Under current law, in Milwaukee County, DHFS is required to provide the juvenile court with services necessary for investigating and supervising child welfare cases under the children's code and the county board of supervisors is required to provide the juvenile court with services necessary for investigating and supervising cases under the juvenile justice code. Child welfare cases under the children's code include cases in which a child is alleged to have been abused or neglected or otherwise to be in need of protection or services under the children's code. Cases under the juvenile justice code include cases in which a juvenile is alleged to be delinquent, in violation of a civil law or ordinance or in need of protection or services under the juvenile justice code, that is, habitually truant from home or school, uncontrollable or a school dropout. The chief judge of the judicial administrative district covering Milwaukee County must formulate written judicial policy governing intake and juvenile court services for matters under the children's code and the juvenile justice code.
This bill prohibits the chief judge from directing DHFS to provide intake and juvenile court services in cases in which the referral information indicates that the juvenile should be referred to the juvenile court under the juvenile justice code, unless that information indicates that the juvenile should also be referred to the juvenile court under the children's code. The bill also requires the chief judge to direct DHFS and Milwaukee County to coordinate the provision of services in cases in which a DHFS intake worker determines that jurisdiction exists under the juvenile justice code instead of or in addition to the children's code and in cases in which a Milwaukee County intake worker determines that jurisdiction exists under the children's code instead of or in addition to the juvenile justice code.
Health
Under current law, DHFS must administer a health care program (known as badger care) to provide health care coverage to low-income (generally defined as having an income at or below 185% of the federal poverty line) children and their parents if the children reside with their parents.
This bill expands the badger care program to cover any child under the age of 19 who meets financial and other eligibility requirements, regardless of whether the child resides with his or her parents. The bill also requires DHFS to lower the maximum income level for initial eligibility for badger care if funding for badger care is insufficient to accommodate the projected enrollment in badger care and requires DHFS to raise the income limit to up to 185% of the federal poverty line if, after having lowered the income level, funding for badger care becomes sufficient to cover projected enrollment of persons at the higher income level.
Currently, the health insurance risk-sharing plan (HIRSP) provides major medical health insurance coverage for persons who are covered under medicare because they are disabled, persons who have tested positive for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and persons who have been refused coverage, or coverage at an affordable price, in the private health insurance market because of their mental or physical health condition. Also eligible for coverage are persons (called eligible individuals) who do not currently have health insurance coverage, but who were covered under certain types of health insurance coverage for at least 18 months in the past. HIRSP offers its enrollees who are not eligible for medicare an annual choice of coverage option. Responsibility for administering HIRSP is split between DHFS and the HIRSP board of governors (board).
This bill makes various changes to HIRSP. Except for an eligible individual, a person who is at least 65 years of age is not eligible for HIRSP coverage. The bill provides that a person who has HIRSP coverage on the date on which he or she attains age 65 does not lose eligibility for coverage because of his or her age.
With certain exceptions, current law provides that a person for whom a premium, deductible or coinsurance amount is paid by any governmental agency is not eligible for HIRSP coverage. The bill provides that a person who receives a reimbursement from DHFS for the cost of drugs for the treatment of HIV infection and for the treatment of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is not ineligible for HIRSP coverage by reason of the reimbursement.
With certain exceptions, current law sets the deductible for coverage under HIRSP at $1,000. HIRSP pays 80% of covered costs exceeding the deductible. After a covered person has paid $2,000 in costs, including the deductible, in a calendar year, the bill directs HIRSP to pay 100% of the covered costs for the remainder of the calendar year. If more than one member of a family has HIRSP coverage, HIRSP pays 100% of covered costs after the family has paid $4,000 in costs. The bill specifies these values for covered persons not eligible for medicare who choose the other coverage option that HIRSP offers. Under the other coverage option, the deductible is $2,500. HIRSP pays 100% of the covered costs after a covered person has paid $3,500 in costs in a calendar year. For a family with more than one covered person, HIRSP pays 100% of covered costs after the family has paid $7,000 in costs.
