NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 111.09, 111.71, 111.94 and 227.11, Stats., and interpreting 111.09, 111.71, and 111.94, Stats., the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission will hold a public hearing in the Commission's Conference Room at 18 South Thornton Avenue in the City of Madison, Wisconsin on the 18th day of December, 2003, at 11:00 a.m. regarding the Commission's proposed promulgation of the following permanent administrative rules increasing filing fees.

The Commission invites the public to attend the hearing and to present verbal and/or written comments regarding the proposed rules. In addition to or instead of verbal testimony, written comments can also be sent directly to the Commission at werc@werc.state.wi.us or at Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, P.O. Box 7870, Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7870. Written comment should be received by the Commission on or before December 18, 2003.

SECTION 1. ERC 1.06 (1)(2) and (3) are amended to read:

ERC 1.06 Fees. (1) Complaints. At the time a complaint is received alleging that an unfair labor practice has been committed under s. 111.06, Stats., the complaining party or parties shall pay the commission a filing fee of $40. $80. The complaint is not filed until the fee is paid.

(2) Grievance arbitration. At the time a request is received asking that the commission or its staff act as a grievance arbitrator under s. 111.10, Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee of $125. $250.

(3) Mediation. At the time a request is received asking the commission or its staff to act as a mediator under s. 111.11, Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee of $125. $250.

SECTION 2. ERC 10.21 (1)(2)(3)(4) and (5) are amended to read:

ERC 10.21 Fees. (1) Complaints. At the time a complaint is received alleging that a prohibited practice has been committed under s. 111.70(3), Stats., the complaining party or parties shall pay the commission a filing fee of $40. $80. The complaint is not filed until the fee is paid.

(2) Grievance arbitration. At the time a request is received asking that the commission or its staff act as a grievance arbitrator under s. 111.70 (4) (c) 2., or (cm) 4., Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee of $125. $250.

(3) Mediation. At the time a request is received asking the commission or its staff to act as a mediator under s. 111.70 (4) (c) 1. or (cm) 3., Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee or $125. $250.

(4) Fact-finding. At the time a request is received asking the commission to initiate fact-finding under s. 111.70 (4) (c) 3., Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee of $125, $250, except that if the parties have previously paid a mediation filing fee for the same dispute under sub. (3), no fee shall be paid.

(5) Interest arbitration. At the time a request is received asking the commission to initiate interest arbitration under s. 111.70 (4)(cm)6., (4)(jm) or 111.77(3), Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee of $125, $250, except that if the parties have previously paid a mediation filing fee for the same dispute under sub. (3), no fee shall be paid.

SECTION 3. ERC 20.21 (1)(2)(3) and (4) are amended to read:

ERC 20.21 Fees. (1) Complaints. At the time a complaint is received alleging that an unfair labor practice has been committed under s. 111.84, Stats., the complaining party or parties shall pay the commission a filing fee of $40. $80. The complaint is not filed until the fee is paid.

(2) Grievance arbitration. At the time a request is received asking that the commission or its staff act as a grievance arbitrator under s. 111.86, Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee of $125. $250.

(3) Mediation. At the time a request is received asking the commission or its staff to act as a mediator under s. 111.87, Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee of $125. $250.

(4) Fact-finding. At the time a request is received asking the commission to initiate fact-finding under s. 111.88, Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee of $125, $250, except that if the parties have previously paid a mediation filing fee for the same dispute under sub. (3), no fee shall be paid.

These proposed rules provide the increased filing fee revenue needed to support 2.0 Program Revenue positions authorized by 2003 Wisconsin Act 33.

Small businesses rarely use those Commission's services impacted by the increase in filing fees. The occasional impact on small business of the fee increase will be limited to payment of the employer share of the increased fees.

During the last four fiscal years, WERC has averaged $225,000 in filing fee revenue.

WERC estimates that doubling the existing filing fee levels will produce some reduction in the requests for WERC fee-related services but produce an additional $200,000 in fee revenues annually.

Because the vast majority of filing fee revenue is derived from services for which the union and employer each pay 50% of the fee and because the vast majority of the WERC's fee-related services are provided to public sector employers and the unions representing their employees, WERC anticipates that doubling the existing fees will increase the costs of public sector employers by $100,000 annually.

