealers and investment advisors, under limited circumstances in which financial exploitation is suspected, to disclose information and delay disbursements or transactions.

Summary

The bill makes several important steps to allow for increased financial protections for adults aged 65 or older and vulnerable adults.

First, the bill allows a broker–dealer or investment advisor to notify the commissioner of commerce or the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) when they suspect financial exploitation and provide civil and administrative immunity for disclosing information to the government in the course of reporting or cooperating with an investigation or prosecution of financial exploitation.

Second, it permits broker–dealers or investment advisors to notify third parties, except a suspected perpetrator, when they suspect financial exploitation and provide civil and administrative immunity for disclosing information.

Third, it requires broker–dealers or investment advisors to delay disbursements or hold transactions if told by the commissioner of commerce, law enforcement, or a prosecuting attorney’s office that there is reasonable evidence of financial exploitation.

Finally, it permits broker–dealers or investment brokers to delay a disbursement or hold a transaction if they suspect financial exploitation provided that: • they inform everyone authorized to use the account, except a suspected perpetrator, of the reason for the delay or hold; • they notify the commissioner of commerce and MAARC; and • they cooperate with government investigations by providing documentation of internal reviews related to the suspected case of financial exploitation.

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

Implications

Protections against financial exploitation of residents is a topic which we consistently lobby. This year’s movements attempt to make it easier to slow down the exploitation by including the ability for brokers or financial investment advisors to enter the conversation.

Bill language

Chapter 161: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/ laws/?year=2018&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=161 Section 1. [45A.01] DEFINITIONS. Subdivision 1. Scope and application. For purposes of this chapter, the terms in this section have the meanings given them.

Subd. 2. Broker-dealer. “Broker-dealer” has the meaning given in section 80A.41.

Subd. 3. Commissioner. “Commissioner” means the commissioner of commerce.

Subd. 4. Common entry point. “Common entry point” has the meaning given in section 626.5572, subdivision 5.

Subd. 5. Eligible adult. “Eligible adult” means: (1) a person 65 years of age or older; or (2) a person subject to section 626.5572, subdivision 21.

Subd. 6. Financial exploitation. “Financial exploitation” means: (1) the wrongful or unauthorized taking, withholding, appropriation, expenditure, or use of money, assets, or property of an eligible adult; or (2) an act or omission taken by a person, including through the use of a power of attorney, guardianship, trustee, or conservatorship of an eligible adult, to: (i) obtain control, through deception, intimidation, or undue influence, over the eligible adult’s money, assets, or property to deprive the eligible adult of the ownership, use, benefit, or possession of the eligible adult’s money, assets, or property; or (ii) convert money, assets, or property of the eligible adult to deprive the eligible adult of the ownership, use, benefit, or possession of

8

the eligible adult’s money, assets, or property.

Subd. 7. Investment adviser. “Investment adviser” has the meaning given in section 80A.41.

Subd. 8. Lead investigative agency. “Lead investigative agency” has the meaning given in section 626.5572, subdivision 13.

Sec. 2. [45A.02] GOVERNMENTAL DISCLOSURES. If a broker-dealer or investment adviser reasonably believes that financial exploitation of an eligible adult may have occurred, may have been attempted, or is being attempted, the broker-dealer or investment adviser may promptly notify the commissioner and the common entry point.

Sec. 3. [45A.03] IMMUNITY FOR GOVERNMENTAL DISCLOSURES. A broker-dealer or investment adviser who, in good faith, makes a disclosure of information pursuant to section 45A.02, cooperates with a civil or criminal investigation of financial exploitation of an eligible adult, or testifies about alleged financial exploitation of an eligible adult in a judicial or administrative proceeding is immune from administrative or civil liability that might otherwise arise from the disclosure or testimony or for failure to notify the customer of the disclosure or testimony.

Sec. 4. [45A.04] THIRD-PARTY DISCLOSURES. If a broker-dealer or investment adviser reasonably believes that financial exploitation of an eligible adult may have occurred, may have been attempted, or is being attempted, a broker-dealer or investment adviser may notify a third party reasonably associated with the eligible adult or any other person permitted under state or federal law or rule, rules of a self-regulating organization, or customer agreement. Disclosure may not be made to a third party that is suspected of financial exploitation or other abuse of the eligible adult.

