I have approved
Senate Bill 147 as
1997 Wisconsin Act 229 and have deposited it in the Office of the Secretary of State. I have exercised my partial veto authority in Section 22 (4m).
Senate Bill 147 will grant regulatory authority over the provision of water and sewer service by a mobile home park operator to occupants of a mobile home park to the Public Service Commission. I believe that providing a regulatory framework for the provision of water and sewer service will help protect Wisconsin's mobile home occupants from unfair service-related practices and billing.
I am vetoing section 22(4m) which requires the Public Service Commission, by January 1, 1999, to conduct a study on the feasibility and desirability of requiring a mobile home park operator that is, or is wholly controlled by, a city, village, county or town, and provides water service to the occupants of a mobile home park, to provide individually metered service to the park occupants on the same basis that such service is provided to occupants of a single-family residential development. I am vetoing this section because local units of government already have the authority to accomplish individual metering in mobile home parks. The Public Service Commission should have the flexibility to determine billing and metering issues on a case by case basis.
I support the other provision of Senate Bill 147, and believe it addresses important issues for mobile home occupants in Wisconsin.
Respectfully,
tommy g. thompson
Governor
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
April 30, 1998
To the Honorable, the Senate:
I have approved
Senate Bill 315 as
1997 Wisconsin Act 231 and have deposited it in the Office of the Secretary of State. I have exercised my partial veto authority in Sections 1, 3, 4, 11, 22, 28, 43, 49, 62, 65m(1), 66(1) and 67(2).
Senate Bill 315 establishes an assessment mechanism on health care providers including physicians, nurses, dentists and others in order to support the collection of claims data from these providers. This will allow the Department of Health and Family Services' (DHFS) Office of Health Care Information (OHCI) to develop annual consumer guides which can be used by individuals and businesses in selecting a health care provider or a health care plan. The bill also includes numerous provisions on the confidentiality of records, changes the composition of the OHCI Board and gives DHFS greater flexibility in determining health care information needs.
Sections 1, 4 and 66 pertain to OHCI Board members. Section 1 makes the members subject to confirmation by the Senate and part of section 66 pertains to the initial applicability of this provision. I am vetoing these sections because appointments should be based on the expertise of members rather than on political concerns. Section 4 also specifies that five Board members should be health care providers including one nurse and at least two doctors. I am partially vetoing this language to provide that of the five health care providers, two will be physicians. Further, this section, as it relates to physicians appointed to the Board, allows the State Medical Society to recommend up to five physicians to me, one of whom I will appoint to the Board. I am vetoing the words "up to" to ensure that I have a sample of physicians to choose from.
Sections 3 and 11 statutorily create the Bureau of Health Care Information within DHFS. I am vetoing these sections because it limits DHFS' organizational flexibility. DHFS will be reorganizing to split the Division of Health into two division and, in the longer term, may be considering restructuring to accommodate the redesign of the long-term care system. As a cabinet agency, it should be a departmental decision as to where OHCI's functions would best fit.
Section 22 prohibits DHFS from using unique patient identifiers unless the federal government requires this. With the enactment of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the federal government authorized the development of unique, encrypted patient identifiers nation-wide and mandated their use in the Medical Assistance and Medicare programs. DHFS needs to be able to use the same numbers for its other data collection activities to achieve efficiencies and to integrate all of these systems under the long-term care initiative. Because it is unlikely that such a federal mandate would be made for DHFS' non-MA programs, DHFS would be forced to set up a completely different identifier system which would be counterproductive. I am removing this prohibition through a partial veto of this section.
Section 28 broadens the authority of the Board and requires the Board to work with the Department to develop the overall strategy and direction for the program and to jointly develop all of the administrative rules required under Chapter
153. I am vetoing the provision that requires the Board to develop the rules with DHFS. The Board should be responsible for the broader oversight of the program, and program staff should be responsible for the technical details of rule writing. As under current law, the Board remains responsible for final approval of the proposed rules.