Finally, the bill transfers to DHFS some of the board's responsibilities, such as establishing procedures for hearing grievances and collecting assessments from insurers, and requires the board to advise DHFS with respect to those responsibilities.
Under current law, DHFS may not license, certify, issue a certificate of approval to or register a person to operate an adult treatment facility or organization or to provide adult treatment services if DHFS knows that the person has been convicted of or has pending a charge for a serious crime; has been found to have abused or neglected a facility client or misappropriated client money; has abused or neglected a child; or is not sufficiently credentialed to provide adequate client care. In addition, an adult treatment facility or organization or a person providing services may not hire such a person if that person may have access to clients and an adult treatment facility may not allow him or her to reside as a nonclient at the facility. The prohibitions do not apply if the person demonstrates to DHFS that he or she has been rehabilitated, unless the person has been convicted of certain offenses. DHFS must obtain specific personal background information, including that obtained from criminal history searches, about persons applying to operate adult treatment facilities or organizations or applying to provide adult treatment services. In addition, DHFS must obtain the information every four years for all persons licensed to operate such facilities or organizations or to provide such services and for nonclient facility residents and may charge a fee for conducting those personal background information checks. Every adult treatment facility or organization and every person who provides adult treatment services must obtain the same types of information about prospective employes or contractors, and every adult treatment facility must obtain such information about persons who seek to reside as nonclients in the facilities. The information must be obtained every four years for employes or contractors.
This bill authorizes DHFS to conduct background investigations on behalf of adult treatment facilities and organizations and persons who provide adult treatment services and to charge a fee for doing so. Additionally, the bill authorizes DHFS to charge persons a fee for the costs incurred by DHFS under requests to demonstrate that the persons have been rehabilitated.
The bill changes the type of interaction with clients that a prospective employe or a prospective contractor must have in order to require a background investigation of the employe or contractor and to prohibit the employe or contractor from being hired by or from contracting with adult treatment facilities, organizations or services. The bill, rather than requiring investigation of a person who has or is expected to have access to the clients of the facility, organization or service, instead requires investigation of a person who provides to the clients or is expected to provide to the clients, direct care that is more intensive than negligible in quantity or quality or in the amount of time required to provide the care. Restrictions on nonclient residents at the facility, organization or service are unchanged by the bill.
Under current law, DHFS administers the birth and developmental outcome monitoring program (BDOMP). Under that program, a report must be made to DHFS by a physician or nurse who diagnoses or confirms a suspected diagnosis that a child under the age of six has a condition resulting from a low birth weight, a chronic condition possibly requiring long-term care, a birth defect or a developmental disability or other severe disability. DHFS must develop and implement a system for the collection, updating and analysis of the information reported and to disseminate the information.
This bill eliminates BDOMP. Instead, the bill requires physicians, hospitals, certain clinics and clinical laboratories to report birth defects identified in children under the age of two to DHFS. The bill requires DHFS to establish and maintain a registry that documents the diagnosis of a birth defect in a child under the age of two. As under current law, personally identifying information that is contained in the reports made to DHFS is confidential and, with certain exceptions, may not be released to any person. Finally, the bill creates a council on birth defect prevention and surveillance to advise DHFS regarding the registry and rules related to reporting.
Under current law, DHFS licenses and otherwise regulates emergency medical technicians and ambulance service providers. DHFS may charge a reasonable fee for licensure. This bill authorizes DHFS to impose forfeitures on ambulance service providers for violation of laws that prescribe conditions for licensure and for operation of ambulances. The bill clarifies that DHFS may charge a fee for the renewal of licenses for emergency medical technicians and ambulance service providers and authorizes DHFS to charge fees for untimely license renewal. DHFS must promulgate rules to establish the amounts for assessments of the forfeitures, fees for license renewal and late renewal fees.
This bill does all of the following with respect to tuberculosis:
1. Requires that laboratories that perform primary culture for mycobacteria also perform organism identification for mycobacterium tuberculosis and conduct antimicrobial drug susceptibility tests on the mycobacterium tuberculosis bacteria. The results of that test must be reported to DHFS.
