Improved access to public benefit programs amended, advanced

The state Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) would be required to increase staff at local offices to provide more assistance with the state’s system for accessing public benefit programs – known as ACCESSNebraska – under a bill given second-round approval April 3.

As introduced by Fullerton Sen. Annette Dubas, LB825 would have required DHHS to add 25 local offices throughout the state to provide in-person services to clients.

A general file amendment instead would require DHHS to adequately staff existing local offices and included guidelines to determine the appropriate number of staff needed to provide in-person assistance to clients at each existing office.

The bill also would require:
• call centers to take appointments for in-person interviews upon request;
• a dedicated caseworker to be assigned upon request to a client with chronic physical or mental disorders, elderly who require continuing care and complex cases;
• local office caseworkers to interview clients, assist with applications, determine program eligibility and answer questions; and
• DHHS to contract with community-based organizations to act as satellite offices for department caseworkers.

During select file debate, Dubas offered an amendment, adopted 33-0, which removed provisions that were amended into the bill on general file. Originally introduced by Sen. Tanya Cook of Omaha as part of LB1041, the stricken provisions would have required DHHS to:
• coordinate eligibility requirements;
• expand information sharing across programs;
• simplify documentation requirements by using the same or similar documents to verify information across programs; and
• re-establish program eligibility more easily by reopening cases that have been closed in the previous 30 days rather than requiring reapplication.

Dubas said senators raised questions about the financial impact of the changes and that LB825 was too critical a measure to risk jeopardizing due to fiscal uncertainty.

Cook disagreed with aspects of the amended bill’s fiscal note, but said she understood the need to remove the provisions agreed to on general file.

Following adoption of the Dubas amendment, the bill was advanced