Scope statements
Controlled Substances Board
Subject
GBL is currently classified under state law as a schedule I drug, s.
961.14 (5) (ag), Stats. This chemical is only classified by DEA as a list one chemical. Legitimate uses for gamma-butyrolactone exist for industrial, scientific research, food industry uses and other uses. The Controlled Substances Board has received information that currently the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved the use of GBL as an industrial solvent. The objective of the rule is to delete the schedule I listing of GBL which will obviate the need for obtaining a special use authorization under s.
961.335, Stats.
Policy Analysis
Drugs that are classified as “controlled substances" under federal and state laws are subject to higher civil and criminal penalties for their illicit possession, distribution and use. Currently, persons having otherwise legitimate possession of GBL for legitimate uses are at risk of prosecution under the Wisconsin Controlled Substances Act in Chapter
961, Stats. Distributors of GBL located outside of this state and end users located within this state do not currently have the benefit of a limited industrial use exemption for the possession and use of GBL. With the delisting of GBL, the illicit use of GBL would still be prohibited since it is a violation of federal law as GBL is classified as a list one chemical. However, the mere possession and legitimate use of GBL in the state will no longer be a violation of the Uniform Controlled Substance Act.
Statutory Authority
Staff Time Required
80 hours.
Health and Family Services
Subject
The Department proposes to modify ch.
HFS 90, the rules governing early intervention services for children with developmental needs up to age 3. The rule modifications would have two results. First, counties would no longer have the option of electing not to participate in Wisconsin's “Birth to 3 program cost share." County participation in administering the Birth to 3 Program cost share would become mandatory. Second, the method of determining parents' share of the costs of needed services would be simplified and standardized statewide and would be based on the relationship of families' incomes to the federal poverty level.
Policy Analysis
Counties must, under s.
51.44 (3) and
(4), Stats., and s.
HFS 90.06 (2), provide or contract for the provision of early intervention services. However, s.
HFS 90.06 (2) (h) specifies that county administrative agencies must determine the amount of parental liability for the costs of the early intervention services in accordance with ch.
HFS 1. Chapter
HFS 1 is the Department's cost liability determination and ability to pay standards and guidelines for services purchased or provided by the Department and counties. Section
HFS 90.06 (2) (h) also states that parents may satisfy any liability not met by third party payers if parents pay the amount determined in accordance with the family support payment formula in s.
HFS 65.05 (7).
The Department's tying of the “Birth to 3 program" to ch.
HFS 1 and s.
HFS 65.05 (7) has had several undesirable consequences. First, under s.
HFS 65.06 (7), counties must perform complex and, in the Department's opinion, inappropriate calculations for the “Birth to 3 program" to determine each families' liabilities for sharing in the cost of providing early intervention services to their children. Specifically, while the calculations are designed to assess a family's ability to pay for services, s.
HFS 65.05 (7) (b) 6. allows each families' income to be broadly adjusted for any expenses related to the exceptional needs of the disabled child. Chapter
HFS 65 was designed to determine parental cost share for services to children who typically have more severe disabilities than children participating in the Birth to 3 Program. The methodology in s.
HFS 65.05 (7), while appropriate for families with children having severe disabilities, is, in the Department's opinion, inappropriate for the “Birth to 3 program" insofar as counties vary too greatly in their adjustment of families' income, and the methodology frequently distorts downward families' true ability to pay part of the cost of their child's early intervention services. Consequently, a family with a lower income in one county may be required to pay more for the same services than a relatively high-income family in another county. In addition, the significantly greater turnover of families in the “Birth to 3 program" versus other programs covered by ch.
HFS 65 makes the chapter's complex calculations relatively onerous on counties.
Under state and federal law, counties must provide or purchase early intervention services. While counties receive state and federal funds for services the counties provide under the “Birth to 3 program," funding shortfalls must be made up by each county. Consequently, the relatively high cost of administering the program under the current provisions of ch.
HFS 90 combined with relatively low rates of cost-sharing by families permitted by counties' application of s.
HFS 65.05 (7), has made the program burdensome on some counties. In fact, as of July 31, 2000 one-third of Wisconsin counties do not participate in the Department's payment system for its “Birth to 3 program." Counties' ability to not participate is a second undesirable consequence of the current ch.
HFS 90 rules. Sections
HFS 90.06 (2) (h) and
90.11 (2) (a) 2. and
4. cross reference and incorporate ch.
HFS 1. Section
HFS 1.01 (4) (d) allows counties to exempt themselves from or “opt out" of participating in the Department's “Birth to 3 program" if the county verifies that its service “will be significantly impaired if the imposition of a ch.
HFS 1 family cost sharing charge is administratively unfeasible." As stated, 24 counties have demonstrated to the Department that their cost of administering the payment system amounts to more than the revenues the counties collect. The counties' primary reason for opting out of the program is the administrative burden of the ch.
HFS 65 cost-sharing requirements.
The continuance of a dual payment system in the state creates unnecessary inequities for families depending on their county of residence and questionably pertinent income adjustments. Moreover, federal policies require participating states to administer a uniform program statewide. In October 2000, a Wisconsin county ceased funding its “Birth to 3 program" due to insufficient available funds. While illegal under Wisconsin and federal law, months passed (and may pass in the future) before a county continues its participation in the program. In the interim, children forego receiving needed services. Such resultant service gaps are disruptive to families receiving services under the “Birth to 3 program." In addition, ch.