Sec. 5. [45A.05] IMMUNITY FOR THIRD-PARTY DISCLOSURES. A broker-dealer or investment adviser who, in good faith, complies with section 45A.04 is immune from administrative or civil liability that might otherwise arise from the disclosure.

Sec. 6. [45A.06] DELAYING DISBURSEMENTS. (a) A broker-dealer or investment adviser shall delay a disbursement from or place a hold on a transaction involving an account of an eligible adult or an account on which an eligible adult is a beneficiary if the commissioner of commerce, law enforcement agency, or the prosecuting attorney’s office provides information to the broker-dealer or investment adviser

9

demonstrating that it is reasonable to believe that financial exploitation of an eligible adult may have occurred, may have been attempted, or is being attempted. A broker-dealer or investment adviser may delay a disbursement from or place a hold on a transaction involving an account of an eligible adult or an account on which an eligible adult is a beneficiary if: (1) the broker-dealer or investment adviser reasonably believes, after initiating an internal review of the requested disbursement or transaction and the suspected financial exploitation, that the requested disbursement or transaction may result in financial exploitation of an eligible adult; and (2) the broker-dealer or investment adviser: (i) immediately, but in no event more than two business days after the delayed disbursement or transaction, provides written notification of the delay or hold and the reason for the delay or hold to all parties authorized to transact business on the account, unless the party is reasonably believed to have engaged in suspected or attempted financial exploitation of the eligible adult; (ii) immediately, but in no event more than two business days after the delayed disbursement or transaction, notifies the commissioner and the common entry point; and (iii) provides documentation and updates of any internal review conducted by the brokerdealer or investment adviser upon request of the commissioner, lead investigative agency, law enforcement agency, or the prosecuting attorney’s office. (b) A delay of a disbursement or hold on a transaction as authorized by this section expires upon the sooner of: (1) the broker-dealer or investment adviser reasonably believes that the disbursement or transaction will not result in financial exploitation of the eligible adult if the brokerdealer or investment adviser initiated the delay of disbursement or hold on the transaction; (2) a determination by the commissioner, law enforcement agency, lead investigative agency, or prosecuting attorney’s office that the disbursement or transaction will not result in financial exploitation of the eligible adult; or (3) 15 business days after the date on which the broker-dealer or investment adviser first delayed disbursement of the funds or held the transaction, unless the commissioner, law enforcement agency, lead investigative agency, or prosecuting attorney’s office requests that the broker-dealer or investment adviser extend the delay or hold, in which case the

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

delay or hold expires no more than 25 business days after the date on which the broker-dealer or investment adviser first delayed disbursement or placed the hold on the transaction. (c) An eligible adult or other interested person as defined in section 524.5-102 may appeal to the commissioner for the termination of the delay of the disbursement of funds or hold on the transaction.

The commissioner shall issue a decision within five business days of receiving the appeal. A decision of the commissioner may be reviewed consistent with the contested case proceeding procedure provided in chapter 14. (d) Provided that a broker-dealer or investment adviser’s internal review of the suspected or attempted financial exploitation of the eligible adult supports the broker-dealer or investment adviser’s reasonable belief that financial exploitation of the eligible adult has occurred, has been attempted, or is being attempted, the temporary delay or hold may be extended by the broker-dealer or investment adviser for no longer than ten business days following the date authorized by paragraph (b), clause (2), unless otherwise terminated or extended by the commissioner, law enforcement agency, lead investigative agency, or prosecuting attorney’s office or an order of a court.

Sec. 7. [45A.07] IMMUNITY FOR DELAYING DISBURSEMENTS. A broker-dealer or investment adviser that, in good faith, complies with section 45A.06 or the commissioner of commerce, law enforcement agency, or the prosecuting attorney’s office is immune from administrative or civil liability that might otherwise arise from the delay in a disbursement or placing a hold on a transaction in accordance with this chapter.

