Febraury 16, 2009

The General Assembly is now heavy into the hearing schedules and debate has already begun on the House and Senate floors.

The ceremonial functions of the first few weeks are over and the majority of the Governor’s new cabinet has been confirmed by the Senate.

House Speaker Ron Richard has pushed the Governor’s economic development package through the House and it will be debated next week on the Senate floor. This is unprecedented to have a major package move so rapidly.

News this week includes:

Show Me Health Coverage plan is introduced and other progress on health-related bills
Senator Dempsey introduced SB306, which outlines a proposal to provide insurance for some low income individuals with incomes up to 225% of FPL. The Senator sponsored the Senate’s major health bill, SB1283, last year.  The bill died in the House.

SB306 proposes to cover individuals with earned income that is greater than the current eligibility level for the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program (about $292/month for a family of 3) and who do not have unearned income greater than the TANF eligibility. This could be problematic for parents who receive child support (which is considered unearned income) or have a family member who receives disability. Individuals must be uninsured for 6 months to be eligible. Dental and vision services are not included in the list of required benefits.

Insurance will be provided in the private market through high deductible plans with health savings accounts.  Each participant will be responsible to contribute to their health savings account based on a sliding fee scale from 1 to 5% of family income. In addition to the individual contribution, an employer, and the state may contribute to the health savings account. SB306 limits deductibles to the amount in the health savings account, and limits the cost of contributions to the health savings account, and copays to 5% of total family income. The cost of this will be a barrier to low income families who juggle rent, food and utility costs each month. 

Action in the H Special Committee on Health insurance:  HB60 (Lipke), which makes it easier to be eligible for the Missouri Insurance Pool (high risk pool) was heard this week. No action was taken on the bill, since Representative Erwin has introduced some related bills (HBs218 and 232), and the Committee wanted to consider these before taking action. Even with changes proposed in the bill, the cost of premiums for the Missouri Insurance Pool are prohibitive.

Nursing
HB 247, the companion bill to SB 152 (Clemens), was heard Tuesday morning.

The legislation, HB 247 (Loehner) revises the definition of "eligible student" as it relates to the Nursing Student Loan Program to allow individuals seeking doctoral degrees in nursing or education on a full-time or part-time basis to participate in the loan program.

Senate Health Committee
The Senate Health Committee heard two bill of interest on Tuesday morning.

SB 144 establishes the Prostate Cancer Pilot Program within the Department of Health and Senior Services. Subject to appropriations, the program shall fund prostate cancer screening and treatment services to certain uninsured men in the state. The department shall distribute grants to local health departments and federally qualified health centers. The program is open to uninsured or economically challenged men who are older than 50 years of age and uninsured or economically challenged men between 35 and 50 years of age who are at high risk for prostate cancer. This act also requires the program to provide cancer screening, referral services, treatment, and outreach and education activities.

The department is required to report to the Governor and the General Assembly by September 1, 2011, regarding the number of individuals screened and treated by the program and any cost savings as a result of early treatment of prostate cancer. This act will expire three years from the effective date.

This act is similar to HB 2441 (2008).

SB 104 provides that female students enrolling in sixth grade in public school may receive, at the option of a parent or guardian, an immunization for the human papillomavirus (HPV). The Department of Health and Senior Services shall directly mail age appropriate information to parents or guardians of female students entering the sixth grade regarding the connection between HPV and cervical cancer and the availability of the HPV immunization. Such information shall include the risk factors for developing cervical cancer, the connection between HPV and cervical cancer, how it is transmitted and how transmission can be prevented, the latest scientific information about the immunization's effectiveness, information about the importance of pap smears, and a statement explaining that questions from parents or guardians may be answered by a health care provider.

Each mailing shall request that the parents of female students entering grade 6 voluntarily furnish a written statement to the department, not later than 20 days after the first day of school, stating that they have received the information and that the student has received the immunization or the parents have decided not to have the student immunized. The informational mailing sent to parents shall have displayed in bold type that the request from the parent or guardian for the written statement is voluntary. The form to be returned by the parents shall not request identifying information about the student, parent or guardian. Nothing in the act shall be construed to prevent school attendance if a parent has opted not to have the student receive the HPV immunization or has not furnished the written statement.

