The Missoula City-County Health department writes in opposition to HB 316. This bill is wide and deep in scope, defining several broad governor authorities and introducing complicated and redundant processes for local boards of health and health officers. While we are open to change and committed to improvement, this bill, like many others this session, would fundamentally alter the operations of local health departments. There will be many lessons learned at the close of this pandemic. We urge the Legislature to study these topics in more detail to make more precise changes to public health that will improve the lives of Montanans. We have a few specific concerns with this bill: • Section 2 impedes the ability of local public health officials to control the spread of communicable diseases. If an individual who has been infected by or exposed to measles, meningitis, or mumps, for example, still chooses to physically attend a place of worship, they are putting their fellow community members at risk, including individuals who may be especially vulnerable to the effects of that disease. Public health officials must be able to order individuals to temporarily isolate or quarantine to prevent the spread of disease. • Page 6, line 21 gives broad authority to the governor during a disaster or emergency to issue an executive order to compel the use of or disclosure of protected health information (PHI). This bill includes no context on the use of this protected information, in terms of what data can be used and with whom it can be shared. Without limitations in place, there is great potential for abuse of this protected information. Additionally, HIPAA obligations under federal law still exist regardless of whether a governor orders this disclosure, so this bill also puts public health authorities and private providers in a difficult position. • Section 8 defines “local governing body” in an unworkable way for city-county boards of health. Neither a city nor county governing body will be amenable to the other entity being identified as the single governing body of a board of health, making decisions that may adversely affect the other entity. This is precisely why combined city-county boards of health exist – to make collaborative decisions that will benefit community members inside and outside of city limits. • Sections 9 and 10 create confusing, repetitive processes for reviewing and appealing board of health and health officer decisions. In Section 10 of this bill, a local board of health would review and adopt a health officer’s order within 30 days of issuance, which would entail an open, public meeting, where community members could participate. The bill then redundantly allows any person or entity impacted by that order to appeal that decision. Those who don’t believe a regulation is lawful can also sue in court – is the local government appeal required prior to filing suit in court? There would be many unintended consequences from the swift and drastic changes in this bill. We urge you to vote ‘no’ on HB 316.
Staff testimony, Feb. 26:
ReplyDeleteThe Missoula City-County Health department writes in opposition to HB 316. This bill is wide and deep
in scope, defining several broad governor authorities and introducing complicated and redundant
processes for local boards of health and health officers. While we are open to change and committed
to improvement, this bill, like many others this session, would fundamentally alter the operations of
local health departments. There will be many lessons learned at the close of this pandemic. We urge
the Legislature to study these topics in more detail to make more precise changes to public health that
will improve the lives of Montanans.
We have a few specific concerns with this bill:
• Section 2 impedes the ability of local public health officials to control the spread of
communicable diseases. If an individual who has been infected by or exposed to measles,
meningitis, or mumps, for example, still chooses to physically attend a place of worship, they
are putting their fellow community members at risk, including individuals who may be
especially vulnerable to the effects of that disease. Public health officials must be able to order
individuals to temporarily isolate or quarantine to prevent the spread of disease.
• Page 6, line 21 gives broad authority to the governor during a disaster or emergency to issue an
executive order to compel the use of or disclosure of protected health information (PHI). This
bill includes no context on the use of this protected information, in terms of what data can be
used and with whom it can be shared. Without limitations in place, there is great potential for
abuse of this protected information. Additionally, HIPAA obligations under federal law still exist
regardless of whether a governor orders this disclosure, so this bill also puts public health
authorities and private providers in a difficult position.
• Section 8 defines “local governing body” in an unworkable way for city-county boards of health.
Neither a city nor county governing body will be amenable to the other entity being identified
as the single governing body of a board of health, making decisions that may adversely affect
the other entity. This is precisely why combined city-county boards of health exist – to make
collaborative decisions that will benefit community members inside and outside of city limits.
• Sections 9 and 10 create confusing, repetitive processes for reviewing and appealing board of
health and health officer decisions. In Section 10 of this bill, a local board of health would
review and adopt a health officer’s order within 30 days of issuance, which would entail an
open, public meeting, where community members could participate. The bill then redundantly
allows any person or entity impacted by that order to appeal that decision. Those who don’t
believe a regulation is lawful can also sue in court – is the local government appeal required
prior to filing suit in court?
There would be many unintended consequences from the swift and drastic changes in this bill. We
urge you to vote ‘no’ on HB 316.