2. Creates a process by which a person with infectious tuberculosis or with a suspected case of tuberculosis may be confined pending a hearing if the confinement is to be longer than 72 hours.
3. Permits local health departments to request from DHFS certification to establish and maintain a public health dispensary.
This bill provides that DHFS may use moneys derived from Indian gaming compacts to fund grants for cooperative American Indian health projects.
Under current law, DHFS must base fees for renewal of home health agency licenses on the annual net income, as determined by DHFS, of each home health agency seeking license renewal. This bill eliminates annual net income of home health agencies as a basis for establishing fees for home health agency license renewal, thus permitting DHFS to base fees on any criterion.
Mental illness and developmental disabilities
Under current law, a person who is believed to be mentally ill and a proper subject for treatment and who evidences certain acts, omissions or other behavior that indicate that he or she satisfies at least one of five standards of dangerousness may be detained on an emergency basis and transported to and detained and treated in a mental health treatment facility. A petition signed by three others may be brought against the detained person alleging that the detained person is mentally ill, is a proper subject for treatment and is dangerous because he or she meets a standard for involuntary civil commitment. If such a petition is filed with a court, the subject of the petition must be given a hearing to determine if there is probable cause to support the petition's allegations. If a court finds probable cause, a final hearing on commitment must be held. If, at the hearing, the person is again found to satisfy one of the standards of dangerousness he or she may be involuntarily committed to the care and custody of a county department of community programs for appropriate treatment.
Currently, one of the five standards of dangerousness for involuntary civil commitment terminates on December 1, 2001. That standard, known as the fifth standard, requires that a person, because of mental illness, either evidences the incapability of expressing an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of and alternatives to accepting a particular medication or treatment after these have been explained to him or her or evidences substantial incapability of applying an understanding of those advantages, disadvantages and alternatives to his or her mental illness in order to make an informed choice as to whether to accept or refuse medication or treatment. The person also must evidence a substantial probability, as demonstrated by both his or her treatment history and recent acts or omissions, that he or she needs care or treatment to prevent further disability or deterioration. Lastly, the person must evidence a substantial probability that he or she will, if left untreated, lack services necessary for his or her health or safety and suffer mental, emotional or physical harm that will result in either the loss of his or her ability to function independently in the community or the loss of cognitive or volitional control over his or her thoughts or actions.
This bill eliminates the December 1, 2002, termination of the fifth standard for emergency detention and involuntary civil commitment of persons with mental illness.
Currently, if a person is found to be a proper subject for treatment and is found to satisfy at least one of the five standards of dangerousness, the person may initially be committed for treatment for a period not to exceed six months. In addition, a commitment order may be extended after an evaluation of the person. Each consecutive commitment order extension may be for a period not to exceed 12 months.
An inmate of a jail, house of correction or prison may be subject to an involuntary commitment proceeding based on a petition described above. However, there is an alternative petition that may be used to begin an involuntary commitment proceeding against an inmate. This alternative petition must allege all of the following: 1) that the inmate is mentally ill, is a proper subject for treatment and is in need of treatment; 2) that the inmate has been fully informed about, and has had the opportunity to discuss, his or her treatment needs and the mental health services available to him or her; and 3) that appropriate less restrictive forms of treatment have been attempted and have been unsuccessful. If an inmate is committed based on an alternative petition, the total period that the inmate may be committed may not exceed 180 days in any 365-day period.
This bill extends the period for which an inmate of a state prison may be committed based on an alternative petition to a period not to exceed one year. The bill does not change the current time limits on the commitment of an inmate of a jail or house of correction based on an alternative petition.
Current law provides a procedure for involuntarily committing sexually violent persons to DHFS for control, care and treatment. A sexually violent person is a person who has been convicted of certain sexually violent offenses and who is dangerous because he or she suffers from a mental disorder that makes it substantially probable that the person will engage in acts of sexual violence.
Under current law, when a person is found to be a sexually violent person the person must be committed to the custody of DHFS. The court that commits the person must specify whether the person is to be placed in institutional care or on supervised release in the community, and DHFS must arrange for control, care and treatment of the person in the least restrictive manner consistent with the requirements of the person and in accordance with the court's commitment order.
