A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 50-06 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to long-term care services for patients with ventilator or psychiatric needs.
SB 2316 would require the North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services to establish four service regions for long-term care services for individuals with ventilator needs or psychiatric needs. The department would have to contract with a provider in each region to deliver those services, and if no provider can be secured, the department would be required to pay for care in a certified long-term care facility in another state. The bill also allows the department to work with neighboring states to make services available when needed.
The bill further creates a funding mechanism for in-state long-term care facilities that take in patients with these specialized needs. If a facility documents that a patient has ventilator or psychiatric care needs and had been receiving care in an out-of-state facility during the prior year, the facility could receive additional funding equal to the extra cost of out-of-state care. In effect, the bill is aimed at expanding access to specialized long-term care and reducing reliance on out-of-state placements for medically complex patients.
The bill would add a new section to chapter 50-06 of the North Dakota Century Code and impose new duties on the state department responsible for human services. It would require regional planning, contracting, and potentially direct payment for out-of-state long-term care when in-state services are unavailable. It would also create a pathway for supplemental reimbursement to in-state facilities serving ventilator or psychiatric patients, which could affect Medicaid or state long-term care funding structures and the providers that serve these high-acuity populations.
The available record shows the bill ultimately failed, and there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided to indicate detailed debate. Based on the bill’s design, the measure appears to have been intended as a service-access and capacity-expansion proposal for a vulnerable patient population. The lack of supporting discussion in the record makes it difficult to identify a broader consensus, but the failure suggests the proposal did not secure sufficient legislative support.
The main likely points of contention are cost, administrative burden, and whether the state should mandate regional contracting and out-of-state payment obligations when providers are unavailable. Another possible issue is how to define and verify eligibility for the additional funding tied to ventilator or psychiatric care needs and prior out-of-state placement. Stakeholders most likely to be affected include the state department, long-term care facilities, patients with complex medical or behavioral health needs, and out-of-state providers or neighboring-state systems.