AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 3 of section 12.1-34-07 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the reimbursement of medical screening and examination for sexual assault victims.
SB 2292 amends North Dakota law governing reimbursement for services provided to sexual assault victims. The bill requires the attorney general, within available legislative appropriations, to reimburse health care facilities or health care professionals for the reasonable costs of a medical screening and acute forensic medical examination when proper documentation is submitted. It also adds a separate reimbursement provision for accredited children's advocacy centers in the state for forensic interviews that are not otherwise reimbursable by Medicaid or crime victims compensation.
The measure is focused on ensuring that providers and advocacy centers are compensated for essential victim services tied to sexual assault investigations and care. By placing the reimbursement obligation in the general fund and tying payment to appropriations, the bill preserves legislative control over funding while clarifying the state’s role in covering these costs.
The bill amends subsection 3 of section 12.1-34-07 of the North Dakota Century Code. Its practical effect is to expand and clarify state reimbursement authority for sexual assault-related medical and forensic services, including forensic interviews at accredited children's advocacy centers. The affected parties are health care facilities, health care professionals, and accredited children's advocacy centers that provide these services, as well as the attorney general’s office, which administers reimbursement from the general fund subject to appropriations.
The available voting record shows unanimous support in both chambers, with a 47-0 Senate vote and an 89-0 House vote. No committee transcripts were provided, but the lack of recorded opposition suggests broad bipartisan agreement and little controversy around the bill’s purpose of supporting sexual assault victims and the providers who assist them.
No notable contention is evident in the available record. The only policy constraint reflected in the text is that reimbursements are limited by legislative appropriations, which may matter for funding levels and implementation, but no member objections or competing viewpoints are documented. The bill appears to have been viewed as a straightforward victim-services measure with broad support.