BILL NUMBER:  S6656

 TITLE OF BILL :

An act to amend the public health law, in relation to clarifying that
the nurse-family partnership program is not home care

 PURPOSE :

To clarify that the nurse-family partnership program is not home care
under Article 36 of the Public Health Law.

 SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS :

Section 1 amends subdivision 3 of section 2530 of the Public Health
Law to make clear that the nurse-family partnership program shall not
be subject to Article 36 of the public health law.

Section 2 is the effective date.

 JUSTIFICATION :

Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) is a voluntary nurse home visiting
program for at-risk first-time mothers that is based on decades of
research and adheres to an established set of program components and
practices. The program produces statistically significant, positive
              

program effects that are repeated and enduring for up to 15 years
following the child's birth.

Although NFP services are generally provided in a participant's home,
the services do not constitute the services nor meet the kinds of
needs that Article 36 applies to. The legislative intent of Art. 36 is
that it apply to "a coordinated array of services to patients in their
homes, thereby avoiding prolonged institutionalization." That is not
the NFP program. (PHL § 3600.)

Expectant mothers are referred to NFP for guidance and education
throughout pregnancy, not for assistance with activities of daily
living or treatment of an illness or injury. NFP addresses the social
determinants of health, including education, financial stability,
employment, housing, and health counseling. The education and guidance
provided by NFP nurses is intended to prevent or reduce unhealthy
behaviors that lead to medical conditions for the mother and/or child
by empowering women to take ownership of their own decisions and
behaviors. If an NFP client develops medical conditions that require
medical care, then she is referred to an appropriate practitioner.

For 14 years, NFP was not regulated as a home care service program
under Article 36. However, some have incorrectly interpreted Article
36 as requiring a medical order for a participant to receive NFP
services. This creates unnecessary and uncalled for delay and cost.
Confirming the distinction between NFP and home care, and making it
even clearer that Article 36 does not apply to the NFP program, is
vital to the continued success of the program.

 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :

New bill.

 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS :

None.

 EFFECTIVE DATE :
This act shall take effect immediately.