Scope statements
Educational Approval Board
Subject
Revising current administrative rules. Objective of rule. As part of a comprehensive update, this rule will clarify existing provisions, correct inconsistencies between rule and statute, codify current administrative practices, and create new provisions to facilitate the board's regulatory authority.
Policy Analysis
• Amend the definition of a “person" to include a government agency.
• Create a definition of a “recognized accrediting body".
• Create a definition of a “teach-out".
• Repeal outdated board operating procedures.
• Create a set of intermediate sanctions that the EAB can place upon a school for regulatory violations.
• Clarify the delegation of responsibilities of the board to staff.
• Create a provision allowing the board to waive second payment renewal fees in certain instances.
• Clarify that a hearing requested by a school would be before an administrative law judge from the Department of Administration.
• Create a provision that requires schools to have a minimum surety bond.
• Allow the board to use a surety bond on which it collects for a teach-out.
• Allow the board to accept a letter of credit in lieu of a bond.
• Update rule references citing s.45.54 (10).
• Update the fees charged to schools to correct application errors.
• Amend the retention of records by schools.
• Create a provision for the retention of closed school records by the board.
• Amend existing refund standards.
• Create specific provisions regarding the regulation of distance education.
• Codify existing board policy regarding information technology programs.
• Make changes to correct erroneous technical information.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
It is estimated that 85 hours will be required to develop this rule order.
Health and Family Services
Subject
The Department proposes to repeal and recreate ch.
HFS 117, rules relating to fees for copies of patient health care records.
Policy Analysis
In 1993, the Department created ch.
HFS 117 to prescribe uniform fees for certified duplicate health care provider records pertaining to particular patients when those records are requested under s.
908.03 (6m) (c) 3., Stats., by attorneys. Over the subsequent 9 years, both the fee amounts specified in ch.
HFS 117 and circumstances under which the fee limits apply have been contentious subjects. The statute did not explicitly declare whether the fee limits issued under s.
908.03 (6m) (d), Stats., applied only when a case was actively in litigation or, alternatively, whether the fee limits applied also to requests by attorneys even when no case had been filed with a court or administrative hearing body. Meanwhile, s.
146.83, Stats., allowed health care providers to charge a “reasonable cost" for providing copies of patient health care records to requesters under s.
146.83, Stats., and that phrase was not defined. It was unclear which situations were controlled by the ch.
HFS 117 fee limits and which were controlled by s.
146.83, Stats. It was also unclear what constituted a “reasonable cost" when the fee limits of ch.
HFS 117 were inapplicable and only s.
146.83, Stats., applied. As a result, frequent disputes occurred concerning fees for copying of patient health care records.
1. Amended s.
908.03 (6m) (d), Stats., to explicitly declare that commencement of an action is not a prerequisite for the application of the ch.
HFS 117 fee limits to copying performed under that statute.
2. Amended s.
146.83 (1) (b) and
(c), Stats., pertaining to access by a patient or person authorized by a patient to health care records. These amendments extend the applicability of the fee limits the Department specifies in ch.
HFS 117 to all requests for health care record copies in all settings controlled by s.
146.83, Stats. (not just requests from attorneys, nor just with respect to cases in litigation.)
3. Created s.
146.83 (3m), Stats., which directs the Department to prescribe copying fees that are based on an approximation of actual costs incurred by entities producing the copies.
Pursuant to a nonstatutory directive in
2001 Wisconsin Act 109, to develop the initial proposed rules, the Department will establish an advisory committee composed of members who represent a balance of persons who maintain patient health care records and persons who request patient health care records.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
The Department estimates it will take 50 hours of staff time to develop the proposed rules, including the time required to staff the advisory committee mentioned above.
Higher Educational Aids Board
Subject
Administration of Talent Incentive Grant Program.
Policy Analysis
The
1989 Wis. Act 31 created s.
39.435, Stats., provides for grants to Wisconsin residents who meet criteria established by the statute and administrative code.
The Wisconsin Higher Educational Aids Board (HEAB) administers this program under s.
39.435, Stats., and under ch.
HEA 5. Current rules contain some criteria that is no longer relevant (e.g. references to AFDC) or contain unclear language that may cause otherwise eligible residents to not be considered eligibility. Revising the rules eliminates no longer relevant language and makes language clarifications that will allow fair and equitable administration of the program for all Wisconsin residents.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
Estimated hours of staff time - 20 hours. Financial Aid Administrators (including Wisconsin Educational Opportunities Program staff) will be requested to provide input to HEAB on drafts of ch.
HEA 5.
Natural Resources
Subject
Creation of new rules pertaining to captive wild animal farms in chs.
NR 16 and
19.
Policy Analysis