HFS 1 requires that a family's insurance benefits be accessed; a contradiction of federal law. While federal regulations are currently being revised, none of the regulations the federal Department of Education have proposed thus far would have any bearing on the Department of Health and Family Service's development and promulgation of these administrative rules.
The Department is proposing to modify the ch.
HFS 90 administrative rules to change the “Birth to 3 program" payment system to one that will be independent of the current ch.
HFS 65 family support program ability to pay system. Likewise, ties to ch.
HFS 1 would also be severed. The proposed rules would simplify the determination of parental cost share, thereby eliminating the current payment system's inequities for families statewide and reducing counties' administrative costs associated with the program. The Department proposes using federal poverty levels, as revised annually, as a benchmark against which families' unadjusted incomes would be compared to determine the parental cost share liabilities. Under such a system, based on a recent survey of county “Birth to 3 programs," the Department projects that the number of families required to share in the early intervention service costs would roughly double. However, each family's share will be based on approximately 1% of their income (minus a standard deduction) versus the existing basis of 3% of income minus a standard deduction and disability-related expenses. Consequently, the cost share of some families may increase because they would not be able to deduct as much as the existing system allows while the cost share of other families may decrease because the proposed system will be based on a lower (1%) of family income. Families with incomes above 200% of the federal poverty level will be billed for part of the services their children receive. Families with incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level plus $3,300 will be exempt from cost sharing. Based on year 2000 child count data, about 2,000 families would be exempt from cost sharing under the formula the Department is likely to propose. Conversely, about 3,100 families are projected to have a liability for a cost share.
Under the simplified payment system the Department intends to propose through these rule changes, counties' costs to administer the payment system are expected to decline. Conversely, the proposed changes would result in many counties aggregately realizing more revenue due to the fact that more families will be participating in the program's costs. However, the additional income from families may not be significant in all counties. The primary reason for the increased revenues however, is that 24 counties would no longer have the option of “opting out" of the program's payment system. County participation would be mandatory. Counties' administration costs are also projected to decline as the number of forms and required calculations would be significantly reduced.
The proposed rule would establish a system for determining a family's cost share for early intervention services that is applied only to the Birth to 3 Program. The proposed rule would eliminate application of the Uniform Fee system in HFS 1 and the Family Support Program payment formula in HFS 65.05.
Statutory authority
Statutory authority to promulgate ch.
HFS 90 rules relating to Early Intervention Services is found in s.
51.44 (5) (a), Stats. Under s.
51.44 (1m), Stats., the Department is specified as the lead agency for developing and implementing a statewide system of coordinated, comprehensive multidisciplinary programs to provide early intervention services under the requirements of
20 USC 1476." Under s.
51.44 (3) (a), Stats., the Department is directed to “allocate and distribute funds to counties to provide or contract for the provision of early intervention services to individuals eligible to receive the early intervention services." The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provides for a system of sliding fees in
20 USC 1432(4)(B). Federal regulations at
34 CFR 303.521(a) authorize that "A State may establish, consistent with 303.12(a)(3)(iv), a system of payments for early intervention services, including a schedule of sliding fees."
Staff Time Required
The Department previously convened an internal workgroup to review and suggest changes to the current early intervention services payment system. In addition, the “Birth to 3 program" staff presented information about the proposed changes in five regions of the state in Spring 2001 and anticipates doing so again in the Fall (est. 10 hours).
The Department estimates that the development and subsequent revisions of the proposed rule will require about 7 days of Division staff time and about 5 days of Department-level staff time.
Hearings and Appeals
Subject
HA Code—Relating to modification of the procedures governing contested cases now set forth in Wis. Adm. Code ch.
HA 1.
Policy Analysis
This rule will modify the existing rules in Wis. Admin. Code ch.
HA 1 governing the procedure and practices for contested cases so that they better conform to the requirements of Chapter
227, Wis. Stats. and better describe the procedures for the variety of hearings now conducted by this division since the former Office of Administrative Hearings in the Department of Health and Family Services merged with the Division of Hearings and Appeals..
Statutory authority
Staff Time Required
About 40 hours of state employees' time will be required to draft the rule and comply with all rule-making requirements.
Pharmacy Examining Board
Subject
To allow for board approval a temporary change of location of a pharmacy in response to an emergency or natural or manmade disaster.
To provide a mechanism to allow the board to approve a temporary change of location of a pharmacy in response to an emergency or natural manmade disaster. Currently, no clear direction exists to guide pharmacies regarding the conditions and requirements necessary for the approval of a request to temporarily change the location of a pharmacy.
Policy Analysis
A temporary change of location of a pharmacy may at times be necessary following a catastrophic event such as a fire, flood, earthquake, severe weather or other civil emergency. Currently, the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration requires that any federally approved disaster relocation plan be state approved.
Statutory Authority
Staff Time Required
80 hours.
Regulation and Licensing.
Subject
The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), as adopted by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation.
Objective of the Rule. Repeal and recreate Ch.
RL 87, Appendix
I, the Uniform Standard of Professional Appraisal Practice, to incorporate by reference the 2001 revisions to the Standards.
Policy analysis
These rules will adopt revisions to the Standards that will be published in the 2002 edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
Statutory authority
Staff Time Required
60 hours.
Social Workers, Marriage and Family Therapists and Professional Counselors Examining Board
