Maryland Public Ethics Law - Officials of the Legislative Branch - Gifts of Food and Beverages
HB0136 makes a targeted administrative change to Maryland law governing reimbursement for sexual assault forensic exams and related treatment. Under current law, physicians, qualified health care providers, and hospitals that provide certain services to victims of alleged rape, sexual offenses, or alleged child sexual abuse are paid through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. This bill shifts that payment responsibility to the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy, while keeping the underlying requirement that the services be provided without charge to the victim.
The bill also preserves existing privacy protections in the reimbursement process. Providers must still submit written or electronic verification that services were rendered, but they may not include a narrative of the alleged offense or a photograph of the victim in a payment request. For follow-up treatment under the relevant statute, victims may continue to decline to provide health insurance information or personal information to a payment assistance program if they believe disclosure would affect privacy or safety, and if they do so, the care must still be provided without charge and reimbursed by the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy.
HB0136 amends Sections 11-1007 and 11-1008 of the Maryland Criminal Procedure Article to replace the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board with the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy as the entity responsible for paying providers for sexual assault exams, treatment, and related follow-up care. The bill does not change who is eligible for free services or the confidentiality limits on reimbursement requests; it changes only the state office administering payment. It takes effect June 1, 2025, and affects victims of alleged rape, sexual offenses, and alleged child sexual abuse, along with physicians, qualified health care providers, and hospitals that furnish these services.
The available record suggests the bill was noncontroversial and administrative in nature. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided context, and the text reflects a straightforward transfer of payment responsibility rather than a policy change affecting victim eligibility or provider obligations. The bill appears aimed at improving or clarifying state administration of an existing reimbursement program.
No specific points of contention are shown in the provided materials. If any concerns were raised, they would most likely have centered on the reassignment of duties from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy, including administrative capacity, payment processing, or budgetary responsibility. However, the bill text itself preserves existing victim protections and provider reimbursement rights, which likely limited substantive opposition.