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

10

ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSES EXPANSION OF DUTIES Chapter 170 | HF2746 | Effective: August 1, 2018 Short description

This bill modified the practice of advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) in some home care and nursing facility processes by adding them with physicians for certain activities.

Summary

The change alters the home care statutes by adding advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) to the list of providers that clients are able to notify that they are discontinuing a life-sustaining treatment.

Another change for our members is adding APRNs to those who may exempt from the federal screening requirements, by adding APRNs to physicians as those who can determine that delaying admission until preadmission screening is completed would adversely affect the person’s health and safety; and adding to the attending physician the ability to authorize the emergency placement and documenting the reason that the emergency placement is recommended.

Under Minnesota Statute 256B.0575 physicians or APRNs may also certify that the person is expected to reside in the long-term care facility for three calendar months or less.

The change also adds APRNs to 256B.0595 as able to certify for MA that the son or daughter was residing in the individuals home for a period of at least two years immediately before the date the individual became institutionalized.

Finally, the change added APRN to 256B.0625, allowing them to certify that the patient has a terminal illness or condition for payment of medical assistance in a swing bed.

Implications

Advanced practice registered nurses are continuing to fill in roles that were previously only available to physicians.

As we continue to see a shortage of physicians, other medical providers, such as APRNs, will increase their roles and responsibilities.

Bill language

Chapter 170: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=170&year=2018&type=0#laws.0.3.0

11

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

ASSISTANCE ANIMALS Chapter 106 | HF3157 | Effective: August 1, 2018 Short description

This bill established a crime for misrepresenting an animal as a service animal, established immunity from liability for real property owners required to provide access to assistance animals, and created a notice for display in a place of public accommodation.

Summary

Assistance animals are defined as an animal that assists, supports, or provides a service to a person with a disability. Real property is defined to include any physical location or portion of real property that federal or state law or local ordinance requires to be accessible to a person with a disability who is using an assistance animal.

The law establishes that the owner of the real property is not liable for any injury or damages cause by an assistance animal if the owner believes in good faith that the animal is an assistance animal or the individual using the assistance animal has represented that the animal is an assistance animal and the damage is not caused by the negligence of the owner of the real property.

The law prohibits intentionally misrepresenting an animal in that person’s property as a service animal and is guilty of a petty misdemeanor for first offense and misdemeanor for second offense. Service animal is defined and has the meaning given in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) title 28, section 36.104 as amended.

Implications

The service animal definition in 28 CFR 36.104 is limited to any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition.

These service animals are not to be confused with the therapy or support animals that are more common in our settings.

Bill language

Chapter 106: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/ laws/?year=2018&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=106 Section 1. [604A.302] ASSISTANCE ANIMAL ACCESS TO REAL PROPERTY; PROPERTY OWNER IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY. Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) The definitions in this subdivision apply to this section. (b) “Assistance animal” means an animal that assists, supports, or provides a service to a person with a disability. (c) “Owner” means the owner of real property, a contract for deed vendee, receiver, personal representative, trustee, lessor, lessee, agent, or other person directly or indirectly in control of the real property. (d) “Real property” includes any physical location or portion of real property that federal or state law or local ordinance requires to be accessible to a person with a disability who is using an assistance animal.

Subd. 2. Immunity. An owner of real property is not liable for any injury or damage caused by an assistance animal if: (1) the owner believes in good faith that the animal is an assistance animal or the individual using the assistance animal represents that the animal is an assistance animal; and (2) the injury or damage is not caused by the negligence of the owner of the real property and the owner is not liable under section 347.22.

Sec. 2. [609.833] MISREPRESENTATION OF SERVICE ANIMAL. Subdivision 1. Definitions. As used in this section: (1) “place of public accommodation” has the meaning given in section 363A.03, subdivision 34; and (2) “service animal” has the meaning given in Code of Federal Regulations, title 28, section 36.104, as amended through March 1, 2018.

Subd. 2. Prohibited conduct. A person may not, directly or indirectly through statements or conduct, intentionally misrepresent an animal in that person’s

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

12

possession as a service animal in any place of public accommodation to obtain any rights or privileges available to a person who qualifies for a service animal under state or federal law knowing that the person is not entitled to those rights or privileges.