Subject to appropriations, if a parent or guardian chooses to have the female student immunized for the HPV infection but is unable to pay, the student shall be immunized at public expense at or from the county, district, city public health center or a school nurse or with the costs of immunization paid through the Mo HealthNet program, private insurance or in a manner to be determined by the Department of Health and Senior Services subject to state and federal appropriations.

Beginning July 1, 2010, the department shall submit to the General Assembly a report detailing the number of sixth grade female students who have and have not been immunized against the HPV infection and the number of non-responses to the request for the written statement. The information derived from the written statement shall be used for statistical purposes only and shall not be used to personally identify any parent or guardian, or any student.
This act is substantially similar to SCS/SB 514(2007) and HCS/SS/SCS/SB 778(2008).

DOG Bills
Senator Goodman’s General Laws Committee heard three bills dealing with canine control on Tuesday.

SB 63 modifies various provisions relating to dog fighting.

SECTION 578.025
This act increases the penalty for being a spectator at a dog fighting event from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class D felony for a second or subsequent offense.

SECTION 578.026
Any authorized public health official or law enforcement officer may seek a warrant to allow him or her to enter private property to inspect, care for, or impound dogs that are the subject of a dogfighting violation. The county sheriff, or a designee, shall be notified when a public health official or law enforcement officer is seeking a warrant to enter property because of a dog fighting violation. The sheriff shall participate in serving the warrant.

Any law enforcement officer or public health official, who has probable cause to believe a violation of the dog fighting provisions has occurred and who has the authority to make a lawful seizure, shall take possession of the dogs and other property used in the violation.

The officer or official taking possession of the dog or property shall file with the court an affidavit verifying certain information relating to the violation and stating that he or she has reason to believe a violation has or was about to occur.

A person performing a lawful seizure because of a dog fighting violation, whether acting under the authority of a warrant or not, shall be given a disposition hearing within 30 days of the filing of the request in order to grant immediate disposition of the impounded dog. The person seizing the dog shall place it in the care of a veterinarian, animal shelter, or animal control authority. If such people are not available, the dog shall not be impounded unless diseased or disabled. The dog shall be humanely killed if a veterinarian determines the dog is diseased or disabled beyond recovery. No person who lawfully seizes a dog shall be liable for necessary property damage.
Owners of an impounded dog may prevent disposition of the dog by posting bond in an amount sufficient to cover the dog's care for 30 days. The authority with custody may dispose of the dog at the end of such time unless there is a court order prohibiting it. The court order shall provide for a bond or other security in an amount to cover the cost of care, keeping, or disposal of the dog.

The owner of a dog humanely killed under this act shall not be entitled to recover damages for the value of the dog if it was found by a veterinarian to be diseased or disabled or if the owner failed to post bond for its care and disposition after being notified of the impoundment.

SECTION 578.030
This act repeals provisions requiring dogs that are subject to a dog fighting violation be kept until a conviction or final discharge occurs with the case.

This act is similar to SB 819 (2008).
SB 201 states a person performing a lawful seizure because of a dog fighting violation, whether acting under the authority of a warrant or not, shall be given a disposition hearing within 30 days of the filing of the request in order to grant immediate disposition of the impounded dog. The person seizing the dog shall place it in the care of a veterinarian, animal shelter, or animal control authority. If such people are not available, the dog shall not be impounded unless diseased or disabled. The dog shall be humanely killed if a veterinarian determines the dog is diseased or disabled beyond recovery. No person who lawfully seizes a dog shall be liable for necessary property damage.

Owners of an impounded dog may prevent disposition of the dog by posting bond in an amount sufficient to cover the dog's care for 30 days. The authority with custody may dispose of the dog at the end of such time unless there is a court order prohibiting it. The court order shall provide for a bond or other security in an amount to cover the cost of care, keeping, or disposal of the dog.

The owner of a dog humanely killed under this act shall not be entitled to recover damages for the value of the dog if it was found by a veterinarian to be diseased or disabled or if the owner failed to post bond for its care and disposition after being notified of the impoundment.

