[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6125938,"mediaKeyId","2674173-362512d01e110075f17bc6ff53f2f164","parentId",2674173,"title","Committee hearing on bill to add “health status” to anti-discrimination law draws sharp opposition from hospitals, public health and regulators","audioSeconds",6290,"startMs",4148000,"endMs",10438000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2674173-362512d01e110075f17bc6ff53f2f164&start=4148&end=10438","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2674173-362512d01e110075f17bc6ff53f2f164/thumbnail_4148000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6125938/North-Dakota/Committee-hearing-on-bill-to-add-health-status-to-anti-discrimination-law-draws-sharp-opposition-from-hospitals-public-health-and-regulators","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125938-ba8046be025cb7780e1743f8562457b8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771039986&Signature=L2raqWw~qI44mDtVAVUljwvVM227V3K1O4go1YGPZrCA5J4suEpwL-5zJYGyztS3s4RV9nvEBvOoIbdri1Hh2mTelvjjRjaw8UbqGf50fD6Xm~-gMt7Hpb4xRhadQEeEdbA3GnMW0hV2TQMaJF99KjzJ5ULqCsE6DVF7ZlPBLfWSHxt4FtLAe39ZOVaBS-36G4RFZa6wWsNf-Gl8IYbSWyYLXh7W~cbSYrwgunlCyLA4NfeZ2M0nq5IMa2Q52~C7aA4oYRUwuLDEV-HdwzEiua2v9F4TRm9gdbyCY3INp2esfQTBZc7vDfjsIRl7aaZOdtvZbRf2uigLBTe9-b9PCw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-03-18T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Industry and Business Committee opened a hearing on House Bill 1391, which would add “health status” as a protected characteristic across employment, housing, public services and credit transactions in North Dakota law. Sponsor Representative Karen Rohr said the change protects “personal medical autonomy,” citing pandemic-era examples in which people were excluded from employment or services for vaccination or other medical choices. Supporters described the bill as a safeguard for informed consent and individual liberty.

Opponents — including the state Department of Labor and Human Rights, health-system leaders, the North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services, and business groups — urged the committee not to advance the bill, citing the draft’s broad definition, potential conflicts with public-health authority and workplace safety, and a likely surge of complex discrimination claims that would strain the state agency that handles enforcement.

Nut graf: The hearing split along predictable lines: proponents framed the bill as protecting medical decision‑making and guarding against coercive mandates; health-care and public-health witnesses warned the measure, as written, would impede infection-control practices, complicate employer obligations and create administrative burdens for the Department of Labor and Human Rights.

Representative Karen Rohr, the bill’s House sponsor, described the proposed statutory language as covering health information and the right to refuse a medical procedure, and said the policy grew from concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. “This bill is for all that couldn't get jobs or lost their jobs,” she said, and added the measure is intended to prevent discrimination based on medical history, treatments or medical choices.

Supporters included Representative Kathy Fralick and Jennifer Benson, who emphasized constitutional liberty, informed consent and the need for consistent statewide protections. Benson cited litigation in other states and said similar statutes have been defended in federal courts.

Neutral or strongly opposed testimony focused on operational and legal risks. Zachary Greenberg, interim commissioner of the Department of Labor and Human Rights, said the proposed definition of “health status” is overly broad and would create legal uncertainty and a likely increase in complaints; he submitted a fiscal request for five additional full‑time employees to manage intake and investigations. Greenberg told the committee his office currently handles a backlog of roughly 400 cases and said adding a new protected class would exacerbate enforcement delays.

Hospitals and clinicians gave concrete examples of how the bill could affect patient safety. Dr. Chris Meeker, chief medical officer at Sanford Bismarck, said health care facilities must know vaccination or titer status for staff who care for immunocompromised patients, and that some communicable diseases (for example, measles or tuberculosis) present risk before symptoms are obvious. “Anyone who enters our healthcare facility… you should not be causing harm to any of your patients,” Meeker said, invoking the medical ethic “first, do no harm.” He and other health-care witnesses said the bill’s limited exemption for licensed health facilities is unlikely to address practical patient-safety issues such as tuberculosis screening, hepatitis B immunity, or measles outbreaks that require targeted exclusion to protect patients.

Public-health witnesses raised similar concerns. Molly Howell of the Department of Health and Human Services said sections that would forbid public accommodations from refusing access based on health status “would not allow public accommodations or services… to prevent the spread of infectious diseases by excluding individuals who are actively sick,” and could conflict with existing statute that permits exclusion during an epidemic. Barbara Friedland, a county public-health director, warned that limiting documentation requirements could undermine school and childcare immunization programs and weaken community protections for infants and immunocompromised people.

Business groups including the Greater North Dakota Chamber, the North Dakota Bankers Association and the North Dakota Hospital Association opposed the bill as drafted, citing employer liability, ambiguity over “reasonable accommodation,” and potential workers’ compensation or insurance effects. Eric Spencer of the chamber and Rick Kleberg of the bankers association both told the committee that employers need clear authority to take steps to protect customers and co‑workers in settings with communicable-disease risks.

Committee members asked about federal preemption and past pandemic actions. Witnesses noted existing federal rules (CMS, OSHA) and funding levers, and several said those federal authorities remain superior where they apply; others said state statutory clarity is needed to avoid legal and operational conflicts. No committee vote was taken.

