HF 842

as introduced - 79th Legislature (1995 - 1996) Posted on 12/15/2009 12:00am

  1.1                          A bill for an act 
  1.2             relating to human services; authorizing appeals by 
  1.3             vendors of day training and habilitation services; 
  1.4             amending Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 252.46, by 
  1.5             adding a subdivision. 
  1.6   BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 
  1.7      Section 1.  Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 252.46, is 
  1.8   amended by adding a subdivision to read: 
  1.9      Subd. 19.  [VENDOR APPEALS.] With the concurrence of the 
  1.10  county board, a vendor may appeal the commissioner's rejection 
  1.11  of a variance request which has been submitted by the county 
  1.12  under subdivision 6 and may appeal the commissioner's denial 
  1.13  under subdivision 9 of a rate which has been recommended by the 
  1.14  county.  To appeal, the vendor and county board must file a 
  1.15  written notice of appeal with the commissioner.  The notice of 
  1.16  appeal must be postmarked within 45 days of the postmark date on 
  1.17  the commissioner's notification to the vendor and county agency 
  1.18  that a variance request or county recommended rate has been 
  1.19  denied.  The notice of appeal must specify the reasons for the 
  1.20  appeal, the dollar amount in dispute, and the basis in statute 
  1.21  or rule for challenging the commissioner's decision. 
  1.22     Within 45 days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the 
  1.23  commissioner must convene a reconciliation conference to attempt 
  1.24  to resolve the rate dispute.  If the dispute is not resolved to 
  1.25  the satisfaction of the parties, the commissioner shall initiate 
  2.1   a contested case proceeding under sections 14.57 to 14.69.  In a 
  2.2   contested case hearing held under this section, the appealing 
  2.3   party must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that 
  2.4   the commissioner incorrectly applied the governing law or 
  2.5   regulations, or that the commissioner improperly exercised the 
  2.6   commissioner's discretion, in refusing to grant a variance or in 
  2.7   refusing to adopt a county recommended rate.