An Act to amend 59.365 (3) (a) of the statutes; Relating to: fees charged for certain coroner or medical examiner services. (FE)
Summary
AB347 creates a narrow exception to Wisconsin’s existing limits on county fee increases for certain coroner and medical examiner services. Under current law, counties that raise fees for services such as signing death records, cremation permits, coroner services, or transportation-related services generally may not increase those fees by more than the annual change in the U.S. Consumer Price Index. This bill would allow a county that transitions from coroner or lay medical examiner services to physician medical examiner services during a specified window to make a one-time increase to the fee for signing a death record or issuing a cremation permit, or both, by up to $100 above the amount in effect on April 17, 2015, without regard to CPI limits.
Impact
The bill amends s. 59.365 (3) (a) of the Wisconsin Statutes to expand a special fee-setting authority for counties that newly begin providing physician medical examiner services. It changes the qualifying date range for the exception and preserves the one-time ability to set higher fees for death record signatures and cremation permits, while excluding counties with populations over 300,000. The practical effect is to give a limited number of counties more flexibility to recover costs associated with converting to physician medical examiner operations, while leaving the general CPI-based cap in place for other counties and other fee changes.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript, recorded votes, or formal debate, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s introduction and referral. The bill’s structure suggests a targeted, technical adjustment intended to help counties manage administrative and operational costs tied to a change in medical examiner service delivery. Its eventual failure to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 indicates it did not advance into law, but the provided materials do not show whether that was due to policy disagreement, timing, or broader legislative procedure.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether counties should be allowed to exceed normal fee-increase limits when they convert to physician medical examiner services. Supporters would likely view the bill as a narrow cost-recovery measure for counties facing new responsibilities, while potential critics could argue that it weakens consumer-style limits on local fees or creates unequal treatment among counties. The bill also draws a line by excluding counties over 300,000 population, which could be seen as either a safeguard against large-county overreach or an arbitrary distinction depending on perspective.