The bill also increases the monthly basic maintenance rates that are paid by the
state or a county to a kinship care relative (a relative other than a parent) who is
providing care and maintenance for a child. These rates are the same as for a foster
home certified to provide level one care.
6. Children and family services
Under current law, DCF must distribute not more than $74,308,000 in each
fiscal year to counties for children and family services. This bill increases the
maximum amount DCF must distribute to counties for these services to $78,708,100
in fiscal year 2019-20 and $90,478,400 in fiscal year 2020-21.
7. Background checks for child care programs
This bill makes various definitional changes, changes who can conduct a
rehabilitation review, and changes the timeline for an appeal of a decision of DCF in
the context of the background check requirements for people who work or reside at
a child care program.
Mental health and developmental disabilities
Methadone use in opioid treatment programs
Under current law, DHS is required to create two or three comprehensive opioid
treatment programs and two or three additional opioid and methamphetamine
treatment programs to provide treatment for opioid, opiate, and methamphetamine
addiction in underserved, high-need areas. The programs must provide counseling,
medication-assisted treatment, and abstinence-based treatment. Current law
prohibits these treatment programs from offering methadone treatment, and this
bill removes that prohibition.
2. Regional crisis stabilization facilities for adults
This bill requires DHS to award grants to regional crisis stabilization facilities
for adults based on criteria established by DHS. Current law requires certification
by DHS in order to operate a youth crisis stabilization facility, which is a facility
designed to prevent or de-escalate the minor's mental health crisis and avoid
admission of the minor to a more restrictive setting.
3. Crisis program enhancement grants
This bill requires DHS to award grants each fiscal biennium to counties or
regions comprising multiple counties to establish or enhance crisis programs to serve
individuals having crises in rural areas. Under current law, DHS is required to
award grants, but only for the purpose of establishing certified crisis programs that
create mental health mobile crisis teams. The bill allows DHS to award grants for
the purpose of establishing or enhancing crisis programs.
4. Mental health consultation program
This bill requires DHS to convene a statewide group of interested persons to
develop a concept paper, business plan, and standards for a comprehensive mental
health consultation program that incorporates general, geriatric, and addiction
psychiatry, a perinatal psychiatry consultation program, and the child psychiatry
consultation program, which operates under current law.
insurance
Coverage of individuals with preexisting conditions, essential health
benefits, and preventive services
This bill requires certain health plans to guarantee access to coverage;
prohibits plans from imposing preexisting condition exclusions; prohibits plans from
setting premiums or cost-sharing amounts based on a health status-related factors;
prohibits plans from setting lifetime or annual limits on benefits; requires plans to
cover certain essential health benefits; and requires coverage of certain preventive
services by plans without a cost-sharing contribution by an enrollee.
This bill requires every individual health insurance policy, known in the bill as
a health benefit plan, to accept every individual who, and every group health
insurance policy to accept every employer that, applies for coverage, regardless of
sexual orientation, gender identity, or whether an employee or individual has a
preexisting condition. The bill allows health benefit plans to restrict enrollment in
coverage to open or special enrollment periods and requires the commissioner of
insurance to establish a statewide open enrollment period of no shorter than 30 days
for every individual health benefit plan. The bill prohibits a group health insurance
policy, including a self-insured governmental health plan, from imposing a
preexisting condition exclusion. The bill also prohibits an individual health
insurance policy from reducing or denying a claim or loss incurred or disability
commencing under the policy on the ground that a disease or physical condition
existed prior to the effective date of coverage.
A health benefit plan offered on the individual or small employer market or a
self-insured governmental health plan may not vary premium rates for a specific
plan except on the basis of whether the plan covers an individual or family, area in
the state, age, and tobacco use as specified in the bill. An individual health benefit
plan or self-insured health plan is prohibited under the bill from establishing rules
for the eligibility of any individual to enroll based on health-status related factors,
which are specified in the bill. A self-insured health plan or an insurer offering an
individual health benefit plan is also prohibited from requiring an enrollee to pay a
greater premium, contribution, deductible, copayment, or coinsurance amount than
is required of a similarly situated enrollee based on a health-status related factor.