If the court decides to place the person on supervised release, DHFS and the county social services department (county department) of the person's county of residence must prepare a plan for the treatment and services that the person will receive while on supervised release. If the county department of the person's county of residence declines to prepare a plan, DHFS or the court must find another county department to prepare the plan. In State v. Sprosty, 221 Wis. 2d. 401 (Ct. App. 1998), the court of appeals held that once a court has ordered a person placed on supervised release, the person must be released and DHFS and the county responsible for preparing the plan must provide or contract for appropriate treatment and services or, if such treatment and services are not available, create them.
This bill makes the following changes relating to supervised release of sexually violent persons:
1. The bill establishes new guidelines for a court's decision concerning whether to place a person on supervised release. Under the bill, a court may not order a person to be placed on supervised release if the court finds that it is substantially probable that the person will engage in acts of sexual violence unless the person resides in a facility with a level of security comparable to that of a secure mental health unit or facility. However, even if it makes this finding, the court may withhold its decision concerning placement and order DHFS and the appropriate county department to prepare a plan for supervised release for the person, but only if the person first establishes that it is likely that the daily cost of providing the necessary programs and facilities for control, care and treatment of the person on supervised release would not exceed the daily cost of control, care and treatment of the person at a secure mental health unit or facility.
If the court withholds its decision and orders preparation of a supervised release plan, the court must then consider whether to approve or disapprove the plan under the new procedure created by the bill (see item 2., below). Even if the plan meets the criteria for approval under the new procedure, the court may approve the plan and place the person on supervised release only if the daily cost of supervised release would not exceed the daily cost of institutional care at a secure mental health unit or facility.
2. The bill creates a new procedure that a court must use to approve or disapprove a supervised release plan. Under the bill, the court must hold a hearing on a proposed supervised release plan within 30 days after the plan is presented to the court. Based on evidence provided at the hearing, the court must approve the plan if it determines that the plan provides adequate treatment and services to the person and adequate protection to the community. Likewise, the court must disapprove the plan if it determines that the plan does not provide adequate treatment and services to the person and adequate protection to the community. If the court disapproves the plan, DHFS and the county department must revise the plan and present it to the court again. If the court approves the plan, the court must order that the person be placed on supervised release in the county that prepared the plan. DHFS and the county department that prepared the plan must implement the plan and DHFS may ask the court for any orders that are necessary to ensure implementation of the plan.
The bill also requires DHFS to place a sexually violent person in a secure mental health treatment setting if the court decides to place the person in institutional care rather than on supervised release.
This bill requires DHFS to contract with counties or federally recognized American Indian tribes or bands to provide one or two demonstration projects in fiscal year 2000-01. The projects are to provide mental health and alcohol or other drug abuse services under managed care programs of MA to persons who suffer from mental illness, alcohol or other drug dependency, or both illness and dependency. DHFS must submit for approval by the secretary of the federal department of health and human services any necessary requests for waiver of federal medicaid laws to effectuate these managed care demonstration projects.
Under current law, the Mendota Mental Health Institute and the Winnebago Mental Health Institute are operated by DHFS to provide specialized psychiatric services, research and education. In addition, DHFS may establish a system of outpatient mental health clinic services in any institution that DHFS operates. A county department of community programs must under contract authorize all care of most patients in the mental health institutes. Also, DHFS may provide outpatient services at the Winnebago Mental Health Institute to public school pupils.
This bill eliminates the explicit authorization for the Winnebago Mental Health Institute to provide outpatient mental health services for pupils. Instead, the bill authorizes DHFS to allow a mental health institute to offer, when DHFS determines that community services need to be supplemented, mental health outpatient treatment and services, day programming, consultation and services in residential facilities, including group homes, child caring institutions and community-based residential facilities, that are situated on the grounds of a mental health institute. These services may be provided only under a contract between DHFS and specified entities, to persons who are referred by the entity. Further, the services are governed by the terms of the contract or by statutes and DHFS rules that regulate facilities, govern certain mental health services and provide mental health patient rights. In the event of a conflict between contract provisions and these statutes or rules, the services must comply with the contractual, statutory or rules provision that is most protective of the health, safety, welfare or rights of the recipient of the services, as determined by the mental health institute. Specified mental health statutes, including emergency detention and commitment laws, and zoning and other county, city, town or village ordinances, do not apply to provision of the services.