Ending: The hearing record includes multiple written submissions and requests for fiscal analysis; the committee closed the public hearing with no action and said it would consider testimony and fiscal impacts as it drafts next steps.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Industry and Business Tuesday, Mar 18, 2025 8:55 AM - 11:51 AM","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 1391 would add 'health status' as a protected class in North Dakota anti‑discrimination law; sponsors say it protects medical autonomy, while the Department of Labor, hospitals, public-health officials and business groups warned the definition is broad and could impede public-health actions and burden agencies.","taxTitle","Industry and Business, Senate, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28906,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6125945,"Senate committee hears bill to eliminate PERS cost-sharing for diagnostic, supplemental breast imaging",3732,335000,4067000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2674173-362512d01e110075f17bc6ff53f2f164&start=335&end=4067","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2674173-362512d01e110075f17bc6ff53f2f164/thumbnail_335000.jpg","/articles/6125945/North-Dakota/Senate-committee-hears-bill-to-eliminate-PERS-cost-sharing-for-diagnostic-supplemental-breast-imaging","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125945-7dd0f64dad6971bc1967b187824dfaf5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771039986&Signature=oxzgZuwyrOB2aC61i1FiiRz9Zxz6LPRht6fiovRnggld-1kaEK4s3DTC4HL2vh5BjuTrc~78YkGB0KI5FTqfg1kf7ldOLLKrpX093-s~6C5UwXWizlAjI8kL2~s-s~OVFL6kPZQJFkf5JDl3o09A4k4gG90l23mBs-1YIeHrkuxTTIB8U-UFOypin5P3AvUUpI65qXJ8P~9JHok7nI0XhNNEgg8chwvUbWOl-lfUVp3IUboyQ4gfVAyKViyV1Zhm1ghGJQS2fzBhXIo~SeR140FDTQZ-3tqcjaN6ccnAtfOMv2xAmK~GZGC3eHGjlga65z8tXhM3uAKOW910vELeYA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Industry and Business Committee held a hearing on House Bill 1283, a bill sponsored in the House to prohibit cost-sharing for diagnostic and supplemental breast imaging for members of the North Dakota Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Proponents said the change would remove a financial barrier to follow-up care after screening mammograms and improve early cancer detection; PERS staff and some business groups warned of premium impacts and described the bill as requiring a PERS pilot and further review before any broader rollout.

Representative Karen Carls, the House sponsor, told the committee the measure would ensure “essential breast cancer screenings including follow-up and supplemental imaging are provided at no cost share for those who need them regardless of gender.” She and other proponents emphasized the bill does not add coverage but eliminates cost sharing for services already included in the state’s essential health benefits benchmark.

Nut graf: Testimony from physicians, patient advocates and public-health groups described cases in which individuals delayed or declined medically recommended diagnostic imaging because of costs. PERS staff described the statutory process that requires a two-year pilot for any coverage change that is treated as a mandate and provided an actuarial estimate of premium impact for the PERS plan.

Medical experts described everyday clinical consequences of cost barriers. Dr. Christina Teleshereseth, chief of radiology at Sanford Medical Center in Bismarck, said clinicians see several patterns that can delay diagnosis — patients skipping screening because they fear follow-up costs, omitting symptoms at intake, or failing to return for recommended diagnostic tests. “To be diagnosed, this woman must pay what feels to some like not only an obstacle to good health, but a ransom,” she said, adding that breast imaging follows federally mandated protocols that guide what diagnostic workup is required after an abnormal screening mammogram.

Patient testimony underlined that point. Mary Tellepool, a registered nurse and breast cancer survivor who described undergoing diagnostic mammography, stereotactic and ultrasound biopsies and MRI, said the diagnostic testing “saved my life” and argued patients should not face a choice between paying rent and paying for medically necessary tests.

Advocates provided jurisdictional and fiscal context. Bobby Wills of Susan G. Komen said 28 states have enacted similar policies and that in many of those states the estimated fiscal impact was negligible; in North Dakota, PERS’ retained actuary estimated an increase in premiums of about 0.5 percent, which PERS staff said equates to just over $4 million in the 2025–27 biennium.

Ben Hansen of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network and Courtney Coble of the North Dakota Medical Association supported the bill on clinical and equity grounds, while Andrea Fenig of the Greater North Dakota Chamber opposed section 2 of the bill that requires PERS to draft legislation to apply the change to the private market in a later session, arguing mandates on private employers raise costs and that those costs are eventually passed to employers and employees.

Rebecca Fricke, executive director of PERS, testified in a neutral capacity about the statutory pilot process. She described Century Code provisions that require a PERS pilot for proposals that are treated as mandates and the obligation to report results and, if applicable, draft a rollout bill in the next legislative session. Fricke said the consultant retained by PERS estimated the 0.5 percent premium increase by analyzing PERS claims experience and membership.

Committee members asked for clarifications about scope and numbers: supporters and witnesses said diagnostic “callback” rates after screening mammograms average about 10 percent nationwide (and North Dakota’s rates are consistent with that figure), and that supplemental imaging is more common for higher‑risk patients. Witnesses also noted Medicaid and the state’s North Dakota Women’s Way program currently provide diagnostic and supplemental imaging at no cost for eligible enrollees.

The committee took no final action at the hearing. Committee staff accepted written materials and testimony; PERS is required under current law to evaluate pilot results and report to the legislature if the statute is enacted. The hearing closed with no vote on the bill.

Ending: The record includes consultant analyses and state and multistate comparisons submitted by proponents and by PERS; the committee will consider those materials and the required PERS pilot/analysis if the bill advances out of committee.","Supporters told the Senate Industry and Business Committee that out-of-pocket costs for follow-up breast imaging deter patients from completing diagnosis; PERS staff and business groups raised cost and rollout concerns and the bill would trigger a required PERS pilot and report.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hearing on bill to add “health status” to anti-discrimination law draws sharp opposition from hospitals, public health and regulators

Senate committee hears bill to eliminate PERS cost-sharing for diagnostic, supplemental breast imaging