AN ACT TO BE KNOWN AS THE CREATING LOGIC FOR EFFICIENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY REFORM (CLEAR) ACT; TO CREATE NEW SECTION 5-3-77, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO AUTHORIZE THE PEER COMMITTEE TO ESTABLISH A PROGRAM OF REVIEWING SELECTED NEWLY ADOPTED STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE RULES; TO PROVIDE THAT SUCH REVIEWS SHALL PRODUCE A REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE ON NEWLY ADOPTED STATE AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE RULES; TO AMEND SECTION 43-13-117, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, AS AMENDED BY HOUSE BILL NO. 565, 2026 REGULAR SESSION, TO PROVIDE THAT THE PEER COMMITTEE SHALL CONDUCT A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE MEDICAID NONEMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS TO EVALUATE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM AND THE PROVIDERS OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TO DETERMINE THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE WAYS OF PROVIDING NONEMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TO THE PATIENTS SERVED UNDER THE PROGRAM; TO CREATE THE STATE BOARD OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS; TO PROVIDE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD SHALL BE ONE MEMBER FROM THE BOARDS OF MEDICAL LICENSURE, PHARMACY, NURSING, CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS, DENTAL EXAMINERS AND OPTOMETRY, AND FIVE ADDITIONAL MEMBERS; TO PROVIDE THAT THE BOARD SHALL EVALUATE THE NEED FOR COORDINATION AMONG THE HEALTH REGULATORY BOARDS AND THEIR STAFFS, EVALUATE ALL HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS IN THE STATE AND CONSIDER WHETHER EACH SUCH PROFESSION OR OCCUPATION SHOULD BE REGULATED AND THE DEGREE OF REGULATION TO BE IMPOSED, SERVE AS A FORUM FOR RESOLVING CONFLICTS AMONG THE HEALTH REGULATORY BOARDS, ADVISE THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE REGULATION OR DEREGULATION OF HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS, AND EXAMINE SCOPE OF PRACTICE CONFLICTS INVOLVING REGULATED AND UNREGULATED HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS AND ADVISE THE HEALTH REGULATORY BOARDS AND THE LEGISLATURE OF THE NATURE AND DEGREE OF SUCH CONFLICTS; TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SHALL ANNUALLY REQUEST A BUDGET FOR THE STATE BOARD OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS AND SHALL PROVIDE A MEETING SPACE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT FOR THE BOARD'S OPERATIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 47-5-579, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CLARIFY THAT ALL PROGRAM WITHHOLDINGS FROM PARTICIPANTS OF THE PRISON INDUSTRIES CORPORATION'S WORK INITIATIVE PROGRAM SHALL BE CALCULATED BASED UPON PARTICIPANT WAGES AFTER MANDATORY DEDUCTIONS; TO REQUIRE ACCOUNTING OF ANY DEPENDENT SUPPORT PAYMENTS, FINES, RESTITUTIONS, FEES OR COSTS, AS ORDERED BY THE COURT, BE REPORTED FOR EACH WORK INITIATIVE PARTICIPANT; TO REQUIRE THAT THE REMAINING SENTENCE LENGTH OF SUCH PARTICIPANT BE COLLECTED, MAINTAINED AND REPORTED; TO REQUIRE THAT A FINANCIAL ACCOUNT CREATION DATE BE COLLECTED, MAINTAINED AND REPORTED FOR EACH PARTICIPANT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
The CLEAR Act is expected to have significant implications for the way state agencies operate and implement regulations. By instituting a review process, it aims to reduce unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and promote a more agile state governance structure. Specifically, it enhances transparency by requiring regular performance evaluations of certain programs, including the Medicaid nonemergency transportation program. This reevaluation could lead to adjustments in service delivery, cost savings, and improved access for needy populations.
House Bill 925, known as the CLEAR Act, aims to enhance efficiency and accountability within Mississippi's state government by establishing a framework for reviewing newly adopted state agency administrative rules. The bill mandates that the Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER) conduct evaluations of state agencies' rules and report findings and recommendations to the legislature. This initiative is viewed as a means to streamline government operations and ensure that regulations are effective and relevant to current needs.
The sentiment around House Bill 925 is generally positive, especially among supporters who advocate for increased oversight and efficiency in state operations. Proponents argue that the bill will improve accountability and help identify both successful and ineffective programs, ultimately leading to better resource allocation and service provision. However, there are concerns from some stakeholders regarding the capacity of the PEER committee to manage the increased workload and effectively implement the required evaluations without compromising quality.
Notable points of contention include worries about the potential for the bill to ripple through various programs and services, particularly affecting those reliant on Medicaid transportation services. Critics argue that while the intention is to enhance efficiency, there is a risk that scrutiny could lead to cuts or changes that might disadvantage vulnerable populations relying on these essential services. Additionally, the feasibility of the proposed three-year evaluation cycle for the Medicaid nonemergency transportation program raises questions about the adequacy of oversight to ensure effectiveness.