Under current law, DHFS provides funding through county departments of community programs for mental health treatment services for persons who are in or relocated from facilities that have been found by the federal health care financing administration to be institutions for mental diseases (and, thus, ineligible for receipt of MA). Also under current law, every person who applies for admission to a nursing home or to an institution for mental diseases must be screened to determine if the person has a developmental disability or a mental illness and, if so, whether the person needs facility care and active treatment for the developmental disability or mental illness.
This bill requires DHFS to provide funding for active treatment of a person in a nursing home or institution for mental diseases who has been determined, through screening, to have a mental illness and to need the treatment.
Under current law, county departments of community programs authorize the care of all patients in state mental health institutes. DHFS regularly bills the county departments for care provided by mental health institutes at rates that reflect the estimated per diem cost of specific levels of care, as adjusted periodically by DHFS.
This bill authorizes DHFS to set rates on a flexible basis, rather than at the estimated per diem cost of specific levels of care, for billing county departments of community programs for care provided in mental health institutes. The bill requires that the flexible rate structure recover the cost of operations.
Under current law, DHFS provides services at the Southern Center for the Developmentally Disabled for up to ten developmentally disabled persons who are mentally ill or exhibit extremely aggressive and challenging behaviors and for up to 12 such persons at the Northern Center for the Developmentally Disabled. This bill increases to 36 the total number of such persons for whom DHFS may provide services and permits the services to be provided at the southern, northern and central state centers for the developmentally disabled.
Other health and social services
Under current law, DHFS and the department of commerce are authorized to jointly regulate sources of ionizing and nonionizing radiation. DHFS annually registers sites of ionizing radiation installations, such as medical sites, and imposes annual fees for each site and each X-ray tube at the site. Violation of the regulatory statutes or rules subjects the violator to a forfeiture.
This bill eliminates the authority of the department of commerce to regulate sources of ionizing and nonionizing radiation. The bill authorizes the governor to enter into agreements with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to discontinue certain federal governmental licensing and related regulatory authority with respect to by-product, source and special nuclear radioactive material and to assume state regulatory authority. Under the bill, if the agreements are made, persons possessing licenses issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission are considered to be licensed by the state.
The bill authorizes DHFS, beginning on January 1, 2003, to license specifically the possession, use, transfer or acquisition of radioactive by-product material and to license specifically the possession, use, manufacture, production, transfer or acquisition of radioactive material or devices or items that use radioactive material and to operate a site that uses radioactive material. The bill also authorizes DHFS to establish general license requirements for the possession, use, transfer or acquisition of by-product radioactive material or devices or items that contain by-product radioactive material.
The bill authorizes DHFS annually, until January 1, 2003, to assess a fee of 36% of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission license application fee and annual materials license fee, for any person in this state holding a license issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The bill also authorizes DHFS to revise the fee amounts.
The bill eliminates court-imposed forfeitures for violations of the radiation regulatory statutes and rules of DHFS and instead establishes administrative forfeitures that DHFS may directly assess.
Lastly, the bill authorizes DHFS to issue emergency orders to protect the public from radiation exposure; increases the annual fees for registration of ionizing radiation installation sites and for X-ray tubes at those sites; and changes current law to prohibit, rather than to allow, the transfer of registration of ionizing radiation installations if ownership transfers.
This bill appropriates federal substance abuse block grant moneys to DHFS and authorizes DHFS to award the moneys to counties and private entities to provide community-based alcohol and other drug abuse treatment programs. The programs must meet the special needs of women with problems resulting from alcohol or other drug abuse and must emphasize parent education, vocational and housing assistance and coordination with other community programs and with treatment under intensive care.