Subd. 3. Penalty. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a person who violates subdivision 2 is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. (b) A person who violates subdivision 2 a second or subsequent time is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Subd. 4. Notice. (a) A conspicuous sign may be posted in a location accessible to public view in a place of public accommodation that contains the following, or substantially similar, language: “NOTICE Service Animals Welcome. It is illegal for a person to misrepresent an animal in that person’s possession as a service animal.� (b) The Council on Disability may prepare and make available to businesses a brochure detailing permissible questions a business owner may ask to determine whether an animal is a service animal, proper answers to those questions, and guidelines defining unacceptable behavior.

EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective August 1, 2018, and applies to acts committed on or after that date.

13

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT RATE Chapter 141 | SF2762 | Effective: January 1, 2019 Short description

Changes the construction project rate for a certain nursing facility.

Summary

The construction project rate was increased for a specific Ramsey County nursing facility.

Bill language

Chapter 141: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/ laws/?year=2018&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=141

Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 256B.434, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 4j. Construction project rate increase for certain nursing facilities. (a) This subdivision applies to nursing facilities: (1) located in Ramsey County; (2) with at least 130 active beds as of September 30, 2017; (3) with a portion of beds dually certified for Medicare and Medicaid and a portion of beds certified for Medicaid only; and (4) with debt service payments that are not being covered by the existing property payment rate on September 30, 2017. (b) The commissioner shall increase the property rate of each facility meeting the qualifications of this subdivision by $7.55. (c) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, money available under section 144A.073, subdivision 15, after the completion of the 2018 moratorium exception approval process under section 144A.073, subdivision 3, shall be used to pay the medical assistance cost for the property rate increase in this subdivision.

EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective January 1, 2019.

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

14

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES Chapter 195 | SF2578 | Effective: August 1, 2018 Short description

This bill adds new drugs to the controlled substance schedules in Chapter 152; prohibits minors from possessing kratom.

Summary

The change in law adds the following substances to “schedule I” of the controlled substances law: • 4-(4-bromophenyl)-4-dimethylamino-1phenethylcyclohexanol (bromadol), which is a synthetic opiate; and • 1-(3-chlorophenyl) piperazine (metachlorophenylpiperazine or mCPP), which is a synthetic stimulant.

The change also aligns the statutory Schedule IV of the controlled substances law with that found in the Board of Pharmacy’s rules by adding the following opiate drugs: • pentazocine; and • butorphanol (including its optical isomers).

Finally, it makes it a gross misdemeanor to sell kratom to someone under the age of 18, and a misdemeanor for someone under the age of 18 to possess it.

Implications

Provided as an update for members to keep track of changes to the controlled substances schedule.

Bill language

Chapter 195: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2018&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=195

15

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

ISOLATION & QUARANTINE PROVISIONS Chapter 167 | SF3102 | Effective: August 1, 2018 Short description

This bill modifies the definition of communicable disease for purposes of isolation and quarantine laws and prohibits an employer from discharging or discriminating against an employee who chooses to care for a minor, disabled adult family member, or vulnerable adult family member who is subject to isolation or quarantine.

Summary

This bill changes several sections pertaining to quarantine and isolation. First, it modifies the definition of communicable disease to mean a disease that can be transmitted person-to-person and for which isolation or quarantine is an effective control strategy. The language lists several examples of a communicable diseases including: viral hemorrhagic fevers; severe acute respiratory syndromes; influenza that can cause a pandemic; a disease caused by bioterrorism; and any communicable disease included in the list of quarantinable communicable diseases as authorized by 361(b) of the Public Health Service Act 42 U.S.C. 264(b).

Second, the bill establishes employee protections for persons who have been isolated or quarantined and expands the definition of qualifying employee to an employee responsible for caring for a person subject to isolation or quarantine. This has the effect of expanding the protections to employees responsible for caring for persons subject to isolation or quarantine; an employer cannot discipline or discriminate against an employee who is responsible for the care of a person subject to isolation or quarantine.

