Fiscal impact
reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative
Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance committees of the NM Legislature. The
LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are available on the
NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us). Adobe PDF versions include all attachments,
whereas HTML versions may not.
Previously issued FIRs and attachments may
also be obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR |
Cervantes |
DATE TYPED |
|
HB |
431 |
||
SHORT
TITLE |
Use of Proceeds from Hospital Sales |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST |
|
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY04 |
FY05 |
FY04 |
FY05 |
||
|
NFI |
|
|
|
|
Relates to HB 431; SB315; HB322; HB301; HB93;
SB34; SB315; HB310; HB322
LFC Files
SUMMARY
Department of Finance and Administration (HPC)
Human Services Department (HSD)
Department of Health (DOH)
Health Policy Commission (HPC)
Synopsis of Bill
House Bill 431
restricts the use of proceeds from the sale or lease of a municipal hospital,
county hospital or a joint county-municipal hospital, and would require
submission to, and approval by, the Department of Health (DOH) Secretary of any
plan for expending proceeds within certain provisions.
HB 431 contains an
emergency clause.
Significant Issues
HB431 ensures that proceeds from the sale or
lease of a county or municipal hospital are utilized for the community's health
care needs only. The bill restricts the use of these
proceeds to: 1) payment of debt service
on revenue or general obligations bonds issued for the acquisition, construction,
renovation or operation of the hospital; 2)
payment of other obligations from operation of the hospital; 3) care of sick and indigent persons or other
community health care.
DFA points out that:
q HB431 contains an
emergency clause intended to make the bill effective before the sale of a
hospital in
q HB431 takes away the
authority of the local governing body to determine where public funds are best
spent.
DFA
acknowledges
Governmental units in
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The bill has potential
for off setting some health care cost in local communities.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
HB 431 would have some
administrative impact on DOH relating to the development of a process for
submission, review and finding for counties or municipalities considering
entering into agreements for sale or lease of a hospital.
RELATIONSHIP
HB 431, SB 315, and HB 322 are related in that
they all designate authority for approval of a change in control or ownership
of a county or municipal hospital. HB
431 also relates to HB 301, HB 93 and SB 34, which require the development of a
comprehensive strategic health plan.
HB 431 is related to SB 315, which would establish other health
facilities oversight responsibilities for the DOH, HB 310 Hospital Oversight by
Secretary of Health, and HB 322 Secretary of Health Hospital Oversight.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
DFA is concerned that Section
4-48A-11 NMSA 1978 may conflict because it allows the board of trustees of a
special hospital district to purchase or lease any existing hospital facility
(including building, property, furniture and equipment, with State Board of
Finance Approval). This bill does not
amend 4-48A-11, but possibly conflicts with 4-48A-11.
A review process is
recommended by HPC for disposition of the proceeds for sale or lease of certain
hospitals, which allow restrictions of the disposition of the proceeds to be
set through the review process rather than through predetermined scopes of
expenditure. The review process might be required to prioritize expenditures to
health care needs without full restriction to health care needs.
The Health Policy
Commission further recommends that this bill be merged into HB 301 or HB 322,
which pertain to hospital oversight for coherence of effort.
The bill does not provide a “cut-off” date after
which proceeds from the sale cannot be applied to continuing obligations
incurred in the operation of the hospital.
AMENDMENTS
Page 2, Line 19: after “approve” insert or disapprove.
This would clarify the
two options open to the DOH Secretary.
Page 2, Lines 9 – 12:
the words “care of the sick” or “health care in the community served by the
hospital” are very broad. DOH suggests language
that after defeasance of the bond obligations and trade payables, the balance
of the proceeds goes to the county indigent fund which has an existing
mechanism for distribution of indigent care dollars. The fund also has eligibility criteria, and providers
who can be reimbursed.
Specify when the
“cut-off” date occurs after which the sale proceeds are no longer required to
pay off operational expenditures.
HPC suggest instituting legal
research relative to HB431’s relationship and potential violation to existing
statute (including 24-1-5 NMSA 1978, Licensure of health facilities; hearings;
appeals; 4-48, A-11 Special Hospital Districts, Board of Trustees, acquisition
of existing hospital facilities; agreements), and draft the proposals outlined in
HB431 as amendments to existing statute for reconsideration.
DFA suggests adding an amendment to allow
re-payment to other county funds that have previously sup-ported hospital debt
or operations, such as County/Municipal General Fund.
BD/lg