Judith Neumann

Chair

WERC

P.O. Box 7870

Madison, WI 53707-7870

266-0166

Judy.Neumann@werc.state.wi.us

Peter G. Davis

General Counsel

WERC

P.O. Box 7870

Madison, WI 53707-7870

266-2993

Peter.davis@werc.state.wi.us

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to ss. 227.16 (1), 227.17 and 227.18, Stats., the Department of Health and Family Services will hold a public hearing to consider the proposed amendment of sections HFS 117.01 to 117.04 and the repeal and recreation of section HFS 117.05, relating to fees for copies of health care records.

The public hearing will be held:

Monday, December 15, 2003 at 9:00 a.m.

Room 751

1 West Wilson St.

Madison, WI

The hearing site is fully accessible to people with disabilities.

Section 146.83 (3m), Stats., as created by 2001 Wisconsin Act 109 and s. 908.03 (6m) (d), Stats., as amended by 2001 Wisconsin Act 109, requires the Department prescribe by rule fees for reproducing patient health care records that are the maximum amount a health care provider may charge. The fee limits are to be based on an approximation of actual costs. The statutes allow health care providers to also charge for postage or other delivery costs.

To develop these rules, the Department formed a 14-member advisory committee in early February, 2003. The committee consisted of equal representation of those who maintain health care records and those who request records. Over the following three months, the Department also created a website on which it posted pertinent documents for review by interested parties and encouraged persons to register to receive email notifications of new Department postings on the website.

The Department began its effort by distributing a four-page project plan to advisory committee members on February 18th. The plan stated the Department's intent “to develop a rule that complies and is consistent with what it believes to be applicable state and federal law, and is based on an approximation of actual medical record reproduction costs." Toward that end, the Department identified and shared what it considered to be the major factors and considerations. These were:

1. The recent federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations and federal commentary related thereto, particularly the issues of:

a. Who, and the circumstances under which, a person will be considered someone's “personal representative" for the purposes of requesting a copy of that person's health care record; and

b. Whether the costs associated with record retrieval should be included in fee limits for subject persons or their personal representatives.

2. The Department's desire to approximate total health care record reproduction costs by attempting to identify the component tasks and estimated costs associated with health care record reproduction. Issues bearing on doing so include the following:

a. Whether and how the health care record medium affects the length of time to reproduce a record;

b. Whether the health care provider setting (i.e., hospital, clinic, etc.) or subject patient group (e.g., children, elderly, etc.) affects the time and effort needed to reproduce records; and

c. The steps involved in reproducing health care records and whether those steps are different for different record mediums and record maintainer settings.

The Department invited all committee members, and those who were “virtual" participants via the Department's website postings, to submit documents to the Department on these major factors and considerations, asking that the documents be submitted, if possible, by March 7th. Specifically, the Department requested the following input:

1. Committee members' thoughts regarding the appropriateness and acceptability of the Department's intended approach and, if it is not, how it is not, and how and why the commenter would propose it to be different.

2. Information on the following subjects:

- How HIPAA bears on the revision of ch. HFS 117.

- Whether the categories of paper, electronic, microfilm, microfiche and traditional x-ray comprise the universe of health care record mediums for the purposes of this project, and if not, what other mediums should be addressed.

- Whether the steps involved in the reproduction of health care records within a particular health care record maintainer setting or for a particular patient group are sufficiently different to suggest a significantly different reproduction cost.

- The sequence of steps and time associated with each step typically required for health care record reproduction, by health care record medium, setting or patient group, as appropriate.

- Existing health care record fee limit policies.

After reviewing, analyzing and compiling information from about 20 documents, the Department circulated a preliminary report to committee members on March 31, 2003. The preliminary report included an initial draft of ch. HFS 117, as did the Department's subsequent iterations of the report. The Department asked that committee members and others submit comments on the Department's preliminary report by April 14th.

In response to comments it received on its preliminary report, the Department revised its preliminary report (known in its second iteration as the “interim" report) and created a table of comments and Department responses. The Department subsequently modified the comment and response table to reflect comments the Department received through April 30th. The Department circulated these documents to committee members prior to convening the first and only meeting of the advisory committee on April 25th.

In the course of the advisory committee meeting, a variety of outstanding issues were discussed. However, with one exception, there was virtually no consensus on any of the issues between members representing health care record maintainers and members representing health care record requesters. The one exception was that members encouraged the Department to develop a single fee structure to the extent possible.