Finally, the bill expands the employment protections provided to an employee caring for someone subject to isolation or quarantine; an employer cannot discharge or discriminate against an employee caring for a minor, disabled adult family member, or vulnerable adult family member who is subject to isolation or quarantine.

Implications

Employment law implications for employees who have the responsibility to care for a person who is subject to isolation or quarantine.

Bill language

Chapter 167: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/ laws/?year=2018&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=167

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 144.419, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subdivision 1. Definitions. For purposes of sections 144.419 to 144.4196, the following definitions apply: (1) “bioterrorism” means the intentional use of any microorganism, virus, infectious substance, or biological product that may be engineered as a result of biotechnology, or any naturally occurring or bioengineered component of any such microorganism, virus, infectious substance, or biological product, to cause death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism in order to influence the conduct of government or to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (2) “communicable disease” means a disease caused by a living organism or virus and believed to be caused by bioterrorism or a new or novel or previously controlled or eradicated infectious agent or biological toxin that can be transmitted person to person and for which isolation or quarantine is an effective control strategy, excluding including: (i) viral hemorrhagic fevers; (ii) severe acute respiratory syndromes; (iii) influenza that can cause a pandemic; (iv) a disease caused by bioterrorism; (v) a new or novel or previously controlled or eradicated infectious agent or biological toxin; or (vi) any communicable disease included in the list of quarantinable communicable diseases as authorized by section 361(b) of the Public Health Service Act, United States Code, title 42, section 264(b).

Communicable disease excludes a disease that is directly transmitted as defined under section 144.4172, subdivision 5; (3) “isolation” means separation, during the period of communicability, of a person infected with a communicable disease, in a place and under conditions so as to prevent direct or indirect transmission of an infectious agent to others; and (4) “quarantine” means restriction, during a period of communicability, of activities or travel of an otherwise healthy person who likely has been exposed to a communicable disease to prevent disease transmission during the period of communicability in the event the person is infected.

16

Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 144.4196, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subdivision 1. Definitions. For purposes of this section: (1) “qualifying employee” means a person who performs services for hire in Minnesota and who has been subject to isolation or quarantine, or has responsibility for the care of a person under subdivision 2 who is subject to isolation or quarantine, for a communicable disease as defined in section 144.419, subdivision 1, clause (2). The term applies to persons who comply with isolation or quarantine restrictions because of: (i) a commissioner’s directive; (ii) an order of a federal quarantine officer; (iii) a state or federal court order; or (iv) a written recommendation of the commissioner or designee that the person enter isolation or quarantine; and (2) “employer” means any person having one or more employees in Minnesota and includes the state and any political subdivision of the state.

Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 144.4196, subdivision 2, is amended to read: Subd. 2. Protections. (a) An employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten, or penalize a qualifying employee, or otherwise discriminate in the work terms, conditions, location, or privileges of the employee, because the employee: (1) has been in isolation or quarantine.; or (2)(i) is not in isolation or quarantine, but has responsibility for the care of a person in isolation or quarantine who is a minor or an adult family member who is a disabled or vulnerable adult; (ii) has assumed responsibility for all or a portion of the care voluntarily, by contract, or by agreement. (b) A qualifying employee claiming a violation of paragraph (a) may bring a civil action for recovery of lost wages or benefits, for reinstatement, or for other relief within 180 days of the claimed violation or 180 days of the end of the isolation or quarantine, whichever is later. A qualifying employee who prevails shall be allowed reasonable attorney fees fixed by the court. (c) Nothing in this subdivision is intended to alter sick leave or sick pay terms of the employment relationship.

17

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY (PACE) Chapter 155 | SF3245 | Effective: Various Short description

An act relating to energy that modifies the energy improvements program by providing consumer protections for residential property assessed clean energy (PACE) loans.

Summary

The bill changes and adds a number of definitions for the clean energy program. It also specifies that a commercial PACE program must serve a public purpose and not primarily be for the benefit of private entities or private investors even though private benefit may result incidentally.

There are many more implications and changes for the residential PACE loan program and added consumer protections for the homeowners in residential programs.

