AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 3 of section 50-24.1-40 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the tribal health care coordination fund.
House Bill 1252 amends North Dakota law governing the tribal health care coordination fund. The bill keeps the fund in the state treasury and continues to appropriate its money on a continuing basis to the Department of Health for distribution to tribal governments under agreements with the department. Those agreements must require the money to be used for activities tied to the CDC’s ten essential public health services and for developing or enhancing community health representative programs or services.
The bill also updates the rules for how the money may be spent and monitored. Through June 30, 2025, no more than 50% of a distribution may be used for capital construction; after that date, the cap drops to 35%. Tribal governments must submit annual reports and biennial independent audit reports, may use grant funds to pay for the audit, and can be subject to more frequent audits at their discretion. The department must distribute funds at least annually after completing auditing and verification, and it may withhold payments if reports are late or if funds are used inconsistently with the statute.
HB1252 affects section 50-24.1-40 of the North Dakota Century Code by refining the administration, allowable uses, and accountability requirements for the tribal health care coordination fund. It preserves the continuing appropriation structure, ties distributions to federal care coordination agreement requests originating within each tribal nation, and gives the Department of Health authority to delay or recoup distributions when reporting or use-of-funds requirements are not met. The bill primarily affects tribal governments receiving these funds and the department overseeing the program.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House 90-0 and the Senate 44-1, indicating strong bipartisan approval and little visible opposition. The vote pattern suggests general agreement with the fund’s purpose and the accountability framework it establishes.
No committee testimony or debate transcripts were provided, and the recorded votes show minimal opposition. The only likely points of contention are the spending restrictions and oversight provisions: the cap on capital construction, the requirement for annual and biennial reporting, and the department’s authority to withhold funds for late reports or improper use. Even so, the near-unanimous votes suggest these provisions were largely accepted.