Under current law, DHFS distributes community aids to counties to provide social, mental health, developmental disabilities and alcohol and other drug abuse services. DHFS must distribute community aids in the form of a basic county allocation, together with certain categorical allocations, including an allocation for Alzheimer's family and caregiver support. A county's annual community aids allocation is specified in a contract between DHFS and the county, and DHFS distributes the county's allocation in reimbursement of claims submitted by the county for moneys expended for those services.
This bill specifies that DHFS may distribute no more than $4,500,000 of the basic county allocation in each fiscal year based on performance standards developed by DHFS for services funded by community aids. The bill provides that, if a care management organization under the family care program, created under the bill (see LONG-TERM CARE; FAMILY CARE), is available in a county, DHFS may dispose of the county's Alzheimer's family and caregiver support allocation and not more than 21.3% of the county's basic county allocation by transferring a portion of those allocations, as determined by DHFS, to the family care program to fund the services of resource centers and care management organizations under that program and by transferring a portion of those allocations, as determined by DHFS, to the county's allocation for adult protective services created under the bill.
On January 4, 1999, DWD assumed responsibility from the clerks of court for receiving and disbursing child support, maintenance, family support and other support-related payments. A payer of support or maintenance currently must pay an annual receipt and disbursement fee of $25 to DWD. This bill provides that the receipt and disbursement fee must be paid by wage assignment, just as support and maintenance payments are paid.
Current law provides that each order for child or family support, maintenance or spousal support is an automatic assignment of a person's wages to DWD in an amount that is sufficient to ensure payment of the amount under the order, as well as any arrearages due at a periodic rate that does not exceed 50% of the amount due under the order, as long as the additional amount for arrearages does not leave the person at an income below the federal poverty line. Current law also provides that, if an assignment does not require immediately effective withholding and the payer misses a payment, the court or family court commissioner may cause the assignment to go into effect by providing notice of the assignment to the payer's employer or other person from whom the payer receives or will receive money. The payer also receives notice and may request a hearing on whether the assignment should remain in effect.
This bill clarifies that the portion of the original assignment that was for any arrearages due is an assigned amount that does not require immediately effective withholding and that, if a payer accrues an arrearage by missing a payment, the assignment of the arrearage may be put into effect, without another court hearing, by providing notice to the payer and to a person from whom the payer receives or will receive money. The bill provides that, in addition to the court and the family court commissioner, the county child support agency may cause the assignment for arrearages to go into effect by sending the required notices.
The bill also provides that the wage assignment of a person obligated to pay support or maintenance continues in effect after the person no longer has a current obligation to pay if the person has an arrearage in the payment of support or maintenance. The amount of the assignment may be up to the amount that the assignment was before the person's current obligation to pay support or maintenance terminated.
Under current law, in a number of situations the state may join in an action affecting the family (such as a divorce action or an action to enforce a child support order) as a real party in interest for purposes of establishing paternity or securing future support or reimbursement of aid paid. The most common situation is when a child or custodial parent of a child involved in the action is the recipient of certain services or benefits provided by the state. This bill adds another situation under which the state may join in an action as a real party in interest: if a custodial parent involved in the action is receiving food stamp benefits.
Under current law, DWD certifies to the department of revenue (DOR) the names of individuals who are delinquent in the payment of child or family support, maintenance, medical expenses of a child or birth expenses (support). DOR uses the information to intercept income tax refunds that would be paid to those delinquent obligors. DWD also provides the certifications that it makes to DOR to various specified state agencies that make grants or loans to individuals. Any individual who is the subject of such a certification is prohibited from receiving a grant or loan.
Also under current law, if an individual who has a court-ordered obligation to make periodic payments of support fails to make a payment, the amount of the delinquent support automatically becomes a lien against all of the individual's property. DWD is required to maintain a statewide support lien docket that lists the delinquent obligors and the amount of support that each owes.
This bill eliminates the requirement that DWD provide to the various specified state agencies the certifications that it provides to DOR. Instead the bill prohibits each agency from making a grant or loan to an individual whose name appears on the statewide support lien docket, unless the individual provides to the agency a copy of a payment agreement that has been approved by a county child support agency for the payment of the delinquent support.