Implications

Care Providers of Minnesota discussed the PACE program with the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) about the implications for the nursing facility payment system, including cost classification, cost definitions, and reimbursement. Accordingly, DHS does not consider the PACE project related property tax assessment to be a special assessment, thus it would not be treated as a pass-through cost for rate setting purposes. DHS’ position is that property taxes, special assessments, and payments in lieu of taxes as allowed in the fixed rate component of the reimbursement rate are levies made by governmental agencies for services provided by those agencies directly to the nursing facility.

In order to address DHS’ concerns, legislation is needed to change the nursing facility payment statute.

Bill language

Chapter 155: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2018&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=155

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

18

SEXUAL ASSAULT KITS Chapter 160 | SF2863 | Effective: August 1, 2018 Short description

This bill establishes procedures for handling sexual assault examination kits and transfers from healthcare professionals to law enforcement agencies and victim rights to sexual assault information.

Summary

The changes presented by this bill have implications for victims of sexual assault, as well as the process to investigate sexual assault. The bill requires hospitals to notify victims of sexual assault of their right to obtain status information about unrestricted sexual assault examination kits.

The bill goes on to change the transfer process of unrestricted sexual examination kits from healthcare professionals to law enforcement by requiring law enforcement to retrieve an unrestricted sexual assault examination kit from a healthcare professional within 10 days of receiving written notice.

The bill goes on to change the submission of the unrestricted sexual examination kit by requiring law enforcement to submit an unrestricted sexual assault kit for testing within 60 days of receiving the kit, unless the agency determines the kit adds no evidentiary value to the case.

Further, the bill clarifies the storage of the kit by requiring law enforcement to keep a kit that is not tested for at least 18 months.

Finally, in some clarifying language, the bill provides that compliance with the deadlines in this section does not impact the admissibility of the evidence, establishes the specific data related to sexual assault examination kits that the victim is entitled to receive from law enforcement, and requires law enforcement agencies to develop and adopt policies to govern the process of responding to victim requests for data.

Implications

It is good to familiarize yourself with the procedures that law enforcement has for the handling of sexual assault examination kits. It is also good for operations to have solid procedures and policies regarding sexual assault in your settings to avoid the implications for unknowingly or inadvertently damaging evidence that may be necessary for convictions.

19

Bill language

Chapter 160: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/ laws/?year=2018&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=160 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 144.6586, subdivision 2, is amended to read: Subd. 2. Contents of notice. The commissioners of health and public safety, in consultation with sexual assault victim advocates and health care professionals, shall develop the notice required by subdivision 1. The notice must inform the victim, at a minimum, of: (1) the obligation under section 609.35 of the county where the criminal sexual conduct occurred to pay for the examination performed for the purpose of gathering evidence, that payment is not contingent on the victim reporting the criminal sexual conduct to law enforcement, and that the victim may incur expenses for treatment of injuries; and (2) the victim’s rights if the crime is reported to law enforcement, including the victim’s right to apply for reparations under sections 611A.51 to 611A.68, information on how to apply for reparations, and information on how to obtain an order for protection or a harassment restraining order.; and (3) the opportunity under section 611A.27 to obtain status information about an unrestricted sexual assault examination kit, as defined in section 299C.106, subdivision 1, paragraph (h).

Sec. 2. [299C.106] SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KIT HANDLING. Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) As used in this section, the terms in this subdivision have the meanings given. (b) “Forensic laboratory” has the meaning given in section 299C.157, subdivision 1, clause (2). (c) “Patient” has the meaning given in section 144.291, subdivision 2, paragraph (g), and means a person who consents to a sexual assault examination. (d) “Release form” means a document provided by the hospital to the patient at the time of the sexual assault examination that gives the patient the option of authorizing, in writing, the release of the kit to law enforcement. (e) “Restricted sexual assault examination kit”

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

means a kit that does not have an accompanying release form signed by the patient authorizing law enforcement to submit the kit to a forensic laboratory. A health care professional shall provide the patient with information about how to convert a restricted sexual assault examination kit to unrestricted status. (f) “Sexual assault examination kit” means a collection of evidence, including biological material, gathered from a patient by a health care professional. (g) “Submitted sexual assault examination kit” means an unrestricted kit that has been submitted by law enforcement to a forensic laboratory. (h) “Unrestricted sexual assault examination kit” means a kit that has an accompanying release form signed by the patient allowing law enforcement to submit the kit to a forensic laboratory. (i) “Unsubmitted sexual assault examination kit” means an unrestricted kit that has not been submitted by law enforcement to a forensic laboratory.

