Legislative update: Lawmakers seek to limit unemployment assistance

Editor’s Note: Below are articles on recent Missouri General Assembly moves provided to Springfield Business Journal by the Missouri Press Association.

---

Lawmakers seek to limit weeks of unemployment eligibility – again
Under legislation making its way through the General Assembly, Missourians would have less time to collect unemployment benefits.

House Bill 288 is the third attempt by lawmakers in the past four legislative sessions to apply a sliding scale to how long people could receive unemployment benefits. The statewide unemployment rate would determine the maximum number of weeks people could receive benefits.

Rep. Scott Fitzpatrick, R-Shell Knob, a small-business owner who introduced this year's bill, said the cut would ensure the state's unemployment fund — which employers pay into — would maintain enough money to cover its costs if the state experienced another recession. It also would ensure the state wouldn't increase the burden on employers to cover the fund's costs, he said.

"Every single time we have a recession, we run out of money," Fitzpatrick said about the fund, adding that having employers pay more into it is similar to an "automatic tax increase (that) usually comes at the worst time possible, like at the height of a recession."

In the current economy, if the bill passed, people could receive a maximum of 13 weeks of benefits. Currently, the state offers up to 20 weeks, or about five months.

Missouri already provides less time on benefits than the national standard of six months, and offering 13 weeks would mean only Florida — at 12 weeks — would offer its residents a shorter amount of time on unemployment, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Based on the sliding scale, at an unemployment rate of 9 percent or higher, people could get a maximum of 20 weeks of benefits. At 6 percent or below — in January, the statewide unemployment rate was 4.2 percent, according to the Missouri Department of Labor — it would be a maximum of 13. Missouri's unemployment rate was last above 9 percent between April 2009 and January 2011, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

If the bill became law, it could save the state's unemployment fund up to $82 million per year, according to an estimate from the Committee on Legislative Research. That money would not be allocated elsewhere, Fitzpatrick said.

When the legislation was first proposed in 2014, Missourians spent an average of about 14 weeks receiving unemployment benefits, according to figures from the state's Labor Department. It has since continued to decrease, to about 12.4 weeks in the final part of last year.

However, many Missourians spend more time on unemployment. In 2016, about 33,000 people across the state collected benefits beyond 13 weeks, according to the department. Figures for the first few months of 2017 weren't available, but about 24,000 people who applied for unemployment between March 13, 2016, and March 11, 2017, received more than 13 weeks of benefits.

House debates prescription drug monitoring program
Legislators debated March 29 how exactly to curb the opioid epidemic in Missouri.

The discussion centered around a bill that would create a prescription drug monitoring program in the state. Missouri is the only state that doesn't have or hasn't tried enacting such a program, known as a PDMP.

The legislation, HB 90, sponsored by Rep. Holly Rehder, R-Sikeston, would establish an electronic registry to monitor prescription drug users, prescribers and dispensers.

Legislators voted to adopt one amendment to create a real-time drug monitoring requirement that would call for pharmacies to monitor whether a person filling a prescription already has filled a similar prescription recently. If the bill passes, the amendment requires dispensers report data within 24 hours starting Jan. 1, 2020.

"I think for what we’re trying to do here, it has to be real time," said Rep. Paul Curtman, R-Union.

The amendment alone would cost the state $200,000, according to sponsor Rep. Lynn Morris, R-Nixa. The entire bill would cost $1.1 million in fiscal year 2018, not including the amendment that requires real-time reporting. The bill states the program can apply for grants to cover some of the costs.

Some of the concerns discussed in debating the bill were the costs to the state, in addition to the effectiveness of PDMPs. Legislators who oppose the bill mentioned studies showing PDMPs haven't minimized the problem or stopped "doctor shopping" among users in other states.

After promise of banning lobbyist gifts, legislation has stalled
At the legislative session's start in January, lawmakers proclaimed they were prioritizing banning lobbyists' gifts. The Missouri House passed legislation in less than two weeks and sent it to the Senate.

Since then? Nothing.

Legislators have about six weeks left to pass a bill that, in its current form, would, with a few exceptions, ban lobbyist spending, which usually comes in the form of meals or gifts. The legislation hasn't been taken up since Jan. 31.

"This should be something that we should champion," said Rep. Justin Alferman, R-Hermann, who introduced HB 60. "It's not hard, yet the Senate seems like they have issues with it. It should not be surprising that those who take the most free stuff want to continue their right to take free stuff. It's beyond ridiculous."

Since at least 2007, the average senator has accepted more in lobbying money than the average representative, according to figures from the Missouri Ethics Commission. Through the end of February this year, senators, on average, have accepted three times as much as representatives.

Sen. Mike Kehoe, R-Jefferson City, who heads the committee the bill is in and is the majority floor leader in the Senate, said distinguishing between "pay-for-play" gifts and small-ticket items, such as accepting a sandwich at a luncheon for the local Rotary Club, is responsible for the hold-up.

"Trying to get clarification on what is a gift and what's not a gift sometimes bogs us down a little bit," he said. "The problem is the public perception seems to be: If the Senate isn't moving on the gift ban, they want to take gifts. In my experience, that's not the issue."