Current state law prohibits group health benefit plans from establishing rules of
eligibility or requiring greater premium or contribution amounts based on a
health-status related factor. The bill adds to these current law requirements for
group health benefit plans that the plan may not require a greater deductible,
copayment, or coinsurance amount based on a health-status related factor.
Under the bill, an individual or group health benefit plan or a self-insured
governmental health plan may not establish lifetime or annual limits on the dollar
value of benefits for an enrollee or a dependent of an enrollee under the plan.
The requirements and prohibitions in this bill related to coverage of individuals
with preexisting conditions and prohibition of lifetime and annual benefit limits also
apply to short-term, limited-duration health insurance policies.
This bill requires certain health insurance policies, known in the bill as
disability insurance policies, and governmental self-insured health plans to cover
essential health benefits that will be specified by the commissioner of insurance by
rule. The bill specifies a list of requirements that the commissioner must follow when
establishing the essential health benefits including certain limitations on cost
sharing and the following general categories of benefits, items, or services in which
the commissioner must require coverage: ambulatory patient services, emergency
services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance
use disorder services, prescription drugs, rehabilitative and habilitative services
and devices, laboratory services, preventive and wellness services and chronic
disease management, and pediatric services. If an essential health benefit specified
by the commissioner is also subject to its own mandated coverage requirement, the
bill requires the disability insurance policy or self-insured health plan to provide
coverage under whichever requirement provides the insured or plan participant with
more comprehensive coverage.
This bill requires health insurance policies and governmental self-insured
health plans to cover certain preventive services and to provide coverage of those
preventive services without subjecting that coverage to deductibles, copayments, or
coinsurance. The preventive services for which coverage is required are specified in
the bill. The bill also specifies certain instances when cost-sharing amounts may be
charged for an office visit associated with a preventive service.
2. Registration of pharmacy benefit managers; drug cost reporting
This bill generally requires certain prescription drug cost reporting by drug
manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, insurers, and hospitals. The bill also
requires pharmacy benefit managers to register with OCI in order to perform
activities of a pharmacy benefit manager in Wisconsin.
Under the bill, each insurer that offers a health insurance policy that covers
prescription drugs must submit to OCI an annual report that identifies the 25
prescription drugs that are the highest cost to the insurer and the 25 prescription
drugs that have the highest cost increases over the 12 months before the submission
of the report. Health insurance policies are referred to in the bill as disability
insurance policies.
The bill requires a drug manufacturer to notify OCI if it increases the wholesale
acquisition cost of a brand-name or generic drug on the market in this state by more
that an amount specified in the bill, or if it intends to introduce to market a
brand-name or generic drug that has an annual wholesale acquisition cost of more
than a specified amount. The manufacturer must include with the notice
justification for and documentation regarding the price increase. The bill requires
each manufacturer to provide OCI an annual description of each
manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance program in effect during the previous
year. Each manufacturer must also report to OCI the value of price concessions
provided to each pharmacy benefit manager for each drug sold.
The bill requires pharmacy benefit managers to report to OCI the amount
received from manufacturers as drug rebates and the value of price concessions
provided by manufacturers for each drug. The bill also requires each hospital
participating in the federal drug-pricing program, known as the 340B program, to
report to OCI the per unit margin for each drug covered under the 340B program
dispensed in the previous year, the total margin, and how the margin revenue was
used. OCI is required under the bill to publicly post information submitted, analyze
data collected, publish a report on emerging trends in prescription prices and price
increases, and annually conduct a public hearing based on that analysis. OCI must
also conduct a statistically-valid survey of pharmacies in this state regarding
whether the pharmacy agreed to not disclose that customer drug benefit cost sharing
exceeds the cost of the dispensed drug.
The bill requires OCI to ensure that every health insurance policy that covers
prescription drugs does not restrict a pharmacy or pharmacist from or penalize a
pharmacy or pharmacist for informing an insured of a difference between the price
of a drug or biological product under the policy and the price the insured would pay
without using health insurance coverage.
3. Nonresident agent appointment fee
Current law requires a $16 annual fee for appointment or renewal of a resident
insurance agent and a $30 annual fee for appointment or renewal of a nonresident
insurance agent. The commissioner of insurance may require, by rule, payment of
a higher appointment or renewal fee than the statutory fee. This bill increases the
statutory annual fee for nonresident agent appointment or renewal to $40.