Subd. 2. Transfer of unrestricted sexual assault examination kit from health care professional to law enforcement agency. When a sexual assault examination is performed, evidence is collected, and the patient requests that law enforcement officials be notified and signs a release form, the individual performing the examination, or the individual’s designee, shall notify the appropriate law enforcement agency of the collection of the evidence in an unrestricted sexual assault examination kit. The agency must retrieve an unrestricted sexual assault examination kit from the health care professional within ten days of receiving notice that the kit is available for transfer. Notification to the agency shall be made in writing, by telephone, or by electronic communication.

Subd. 3. Submission of unrestricted sexual assault examination kit. Within 60 days of receiving an unrestricted sexual assault examination kit, a law enforcement agency shall submit the kit for testing to a forensic laboratory, unless the law enforcement agency deems the result of the kit would not add evidentiary value to the case. If a kit is not submitted during this time, the agency shall make a record, in consultation with the county attorney, stating the reasons why the kit was not submitted. Restricted sexual assault examination kits shall not be submitted for testing.

Subd. 4. No basis for dismissal or bar to admissibility of evidence. Failure to meet a deadline established

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

in this section is not a basis for dismissal of a criminal action or a bar to the admissibility of the evidence in a criminal action.

Sec. 3. [611A.27] VICTIM RIGHTS TO SEXUAL ASSAULT EVIDENCE INFORMATION. Subdivision 1. Access to law enforcement data. (a) Upon written request from the victim or victim’s designee as described in subdivision 2, the investigating law enforcement agency shall release the following active investigative data, as defined in section 13.82, subdivision 7, to a victim of sexual assault about a submitted sexual assault examination kit, as defined in section 299C.106, subdivision 1, paragraph (g): (1) the date that a sexual assault examination kit was submitted to a forensic laboratory, as defined in section 299C.157, subdivision 1, clause (2), and the date that the agency received notice of the results of that testing; and (2) whether a DNA profile was obtained from the testing. (b) The agency may refuse the request under paragraph (a) if the release of that data will interfere with the investigation.

Subd. 2. Responding to a victim request for data.

No later than January 1, 2019, each law enforcement agency shall adopt policies and procedures subject to section 13.82, subdivision 7, to provide investigative data under this section that includes but is not limited to the following requirements: (1) agency identification of a representative or representatives to respond to requests for data from sexual assault victims and to serve as a liaison between the agency and the forensic laboratory; (2) agency response to inquiries within 30 days of receipt, unless the agency declines to provide the information under subdivision 1, paragraph (b); (3) the sexual assault victim can designate another person to request information on the victim’s behalf by providing written authorization to the agency except that an agency can decline to provide the information under subdivision 1, paragraph (b); and (4) agency development of a procedure that allows a sexual assault victim to contact the agency representative to request that a restricted kit as defined in section 299C.106, subdivision 1, paragraph (e), be reclassified as an unrestricted kit as defined in section 299C.106, subdivision 1, paragraph (h), if the restricted kit is in the possession of the agency.

20

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Chapter 185 | HF3873 | Effective: Various Short description

The work of the Workers’ Compensation Advisory Council brings together labor and business to attempt to resolve issues related to workers’ compensation claims. This year they brought forward a couple of changes.

Summary

The first change to workers’ compensation allows that in the event the number of Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals judges available to hear a case is insufficient, there is a process to allow retired judges to fill in to ensure that claims continue to move through the process.

The second major change integrates the coordination of the Office of Administrative Hearings’ case management system and the workers’ compensation imaging system.

