Human services: adult foster care; definition of covered facility; exclude hospitals that provide swing bed services. Amends sec. 134a of 1974 PA 258 (MCL 330.1134a). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0969'26
Senate Bill 970 amends section 134a of Michigan’s Mental Health Code, which governs criminal history screening for people who work in or contract with psychiatric facilities and other covered health facilities. The bill keeps in place the existing prohibition on hiring or granting clinical privileges to individuals with specified disqualifying criminal convictions, substantiated abuse or neglect findings, or certain court orders, and it continues to require background checks, fingerprinting, and registry review before an applicant may have regular direct access to patients or residents.
The bill also preserves the conditional-employment process that allows a facility to hire or grant privileges before final background-check results are returned, so long as the applicant signs required statements, is supervised as required, and is terminated if disqualifying information is later confirmed. It maintains penalties for false statements, improper use of criminal-history information, and failure by facilities or staffing agencies to conduct required checks. The bill updates and clarifies definitions and procedures related to staffing agencies, independent contractors, direct access, and automated fingerprint-based notification systems.
SB 970 would amend Michigan’s Mental Health Code to refine the criminal background-check framework for psychiatric facilities and other facilities covered by federal Medicaid-related definitions. It affects hiring, contracting, and credentialing practices for facilities, staffing agencies, and individuals who have direct access to patients or residents, while also preserving state police and department responsibilities for fingerprint checks, registry review, and ongoing notification of later arrests or convictions. The bill’s context indicates a specific definitional change to the term “covered facility,” excluding hospitals that provide swing bed services from that definition, which would narrow the facilities subject to this section’s requirements.
The available context shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the materials provided. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a technical and administrative update to existing patient-safety screening rules rather than a major policy shift. Its structure suggests a generally protective approach toward vulnerable patients and residents, with emphasis on background checks, reporting, and enforcement.
The main policy tension in the bill is between patient/resident safety and the administrative burden on facilities and staffing agencies. Supporters would likely emphasize stronger screening, automatic notification, and clearer enforcement for people with access to vulnerable populations, while potential critics could focus on the breadth of disqualifying offenses, the costs and logistics of fingerprint-based checks, and the limits on employment opportunities for people with older convictions. Another likely point of contention is the definitional change excluding swing-bed hospitals from the covered-facility category, which could affect which institutions must comply with these screening rules.