Committee advances fix to harmonize direct-care eligibility after conflicting session bills
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The committee introduced LLS 25-025 to harmonize definitions that conflict between two 2023 bills affecting the Direct Care Workforce Stabilization Act; the measure passed committee 6–1 after witnesses described the legislative timing that produced the conflict.
The Statutory Revision Committee voted to introduce LLS 25-025, a draft intended to resolve a conflict between two prior session measures that affect the definition of who qualifies as a direct care consumer for the Direct Care Workforce Stabilization Act.
Shelby Ross, legislative drafter with the Office of Legislative Legal Services, told the committee the draft creates an "eligible person" definition that reflects the definition as it existed before a later-enacted change. She said the conflict arose because Senate Bill 261 (a late, accelerated bill creating the direct care definition) and Senate Bill 289 (which amended the definition of "eligible person" effective July 1) moved through the chambers on overlapping schedules and the standard conflicts check did not catch the difference. "When bills go through the legislative process...a conflicts check is sent," Ross said; because the two measures passed at different stages and on tight timelines, the inconsistency was not identified in time.
Colin Laughlin, deputy office director at the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, explained the practical consequence: the July 1 change associated with the Community First Choice (part 19) program will, as written, narrow the eligibility definition and could unintentionally reduce the population covered by the direct care workforce provisions. He said the July 1 change is not yet effective and that the current law still reflects the broader eligibility. "On July 1, that definition will become narrowed to just part 19," Laughlin said, and that narrowing would alter who is eligible under the direct care statute if not reconciled.
Committee members raised policy concerns about whether the change is a technical harmonization or a substantive policy choice. Representative Luck objected to advancing the draft on that basis, saying she was not comfortable that the statutory revision process should be used if the change effectively alters eligibility. Ross and Laughlin replied that the drafter's intent is to harmonize the two session laws to preserve the original scope of the direct-care definition as it applied when SB 261 passed.
Vice Chair Rich moved to introduce LLS 25-025 as amended; Representative Bradley seconded. Representative Luck recorded a "no" vote. The roll-call recorded six "yes" and one "no" (6–1), and the committee advanced the bill.
The committee assigned House and Senate carriers for the bill and directed the drafter to refine the title language; staff and agency witnesses remained available to answer technical questions during further drafting.