Positive support professional and support analyst qualifications modified relating to human services.
Summary
HF2722 amends Minnesota’s human services statutes governing who may serve as a positive support professional and a positive support analyst for people receiving positive support services under certain waiver plans. The bill revises the qualifications section for positive support professionals by listing the competencies they must have and the types of licensed or trained professionals who may qualify, including psychologists, clinical social workers, physicians, licensed professional clinical counselors, certain master’s- or PhD-level behavioral health professionals, psychiatric/mental health nurses, and individuals who complete a commissioner-approved competency-based training program.
For positive support analysts, the bill similarly broadens and clarifies the acceptable educational and professional pathways. It allows a person to qualify through a baccalaureate, master’s, or doctoral degree in social services or nursing; by meeting the definition of a mental health practitioner; by being a board-certified behavior analyst or assistant behavior analyst; or by completing a commissioner-approved competency-based training program. The bill also retains requirements for supervised experience, pre-hire or early employment training, direct supervision by a positive support professional, and the ability of a qualified positive support professional to substitute for the analyst qualifications.
Impact
The bill would amend Minnesota Statutes section 245D.091, subdivisions 2 and 3, affecting the standards used to determine who may provide positive support services under brain injury, CADI, CAC, and developmental disabilities waiver plans or successor plans. Its practical effect is to update and potentially expand the pool of eligible professionals and analysts while preserving competency, training, and supervision requirements. This could influence provider staffing, service delivery, and administrative oversight in disability and behavioral support services.
Sentiment
The bill text suggests a generally pragmatic, workforce-oriented approach focused on clarifying qualifications rather than changing the underlying service model. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition in the record supplied. On its face, the measure appears aimed at aligning qualifications with existing professional credentials and training pathways, which may be viewed favorably by providers and administrators seeking flexibility.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is whether the bill appropriately balances workforce flexibility with service quality and safety. Expanding eligibility to additional licensed professionals, degree holders, and commissioner-approved training pathways could be seen as improving access to qualified staff, but it may also raise concerns about consistency of expertise, especially for individuals serving people with challenging behaviors, co-occurring mental disorders, or neurocognitive disorders. Another possible issue is the degree of discretion given to the commissioner to approve competency-based training programs.