MINNESOTA

Overview

Minnesota has an active All-Payer Claims Database (APCD), which recently expanded to study cost, quality, and utilization. The state also mandates that the Minnesota Hospital Association provide a hospital specific performance and charge database for the 50 most common inpatient diagnosis-related groups. Minnesota also aims to contain healthcare costs through bans on most favored nation clauses and anticompetitive practices in provider contracts.

In the 2019-2020 legislative term, the Minnesota state legislature introduced over 100 bills aimed at increasing healthcare price transparency and cost containment. Notable legislation include proposal to implement public option via MinnesotaCare Buy-In, as well as increased price transparency by way of right to shop/shared savings programs and balance/surprise billing regulation. In addition, Minnesota stepped up its efforts to tackle prescription drug prices by introducing a number of bills that would regulate PBMs and drug manufacturers in order to curb price gouging in the pharmaceutical industry. Most of these bills are still pending at the end of the 2019 session and will be carried over to 2020 for further legislative action.

Minnesota was also active throughout the 2017-2018 legislative term, enacting two laws that add price transparency (S.F. 3480) and drug choices (H.F. 3196) to the health care system. SF 3480 requires providers to give consumers a “good faith estimate” of the cost of common medical procedures within 10 days of request, while HF 3196 requires health plans to allow providers to avoid step therapy protocols, which requires a physician to try a cheaper alternative before using a more expensive remedy. The two bills were approved nearly unanimously in both houses.  The laws demonstrate the state’s efforts to improve its health care system, although already considered to be one of the best in the nation.

To help constituents deal with skyrocketing insurance costs, the Minnesota Legislature passed a bill in 2017 that allocated $271 million to form a publicly funded reinsurance pool that would help health insurance companies pay the most expensive medical claims, thereby lowering overall insurance premiums. In Minnesota’s reinsurance program, health insurers are eligible for reimbursements from the state for claims between $50,000 and $250,000. The insurers are responsible for amounts over $250,000. The reinsurance pool has performed exceptionally well and has decreased premiums by 15% in the first year.

The Minnesota Legislature was active throughout the 2018 legislative term, enacting two laws that add price transparency (S.F. 3480) and drug choices (H.F. 3196) to the health care system. SF 3480 requires providers to give consumers a “good faith estimate” of the cost of common medical procedures within 10 days of request, while HF 3196 requires health plans to allow providers to avoid step therapy protocols, which requires a physician to try a cheaper alternative before using a more expensive remedy. The two bills were approved nearly unanimously in both houses.  The laws demonstrate the state’s efforts to improve its health care system, although already considered to be one of the best in the nation.

The State Database

The Source tracks state activities impacting healthcare price and competition in both legislation and litigation in a searchable database to help stakeholders at the state level understand their legal and regulatory environment as they make efforts to improve access, quality, and efficiency, and reduce costs in healthcare.

LEGISLATION: The Database of State Laws Impacting Healthcare Cost and Quality (SLIHCQ), created by The Source on Healthcare Price & Competition and Catalyst for Payment Reform, catalogues state legislation governing price transparency, provider market power, provider payment, provider networks, and benefit design. The database also includes pharmaceutical legislation beginning in the 2017-2018 legislative session. *Note: Current legislative session bill updates are ongoing. Check back weekly for updates. 

LITIGATION: The Source tracks major litigation and antitrust enforcement action by federal entities (FTC or DOJ), state attorney generals, and private parties in the main provider and insurer markets, particularly legal challenges of healthcare consolidation and anticompetitive contract provisions. Additionally, the database contains major pharmaceutical cases including legislation challenges and significant appellate cases.

Search the database across all jurisdictions on the State Overview page, or view and filter existing legislation or litigation on individual state pages. The database allows customized search and filter by keyword, status, and/or key issue category. *Multiple filter/selections enabled. Click here for User Guide.

 

Filter by Key Issue, Year, or Status
Download User Guide


© 2018-2019 The SLIHCQ DatabaseInitial funding for this project was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation.
Filter by Key Issue
Download User Guide


© 2018-2019 The SLIHCQ DatabaseInitial funding for this project was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation.
Filter by Key Issue

Additional Resources

LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR

Minnesota’s latest legislative session ran from 1/8/2019 – 5/20/2019. Bills from 2019 will carry over to 2020 as part of the 2019-2020 legislative term.

2019-2020 BUDGET

The Minnesota state budget operates on a biennium cycle, covering two fiscal years. Minnesota’s fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of the following year. Minnesota enacted its 2019-2020 Budget in the first special legislative session of 2019. To view Minnesota’s Department of Health and Human Services 2019-2020 budget, click here.

REGULATION & ENFORCEMENT

  • On June 29, 2015 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) responded to a request from two Minnesota state legislators to analyze the competitive impact of recent amendments to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA). The amendments may require health plans contracting with the state to make information normally deemed competitively sensitive available to the public. The FTC expressed concern that this change would harm consumers by increasing the potential for collusion and decreasing the use of selective contracting. Read the FTC’s Press Release and Blog Post.

KEY RESOURCES