S656
Section 49 establishes the procedure for assessing health care providers with payment to be made to DHFS by December 1. This is accomplished by striking "hospital" and replacing it with "health care provider". I am vetoing this provision in part to retain the current payment deadline for hospitals because the effect of the proposed language change would make all providers subject to the same payment deadline and this may be unworkable. In the same section, DHFS is required to work with the Department of Regulation and Licensing (DRL) to determine a collection mechanism suitable for providers through the issuance or renewal of a license. For hospitals, December 1 is appropriate because it coincides with their fiscal year. In contrast, the licensing process may not coincide with this timetable. By partially vetoing section 49, a workable payment due date is retained for hospitals and an unspecified due date for health care providers allows DHFS and DRL to develop a flexible collection system.
Section 62 requires all businesses to take actions to make unreadable, by shredding or other means, any personal information before the record is disposed of and section 67 is the effective date of that provision. This proposal resulted from an investigation in Milwaukee where reporters found records which contained personal information in garbage dumpsters. I strongly support the concept of preventing access to personal information by unauthorized persons and I appreciate the effort of the legislators who brought this issue to my attention. However, I am also concerned that the approach in the bill, which will affect 308,000 businesses in the state, is too general and may place undue burdens on small businesses which would be required to obtain equipment to erase or shred documents. I believe the requirements should be more tailored depending on business type or size. I also believe that this issue is not germane to the bill dealing specifically with the collection of health care data. For these reasons, I am vetoing these sections and requesting the Legislature to work with my office to develop a more narrowly defined proposal in separate legislation which will be subjected to public debate. I am also vetoing that part of section 67 which contains the effective date for this provision because I removed the policy language.
Section 65m provides $5,200 GPR to the Medical College of Wisconsin to conduct a study on how to adjust caseload for case mix and severity at a teaching hospital. The language explicitly requires that DHFS contract with the Medical College of Wisconsin for this study. I am vetoing this provision in part to still require such a study, but to allow DHFS to have the flexibility to determine the contract process.
Finally, section 43 deletes the reference to health care providers as defined in administrative rules. This reference should be restored through my veto because DHFS uses different definitions of health care provider depending on the program. Allowing them to define in rule which group they are referring to is appropriate.
Respectfully,
tommy g. thompson
Governor
Senator Ellis, with unanimous consent, asked that Assembly Bill 351 be considered for action at this time.
Assembly Bill 351
Relating to: sentences for felony offenses, parole, community supervision, granting rule-making authority and providing penalties.
Read a second time.
__________________
Senator Chvala, with unanimous consent, asked that Senator Wirch be granted a leave of absence for today's session.
Senator Chvala, with unanimous consent, asked that the Senate rise for a moment of silence in memory of the mother of Senatr Wirch.
__________________
Senator Huelsman moved that Senate amendment 1 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 351 be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall Senate amendment 1 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill
351 be laid on the table?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: ayes, 17; noes, 15; absent or not voting, 1; as follows:
Ayes - Senators Cowles, Darling, Drzewiecki, Ellis, Farrow, Fitzgerald, Huelsman, A. Lasee, Lazich, Panzer, Roessler, Rosenzweig, Rude, Schultz, Weeden, Welch and Zien - 17.
Noes - Senators Breske, Burke, Chvala, Clausing, Decker, George, Grobschmidt, Jauch, Moen, Moore, Plache, C. Potter, Risser, Shibilski and Wineke - 15.
Absent or not voting - Senator Wirch - 1.
Tabled.
Senator Huelsman moved that Senate amendment 2 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 351 be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall Senate amendment 2 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill
351 be laid on the table?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: ayes, 17; noes, 15; absent or not voting, 1; as follows:
Ayes - Senators Cowles, Darling, Drzewiecki, Ellis, Farrow, Fitzgerald, Huelsman, A. Lasee, Lazich, Panzer, Roessler, Rosenzweig, Rude, Schultz, Weeden, Welch and Zien - 17.