Under current law, the state receives federal foster care and adoption assistance funding under Title IV-E of the federal Social Security Act (generally referred to as IV-E funds), in reimbursement of moneys expended by the state and the counties for activities relating to foster care and the adoption of children. DHFS distributes IV-E funds as community aids to counties for the provision of social services to children and families. If on December 31 of any year there remains unspent or unencumbered in the community aids basic county allocation an amount that exceeds the amount of IV-E funds allocated as community aids in that year (excess IV-E funds), DHFS must carry forward to the next year those excess IV-E funds and distribute not less than 50% of those excess IV-E funds to counties other than Milwaukee County for services and projects to assist children and families.
This bill requires DHFS to distribute as community aids to counties other than Milwaukee County any MA funds received as reimbursement of moneys expended in those counties by the state and by the counties for case management services provided to children who are recipients of MA (MA targeted case management funds). The bill also provides that, if on December 31 of any year there remains unspent or unencumbered in the community aids basic county allocation an amount that exceeds the combined amount of IV-E funds and MA targeted case management funds distributed as community aids in that year (excess IV-E and MA targeted case management funds), DHFS must carry forward to the next year those excess IV-E and MA targeted case management funds and distribute those excess funds to counties other than Milwaukee County for services and projects to assist children and families.
The bill also requires DHFS to establish and counties to implement a statewide automated child welfare information system (generally referred to as WISACWIS) before July 1, 2006; permits DHFS, beginning on July 1, 2001, to distribute excess IV-E funds only to counties that are making a good faith effort to implement WISACWIS; and permits DHFS to recover from a county that does not implement WISACWIS before July 1, 2006, any excess IV-E funds distributed to that county after June 30, 2001.
Under current law, general purpose revenue funds services for adolescent parents that emphasize high school graduation and vocational preparation, training and experience (otherwise known as adolescent self-sufficiency services); adolescent pregnancy prevention services; in Milwaukee County, services of an adolescent resource center and services related to development of adolescent parenting skills; and the provision of information to communities about problems of adolescents and information to and activities for adolescents to aid in skills development (otherwise known as adolescent choices project grants). This bill substitutes moneys that are received under the federal TANF block grant to fund all of these services.
Current law directs the adolescent pregnancy prevention and pregnancy services board to award grants to provide adolescent pregnancy prevention programs or pregnancy services. The grants currently are funded with general purpose revenue. This bill funds the grants with moneys that are received under the federal TANF block grant program.
This bill appropriates moneys derived from Indian gaming compacts to fund the American Indian drug abuse prevention and education program, to fund the delivery of social services and mental hygiene services to American Indians and to fund vocational rehabilitation services for Native American individuals and federally recognized tribes or bands.
Currently, each person ordered to pay a fine or forfeiture for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, controlled substance or other drug (OWI) is required to pay a driver improvement surcharge of $340. A majority (62.4%) of the money collected from the driver improvement surcharge is used by the county where the violation occurred to provide alcohol and other drug abuse services to drivers who are referred for alcohol or other drug abuse assessment. A portion of the remainder of the money is used to provide chemical testing training to law enforcement officers and a portion is allocated by the secretary of administration to various state agencies for services related to OWI offenses.
Under this bill, of the money received by the state from the driver improvement surcharge, $290,900 is transferred to the department of transportation for the purchase of preliminary breath screening instruments. These instruments are used to test the breath of a person who is suspected of committing an OWI offense at the time that the person is stopped to help determine if an arrest is appropriate.
Insurance
This bill requires every managed care plan, which is, generally, a health care plan that requires insureds to obtain services from certain specified providers under contract with the health care plan, to offer at least one point-of-service coverage option in each geographical service area of the managed care plan. A point-of-service coverage option is a coverage option under which an insured may obtain health care services that are paid for by the health care plan from a provider of his or her choice, regardless of whether that provider is a participating provider of the insured's health care plan or a member of the health care plan's provider network.