JUSTICE
Powers of the attorney general
This bill repeals changes made to the powers of the attorney general in
2017
Wisconsin Act 369 relating to the power to compromise or discontinue civil actions
prosecuted by DOJ and the power to compromise and settle actions in cases where
DOJ is defending the state. This bill reestablishes these settlement powers as they
existed under the law before Act 369 was enacted.
The bill allows the attorney general to compromise or discontinue actions
prosecuted by DOJ a) when directed by the officer, department, board, or commission
that directed the prosecution; or b) with the approval of the governor when the action
is prosecuted by DOJ on the initiative of the attorney general or at the request of any
individual. The bill eliminates the requirement for approval of compromise or
discontinuance from a legislative intervenor or JCF. It also eliminates the
requirement, in certain circumstances, for the attorney general to obtain approval
of a settlement or discontinuance by the Joint Committee on Legislative
Organization before submitting a proposed plan to JCF.
Under the bill, when DOJ is representing the defense, the attorney general may
compromise and settle the action as the attorney general determines to be in the best
interest of the state. The bill eliminates the requirement under current law that, in
actions for injunctive relief or if there is a proposed consent decree, the attorney
general obtain approval of any legislative intervenor or, if there is no intervenor, JCF.
The bill also eliminates the requirement, in certain circumstances, that the attorney
general obtain approval from JCLO before submitting a proposed plan of settlement
or compromise to JCF.
2. Moving office of school safety to DPI
This bill moves the Office of School Safety from DOJ to DPI. The office of school
safety was created in
2017 Wisconsin Act 143 to create model practices for school
safety, to compile blueprints and geographic information system (GIS) maps of
schools for use by law enforcement agencies, to award grants to schools for
expenditures related to improving school safety, and to offer training to school staff
on school safety. Under the bill, all of those duties, except for the duty to offer training
to school staff on school safety move with the office to DPI. Under the bill, DOJ
retains the duty to offer such training.
3. Grants for community policing officers
Under current law, DOJ must award grants to cities with a population of at
least 25,000 to pay salaries and fringe benefits of beat patrol law enforcement officers
so that the cities may employ additional officers or to reimburse overtime hours for
the officers. DOJ must award the grants to eligible cities that apply that have the
highest rates of violent crime, and recipients must provide matching funds of at least
25 percent of the grant. This bill adds that DOJ may, using the same criteria for the
current law grants, also award grants to pay salaries and fringe benefits of law
enforcement officers who are assigned to community policing so that the cities may
employ additional officers who perform such services or to reimburse overtime hours
for those officers.
This bill also changes the funding source for these grants from an annual sum
certain program receipts appropriation to an annual sum certain GPR appropriation
in the 2019-21 fiscal biennium, and transfers the remaining moneys that had been
appropriated to the grants in the 2017-19 fiscal biennium to an appropriation to be
used at the discretion of the attorney general.
4. Alternatives to incarceration grant program
Under current law, DOJ must award grants to counties and to tribes to enable
them to establish and operate programs, including suspended and deferred
prosecution programs and programs based on principles of restorative justice, that
provide alternatives to prosecution and incarceration for criminal offenders who
abuse alcohol or other drugs. This bill expands the grant program by creating an
appropriation to provide grant funds to counties that are not yet a recipient of a grant
under the program on the effective date of this bill.
5. Nonviolent offender treatment diversion pilot program
2017 Wisconsin Act 32 created a nonviolent offender treatment diversion pilot
program that expires on July 1, 2019. This bill continues the nonviolent offender
treatment diversion pilot program until July 1, 2021, and requires that in each fiscal
year of the 2019-21 biennium, $250,000 of the moneys appropriated to the program
be allocated to police departments in cities of the first class.
6. Settlement funds
This bill creates two appropriations in which all moneys received from
settlement funds must be deposited to carry out the purposes for which the
settlement was received or, if no purpose was specified in the settlement, to be used
at the discretion of the attorney general. The bill also requires DOJ to submit to DOA
and JCF a semiannual report on the receipt and use of settlement funds.
