NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.

The LFC is only preparing FIRs on bills referred to the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Ways and Means Committee, the House Appropriations and Finance Committee and the House Taxation and Revenue Committee. The chief clerks are responsible for preparing and issuing all other bill analyses.

Only the most recent FIR version, excluding attachments, is available on the Intranet. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC office in Room 416 of the State Capitol Building.

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Duplicates/Conflicts with/Companion to/Relates to

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

SUMMARY

Synopsis of SPAC Amendment

Senate Public Affairs Amendment to Senate Bill 361 does the following:

1. On page 3 of the bill changes the words, "new provider" to know read, "additional providers".

2. Changes language requiring the need to have a public hearing to determine the client base for the new potential provider and to identify the potential harm to existing providers, to now simply say, " the need for additional providers".

3. Inserts new language on page 3, line 22 to now say, "providing no state funding unless the governing board of the provider is constituted of members living in the community in which the provider is located".

Synopsis of Bill

Senate Bill 361 amends 28-16A-13 NMSA 1978 by adding language that does the following:

- Limits the number of service providers that receive state funding in any class B county by prohibiting duplication of services unless department of health statistics clearly demonstrate the need for multiple providers that will provide the same or similar services in the county,

- Before a new provider can be approved for funding in any class B county to provide services the same or similar to those available from an existing provider, the department shall hold a public hearing in the county to determine the need and the potential client base in the community for an additional provider and to identify the potential harm to the existing provider's client base and to its ability to provide support and service.

Significant Issues

Senate Bill 361 has the effect of limiting the number of developmental disabilities service providers in every county in New Mexico except Bernalillo county. In New Mexico, the need for service providers, especially in the rural areas, is especially critical if the state is to successfully move out of the federal lawsuit that demands the most appropriate care for these individuals. To limit the number of providers simply because they duplicate another service is to deny choice to the individual developmentally disabled client and is not in the best interests of the state.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

The Department of Health is charged with holding hearings to determine if a new provider of DD services is needed. The criteria for such a determination includes whether an existing provider's client base would be harmed, but there are no other criteria listed in the bill.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

Passage of this bill would limit the choices that individuals have with regard to the delivery of services they need in order to remain self-sufficient and in the community of their choosing. Limitation for the sole purpose of protecting an existing business seems to flaw this bill.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

Service providers are needed in every area of the state. To limit the number and variety of service providers simply to protect existing providers does not speak to the quality and diversity of services that are essential for New Mexico to afford equal treatment of its developmentally disabled citizens.

The effect of the Senate Public Affairs amendment to Senate Bill 361 requires a new service provider to have members of their board from the community in which they are providing services. Local participation on the board of the service provider is good policy; however, the process to locate and find individuals willing to serve on the board will take time and the hearing process should accommodate the time needed to find and interview potential board members.

MB/njw:gm