Montana Governor Greg Gianforte’s administration is currently in the process of dismantling the Board of Public Assistance, a panel responsible for hearing appeals from individuals who have been denied public assistance for necessities such as food and healthcare. This move, aimed at reducing bureaucratic hurdles in the government, would limit individuals’ options to district court as the sole recourse outside of the state health department for challenging officials’ denials of their applications for programs like Medicaid, temporary financial assistance, and food aid.
The state Department of Public Health and Human Services has proposed a bill to eliminate the Board of Public Assistance, which is currently under consideration by Montana lawmakers. This initiative has resurfaced after a similar bill in 2023, part of Governor Gianforte’s “Red Tape Relief” agenda, failed to advance past the committee stage. Recently, the bill sponsored by state Senator Jeremy Trebas (R-Great Falls) was approved by the state Senate with a 45-5 vote on February 4. However, the bill still needs to pass through the state House of Representatives and be signed by Governor Gianforte before it can be enacted into law.
The Board of Public Assistance, comprised of three members appointed by the governor, is also responsible for adjudicating appeals regarding administrative decisions where individuals may have received more aid than they were entitled to and subsequently owe the state money. At a committee hearing on January 29, officials supporting the dismantling of the board cited the need to streamline government operations by reducing unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. Conversely, opponents of the plan are concerned that this change would limit individuals’ opportunities to voice their concerns in systems already difficult to navigate and often overwhelmed.
Carolyn Pease-Lopez, a former Democratic state lawmaker and member of the Board of Public Assistance since 2017, expressed her concerns about the potential implications of eliminating the board. She emphasized the impact the board has had in providing a platform for individuals to present their cases and cited an instance where the board facilitated a compromise between a small medical company and the state, preventing a financial catastrophe for the business.
The public assistance landscape in Montana has been strained in recent years due to increased demand for services, particularly Medicaid, causing significant delays for individuals seeking support. In Montana, approximately 2,300 public assistance appeals are heard annually by the Office of Administrative Hearings within the health department before a fraction, about 15 cases, are escalated to the Board of Public Assistance. Health department officials argue that this additional step is unnecessary, as the board typically upholds the agency’s decisions and requires additional staff time to maintain.
Rutherford Hayes, administrator of the Office of Administrative Hearings, highlighted the legal expertise within the health department compared to the volunteer board members, indicating that the department is better equipped to handle appeals without the intermediary role of the board. While acknowledging that not every case is straightforward, Hayes pointed out that the board’s workload has decreased significantly due to its limited role in the appeals process.
Despite the concerns raised about limiting public access to an independent appeals body, the elimination of the Board of Public Assistance has not faced significant opposition during the legislative process. Sharon Bonogofsky, a former board member, recognized the redundancy of the board’s decisions in most cases and suggested that resources should be redirected towards assisting individuals in understanding their benefits, avoiding errors that could lead to financial liabilities, and transitioning smoothly from state assistance programs.
In conclusion, the proposed dismantling of the Board of Public Assistance in Montana has sparked debates about the efficiency and accessibility of the public assistance system in the state. While proponents argue that this move would streamline government processes and expedite appeals, opponents are concerned about the potential implications for individuals facing challenges in accessing essential services. As the bill progresses through the legislative process, the fate of the Board of Public Assistance remains uncertain, with stakeholders on all sides closely monitoring its impact on vulnerable populations and the overall public assistance framework.