It does this by coordination of the case management system and the workers’ compensation imaging system pending completion of the modernization program. It further provides that documents related to a workers’ compensation dispute that require action by the Office of Administrative Hearings must be filed with the office as provided by the chief administrative law judge. It specifies the documents that must be filed with the commissioner of labor and industry. It provides that documents filed with the Department of Labor & Industry under Chapter 176 (workers’ compensation) are private data on individuals and nonpublic data except that documents are available to: the office and the department, the parties to the workers’ compensation claim, intervenors in a dispute, attorneys to a party in a dispute, a person who has written authorization from a party to the workers’ compensation claim, and as otherwise allowed by law.

The changes establish a workers’ compensation hospital outpatient fee schedule (HOFS) for payment of workers’ compensation hospital outpatient surgical, emergency room, and clinic services, using Medicare’s Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) system as a framework. It also requires the commissioner of labor and industry to conduct a study of the HOFS, and report to the Workers’ Compensation Advisory Council by January 15, 2021.

Finally, the change clarifies treatment of PTSD in workers’ compensation claims by stating: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 176.011, subdivision 15, is amended to read: (e) If, preceding the date of disablement or death, an employee who was employed on active duty as: a licensed police officer; a firefighter; a paramedic; an emergency medical technician; a licensed nurse employed to provide emergency medical services outside of a medical facility; a public safety dispatcher; an officer employed by the state or a political subdivision at a corrections, detention, or secure treatment facility; a sheriff or full-time deputy sheriff of any county; or a member of the Minnesota State Patrol is diagnosed with a mental impairment as defined in paragraph (d), and had not been diagnosed with the mental impairment previously, then the mental impairment is presumptively an occupational disease and shall be presumed to have been due to the nature of employment. This presumption may be rebutted by substantial factors brought by the employer or insurer. Any substantial factors that are used to rebut this presumption and that are known to the employer or insurer at the time of the denial of liability shall be communicated to the employee on the denial of liability. The mental impairment is not considered an occupational disease if it results from a disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, layoff, demotion, promotion, termination, retirement, or similar action taken in good faith by the employer.

Implications

From a business perspective, be aware that some changes were made. Because they were non-controversial changes with agreements between business, labor, insurer and department, there should be little change to your business.

Bill language

Chapter 185: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2018&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=185

21

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

2019 SESSION PREVIEW The 2019 legislative session starts on January 8 and must adjourn by May 20. The November election will have a huge impact on the session: there will be a new governor; all House seats are on the ballot; and there is a special election in the Senate that will determine the majority party of that body—with Senator Fischbach’s (R-Paynesville) resignation, they sit at a 33–33 tie. Should the Senate remain under GOP control, they will need to elect a new Senate president. Should the House remain under GOP control, there will be a vote for a new majority leader to replace Joyce Peppin (R-Rogers), who resigned her seat for a job in the private sector. The House will also need a new Health & Human Services Finance chair with the retirement of current chair, Matt Dean (R-Dellwood).

2019 is a budget year, which means the budgets for all areas of spending will be set for the biennium during the legislative session. Revenues for the state thus far in 2018 have come in higher than forecasted—if this trend continues, it will make the job of putting the budget together easier for the new governor and Legislature.

There will also be a strong focus on the measures that were vetoed by Governor Dayton in the supplemental spending bill and the omnibus tax bill during the 2018 legislative session, including older adult protection legislation and federal tax conformity.

IMPORTANT UPCOMING DATES

INTERESTING LINKS

June 29, 2018

How a bill becomes law www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/howbill

August 14, 2018

eptember 21, 2018 S

November 6, 2018

Early voting starts for the primary election Primary election day Early voting starts for the general election General election day

Frequently asked questions of the Minnesota Legislature www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/faq/faqtoc How to get on electronic mailings www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/elists

January 8, 2019 First day of the legislative session

May 20, 2019

Date by which the Legislature must adjourn

2018 Legislative Update | Care Providers of Minnesota | #CPMAdvocates

22

CARE PROVIDERS OF MINNESOTA 7851 Metro Parkway, Suite 200 Bloomington, MN 55425

www.careproviders.org 1-952-854-2844 or MN Toll-Free 1-800-462-0024

facebook.com/CPofMN

twitter.com/CPofMN linkedin.com/company/CPofMN youtube.com/user/careprovidersofMN