This bill authorizes the office of the commissioner of insurance (OCI) to make a grant of not more than $200,000 to a private organization for the establishment of private health insurance purchasing pools for small employers. (Generally, small employers are those with 50 or fewer employes.) The private organization must submit a business plan to OCI and the commissioner of insurance must approve the plan before the grant may be made. OCI and the private organization must enter into a written agreement concerning the use of the grant proceeds, and the private organization must submit a report to OCI after spending the proceeds.
Under current law, most policy forms for all types of insurance must be filed with OCI and approved prior to use. This bill allows the commissioner to exempt certain classes of insurance policy forms from the requirement for prior filing and approval.
Currently, OCI charges various fees for services that it provides, as well as for its regulation of the insurance industry. This bill changes the amount of the fee that OCI charges an applicant for examination for a license as an insurance intermediary and the amount of the fee for regulating an insurance intermediary each year after the year in which the intermediary's license was initially issued to amounts set by the commissioner by rule.
Local government
Under current law, a county board may engage in zoning and land-use planning that may result in the preparation of a county development plan for the physical development of the towns within the county and for the cities and villages within the county whose governing bodies agree to have their areas included in the county plan. The development plan may include a number of elements, such as comprehensive surveys, existing land-use, population, economy, soil characteristics, wetland and floodplain conditions and natural features of the county.
Also under current law, a city or village, or certain towns that exercise village powers, may create a plan commission to engage in zoning and land-use planning. The plan commission must adopt a master plan for the physical development of the city, village or town including, in some instances, unincorporated areas outside of the city or village. The master plan is required to show the commission's recommendations for such physical development, and must also contain a comprehensive zoning plan.
Also under current law, regional planning commissions (RPCs) may be created by the governor or, in response to a resolution submitted by the governing body of a city, village, town or county (political subdivision), by a state agency or official that the governor designates. Currently, there are eight multicounty RPCs in the state and one RPC that consists only of Dane County. Five counties, which are adjacent to Dane County, are not in an RPC. Generally, the membership composition of an RPC is specified by statute, and the governor may dissolve an RPC by the request of a majority of the local governments in the region.
An RPC is required to prepare a master plan for the physical development of the region, which must contain the RPC's recommendations for such physical development. The elements of an RPC's master plan are the same as the elements contained in a master plan developed by a city, a village and certain towns, although all of an RPC's functions are solely advisory to the political subdivisions that comprise the region.
This bill changes the membership composition of the Dane County RPC on the 31st day after the effective date of the bill, and dissolves the RPC on December 31, 2001. Under the bill, all of the members of the Dane County RPC are appointed by the governor from lists submitted by the Dane County executive, the mayor of the city of Madison and associations representing third and fourth class cities, villages and towns. If the Dane County RPC has any outstanding debt on the date of its dissolution, that debt is assessed to Dane County. The bill also requires the five boards of the counties that are not in an RPC, and the Dane County board, to vote on whether they want to participate in a new multicounty RPC. If at least two-thirds of the voting counties approve, the new RPC becomes effective on January 1, 2002. The bill also specifies that the membership composition of all RPCs that are created after December 31, 2001, that include a county that contains a 2nd class city must follow the same statute that sets the membership composition for a RPC that contains a 1st class city. Finally, the bill prohibits after December 31, 2001, the creation of an RPC that consists of only one county.
The bill also changes the requirements that must be contained in a county development plan or a city, village, town or RPC master plan. Under the bill, all such plans must do all of the following:
1. Include background information on the local governmental unit and a statement of objectives, policies, goals and programs of the local governmental unit to guide the future growth and development of the local governmental unit over a 20-year planning period.
2. Include information on the local governmental unit's housing stock and plans for housing for residents with all income levels and various needs.
3. Address transportation issues and evaluate the relationship between the local governmental unit's transportation plans and state and regional transportation plans.
4. Guide the development of public and private utilities, governmental services and community facilities.
5. Guide the development of conservation policies for, and the effective management of, agricultural, natural, historic and cultural resources.
6. Promote the stabilization, retention or expansion of the economic base of, and quality employment opportunities in, the local governmental unit.