The bill also creates an appropriation to hold all money received by DOJ that
is owed to a relator, to provide payments to relators. A relator is a type of party in
a lawsuit.
7. DNA Surcharges transfer
This bill transfers from DOJ's appropriation for DNA analysis surcharges to
DOJ's appropriation for investigating Internet crimes against children $750,000 in
each fiscal year of the 2019-21 fiscal biennium.
local government
Levy limits
Generally, under current law, local levy limits are applied to the property tax
levies that are imposed in December of each year. Current law prohibits any political
subdivision from increasing its levy by a percentage that exceeds its valuation factor,
which is the greater of either 0 percent or the percentage change in the political
subdivision's equalized value due to new construction, less improvements removed
(net new construction). Current law also contains a number of exceptions to the levy
limit, such as amounts a county levies for a countywide emergency medical system,
for a county children with disabilities education board, and for certain bridge and
culvert construction and repair.
Minimum increase factor
Under the bill, the valuation factor is increased to the greater of either 2 percent
or the percentage change in net new construction.
2. Adjustment for shared emergency services and joint fire departments
The bill creates an exception to local levy limits for shared emergency services.
Under the bill, fee increases apportioned to each political subdivision operating a
joint emergency dispatch center do not apply to the levy limits, but only if the fees
would cause the political subdivisions to exceed the levy limits, and only if the total
charges imposed by the center for the current year, compared to the previous year,
are less than or equal to the rate of inflation plus 1 percent. In addition, all member
political subdivisions of a center must adopt a resolution in favor of exceeding the
levy limit.
Also under current law, a similar exception applies to municipalities operating
a joint fire department. Currently, under this provision, the exception applies only
if the total charges imposed by the joint fire department for the current year,
compared to the previous year, increase by less than or equal to the rate of inflation
plus 2 percent. This bill reduces the permitted yearly increase to the rate of inflation
plus 1 percent.
3. Exclusion for cross-municipality transit routes
The bill creates an exception to local levy limits for certain transit services.
Under the bill, amounts levied by a political subdivision for costs related to new or
enhanced transit services that cross adjacent county or municipal borders do not
apply to the limit if the political subdivisions between which the routes operate have
entered into an agreement to provide for the services and if the agreement is
approved in a referendum.
4. Negative adjustment for certain service revenues
Under current law, a political subdivision must reduce its allowable levy by the
estimated amount of any revenue from fees or payments in lieu of taxes if the revenue
is received for providing certain “covered services" that were funded with property
tax revenues in calendar year 2013. The “covered services" are certain garbage
collection, fire protection, snow plowing, street sweeping, and storm water
management.
This bill repeals the requirement that a political subdivision must reduce its
allowable levy by the estimated amount of revenues received for providing covered
services that were funded with property tax revenues in calendar year 2013.
Tax incremental financing
Under the current tax incremental financing program, a city or village may
create a tax incremental district in its territory to foster development. Currently,
towns and counties also have a limited ability to create a TID. Before a city or village
may create a TID, several steps and plans are required. These include public
hearings on the proposed TID, preparation and adoption of a proposed project plan
for the TID, approval of the proposed project plan by the common council or village
board, approval of the proposed TID by a joint review board that consists of members
who represent the overlying taxation districts, and adoption of a resolution by the
common council or village board that creates the TID. Also under current law, once
a tax incremental district has been created, DOR calculates the “tax incremental
base" value of the TID, which is the equalized value of all taxable property within the
TID at the time of its creation. If the development in the TID increases the value of
the property in the TID above the base value, a “value increment" is created. That
portion of taxes collected on the value increment in excess of the base value is called
a “tax increment." The tax increment is placed in a special fund that may be used
only to pay back the project costs of the TID.
Developer cash grant limitations
Currently, a TID project plan must include information regarding all proposed
public works or improvements within the district, an economic feasibility study, a
detailed list of estimated project costs, and a description of financing methods for the
project costs. Generally, project costs are defined to include public works such as
sewers, streets, and lighting systems; financing costs; site preparation costs; and
professional service costs. Current law authorizes a political subdivision to make
cash grants, which are included in project costs, to owners, lessees, or developers of
land in a TID if the grant recipient has entered into a development agreement with
the political subdivision.