This act is similar to HCS/HB 2416 (2008) and SB 819 (2008).
SB 227 under current law, certain dangerous wild animals may not be kept unless they are registered with local law enforcement except if the animals are kept in a zoo, circus, scientific or educational institution, research laboratory, veterinary hospital or animal refuge. This act removes the exception for animal refuges. The act also adds the criteria that research laboratories and scientific and educational institutions must be accredited, veterinary hospitals must be permitted by the Missouri Veterinary Medical Board, and zoos must be accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums in order for the exception to apply.

The act removes the margay, jaguarundi, coyote, and certain reptiles from the list of animals for which registration is required.

The act specifies that the law enforcement agency responsible fr receiving the registrations is the chief law enforcement official in each county or in the City of St. Louis, or his or her designee.

Any such dangerous wild animal shall be registered within 5 days of being acquired or moved into any county or the city of St. Louis. The act adds the requirement that registration of such animals must be renewed annually.
The chief law enforcement official in each county or in St. Louis is required to maintain the registry of dangerous wild animals and make the registry available for disaster preparedness, emergencies, and to the general public via a website. The official can charge a registration fee to cover the administrative expenses associated with maintaining the registry not to exceed $50 for a first registration or $25 for a renewal registration. Animal refuges that operate as non-profit organizations are exempt from the fee provisions.

The act specifies the information that must be recorded as part of the animal's registration.
Any animal required to be registered under this act shall be identifiable by a microchip or other reliable identification device.

The act prohibits the bringing of any such dangerous wild animal to a public, commercial, or retail establishment unless it is a veterinarian or veterinary clinic. The animals shall not come into contact with anyone other than the owner, possessor, handler, or veterinarian.

A violation of the act is a Class A misdemeanor.
The act is similar to SB 1032 (2008).

TABOR
House Budget Chair Icet had his House Joint Resolution 23 heard in his committee Wednesday morning.

Upon voter approval, this proposed constitutional amendmentprohibits appropriations in any fiscal year from exceeding thetotal state general revenue appropriations from the previous yearby more than the appropriations growth limit.  The appropriationsgrowth limit will be the greater of zero or the sum of the annualrate of inflation and the annual Missouri population growth.

In any fiscal year when the net general revenue collections arein excess of 1% of the authorized net general revenueappropriations allowed, 67% of the excess is to be transferred tothe Cash Operating Reserve Fund and 33% to the Budget ReserveFund, which are created by the bill.  Any revenue in excess ofthe specified limits of the funds will be used to permanentlyreduce the income tax rate rounded to the nearest .25%.

Total state general revenue appropriations may exceed theappropriations limit only if the Governor declares an emergencyand the General Assembly, by a two-thirds majority, approvesappropriation bills to meet the emergency.  The fundsappropriated to meet the emergency will not increase theappropriation limit for the succeeding fiscal year.

New or increased tax revenues or fees receiving voter approvalwill be exempt from the calculation of the appropriations growth limit for the year in which they are passed.

Sixty-seven percent of the balance in the Budget Reserve Fund onJuly 1 of each year is to be transferred to the Cash OperatingReserve Fund.  If the balance in the Cash Operating Reserve Fundexceeds 5% of the net general revenue collected in the previousfiscal year, the excess amount will be transferred to the GeneralRevenue Fund.

In any fiscal year in which the Governor reduces expendituresbelow amounts appropriated, the Governor may request an emergencyappropriation from the Budget Reserve Fund.  If the request isapproved by the General Assembly, funds may be restored to anyexpenditure authorized by existing appropriations.  If thebalance in the Budget Reserve Fund at the end of a fiscal yearexceeds 7% of the net general revenue collections for theprevious fiscal year, the excess funds will be transferred to theGeneral Revenue Fund.  If the balance is less than 7%, thedifference will be transferred from theGeneral Revenue Fundwithin five years.

Funds appropriated from the Budget Reserve Fund must be paid back within five years of the original transfer date.

A proposal similar to this bill was a disaster in Colorado.

The billionaire Rex Singquefield is pushing this legislation and experts were provided to the committee.

Every major public group will be in opposition to the legislation. However, if the Budget Chair wants this legislation out of committee it will be difficult to stop as he carries a “big stick”.

Next Week
The House and Senate will focus heavily on committee hearings.

[top of page]