Noes - Senators Breske, Burke, Chvala, Clausing, Decker, George, Grobschmidt, Jauch, Moen, Moore, Plache, C. Potter, Risser, Shibilski and Wineke - 15.
Absent or not voting - Senator Wirch - 1.
Tabled.
The question was: Adoption of Senate amendment 3 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 351?
Adopted.
Senate amendment 4 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 351 offered by Senators Plache, Clausing, Burke, Risser, Jauch and Wineke.
Senator Huelsman moved that Senate amendment 4 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 351 be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall Senate amendment 4 to Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill
351 be laid on the table?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: ayes, 17; noes, 15; absent or not voting, 1; as follows:
Ayes - Senators Cowles, Darling, Drzewiecki, Ellis, Farrow, Fitzgerald, Huelsman, A. Lasee, Lazich, Panzer, Roessler, Rosenzweig, Rude, Schultz, Weeden, Welch and Zien - 17.
Noes - Senators Breske, Burke, Chvala, Clausing, Decker, George, Grobschmidt, Jauch, Moen, Moore, Plache, C. Potter, Risser, Shibilski and Wineke - 15.
Absent or not voting - Senator Wirch - 1.
Tabled.
The question was: Adoption of Senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 351?
Adopted.
Senator Rosenzweig, with unanimous consent, asked to be added as a cosponsor of Assembly Bill
351.
Ordered to a third reading.
Senator Farrow, with unanimous consent, asked that the bill be considered for final action at this time.
Senator Darling, with unanimous consent, asked to be added as a cosponsor of Assembly Bill
351.
Read a third time.
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: ayes, 28; noes, 4; absent or not voting, 1; as follows:
Ayes - Senators Breske, Burke, Chvala, Clausing, Cowles, Darling, Decker, Drzewiecki, Ellis, Farrow, Fitzgerald, Grobschmidt, Huelsman, Jauch, A. Lasee, Lazich, Moen, Panzer, Plache, C. Potter, Roessler, Rosenzweig, Rude, Schultz, Shibilski, Weeden, Welch and Zien - 28.
Noes - Senators George, Moore, Risser and Wineke - 4.
Absent or not voting - Senator Wirch - 1.
Concurred in as amended.
Senator Ellis, with unanimous consent, asked that all action be immediately messaged to the Assembly.
Senator Ellis, with unanimous consent, asked that Assembly Bill 463 be considered for action at this time.
Assembly Bill 463
Relating to: unborn children who are at substantial risk of serious physical injury due to the habitual lack of self-control of their expectant mothers in the use of alcohol beverages, controlled substances or controlled substance analogs, exhibited to a severe degree.
Read a second time.
__________________
Senator Moore, with unanimous consent, asked that the Senate stand informal until 12:11 P.M..
12:08 P.M.
__________________
12:11 P.M.
The Senate reconvened.
Senator Rude in the chair.
__________________
12:17 P.M.
Senator A. Lasee in the chair.
Senator Huelsman moved that Senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 463 be laid on the table.
The question was: Shall Senate amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 463 be laid on the table?
The ayes and noes were demanded and the vote was: ayes, 21; noes, 11; absent or not voting, 1; as follows:
Ayes - Senators Breske, Cowles, Darling, Drzewiecki, Ellis, Farrow, Fitzgerald, Grobschmidt, Huelsman, A. Lasee, Lazich, Panzer, C. Potter, Roessler, Rosenzweig, Rude, Schultz, Shibilski, Weeden, Welch and Zien - 21.
Noes - Senators Burke, Chvala, Clausing, Decker, George, Jauch, Moen, Moore, Plache, Risser and Wineke - 11.
Absent or not voting - Senator Wirch - 1.
Tabled.
The question was: Adoption of Senate amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 463?