Under this bill, the total of all such cash grants may not exceed 20 percent of
the total project costs of a TID, including financing costs attributable to the grants.
2. Tax incremental district project plan stress tests
This bill requires that a TID's project plan also include alternative economic
projections of the TID's finances and feasibility under different economic situations,
including a slower pace of development and lower rate of property value growth than
expected in the TID.
3. Erroneous reporting of value increments
Under this bill, for property values reported in 2018, if a city or village
erroneously reports a higher value increment for its TIDs by an aggregate amount
of at least $50 million, the city's or village's TIDs may transfer the excess tax
increment collections resulting from this error to the city's or village's general fund
to reimburse taxpayers for the higher property tax rates imposed on them due to this
error. Before making any such transfers, the city or village must verify with DOR
the amounts involved.
General local government
State and local employment regulations; repeal preemption of local
government regulations
This bill repeals the preemption of local governments enacting or enforcing
ordinances related to the following:
a. Regulations related to wage claims and collections.
b. Regulation of employee hours and overtime, including scheduling of
employee work hours or shifts.
c. The employment benefits an employer may be required to provide to its
employees.
d. An employer's right to solicit information regarding the salary history of
prospective employees.
The bill also repeals a prohibition against a political subdivision from imposing
an occupational licensing requirement on an individual that is more stringent than
the state requirement. The bill also repeals a provision under which neither the state
nor a local government may enact a statute or ordinance, adopt a policy or regulation,
or impose a contract, zoning, permitting, or licensing requirement, or any other
condition, that would require any person to accept any provision that is a subject of
collective bargaining under state or federal labor laws. Current law defines “federal
labor laws” as the National Labor Relations Act. Finally, the bill repeals a
prohibition under which the state and local governments, and their employees, could
require any person to waive the person's rights under state or federal labor laws as
a condition of any other approval by the state or local governmental unit.
2. Municipality construction, ownership, or operation of broadband
facilities
Current law prohibits, with several exceptions, a municipality from
constructing, owning, or operating a facility for providing video service,
telecommunications service, or broadband service to the public unless a) the
municipality holds a public hearing on the proposed action, b) notice of the public
hearing is given, and c) the municipality prepares and makes available for public
inspection a report estimating the total costs of, and revenues derived from,
constructing, owning, or operating the facility for a period of at least three years.
Current law specifies the costs that must be estimated under item c. This bill
eliminates that specification of costs when the facility is a broadband facility
intended to serve an underserved or unserved area.
Currently, under one of the exceptions, the public hearing and cost report do not
apply to a facility for providing broadband service if a) the municipality offers use of
the facility on a nondiscriminatory basis to persons who provide broadband service
to end users of the service, b) the municipality itself does not use the facility to
provide broadband service to end users, and c) the municipality determines that, at
the time of authorization, the facility does not compete with more than one provider
of broadband service. This bill eliminates the requirements under items b and c for
facilities that are intended to serve an underserved or unserved area. That is, under
the bill, for facilities that are intended to serve an underserved or unserved area, the
public hearing and cost report do not apply to a facility for providing broadband
service if the municipality offers use of the facility on a nondiscriminatory basis to
persons who provide broadband service to end users of the service.
Currently, under another of the exceptions, the public hearing and cost report
do not apply to a facility for providing broadband service to an area within the
boundaries of a municipality if the municipality asks, in writing, each person that
provides broadband service within the boundaries of the municipality whether the
person currently provides broadband service to the area or intends to provide
broadband service to the area within nine months and a) does not receive an
affirmative response within 60 days, b) the municipality determines that a person
who responded does not currently provide broadband service to the area, and no
other person makes the response to the municipality, or c) the municipality
determines that a person who responded that the person intended to provide
broadband service to the area within nine months did not actually provide the service
within nine months and no other person makes the response to the municipality.
Under the bill, for this exception in the case of an underserved or unserved area,
rather than asking whether a person plans to provide broadband service to the area
within nine months, the municipality must ask whether the person intends or
actively plans to provide broadband service to the area within the relevant time
period.
