The Akron Legal News

Bill would allow municipal tax to pay for dental care for at-risk children

KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 22, 2018

A Cleveland Democrat pitched a legislative measure to allow Ohio municipalities to levy a tax for the purposes of covering costs of dental health of a city's most vulnerable residents.

Rep. John Barnes Jr., D-Cleveland, proposed House Bill 675 to authorize imposition of a municipal property tax levy - not exceeding one mill per dollar of taxable value - for the purpose of funding a local Hope for a Smile Program, proposed by House Bill 682.

Program services would be targeted at the indigent and uninsured, according to the lawmaker.

"The program will be a collaboration between the Ohio Department of Health, dental and dental hygiene academic programs and professional associations," Barnes explained to members of the State and Local Government Committee in the Ohio House of Representatives. "Under the program, the ODH director, with assistance from the director of Administrative Services, must obtain three buses equipped as mobile dental units. Each bus will be assigned to one region of Ohio and staffed by dental professionals and faculty, staff and students of dental and dental hygiene academic programs."

Each bus would travel to schools within its designated region, with priority given to schools with a high population of indigent or uninsured children, testimony detailed.

"We are still in the midst of the greatest economic downturn in the history of our nation," Barnes said. "Some families do not have this, that or the other, and some families do not have the same opportunities as other families, and things such as dental care are not available to a lot of people, particularly children.

"We want to make sure that every child in Ohio who would like to have their teeth examined has an opportunity to do so."

Barnes noted that a toothache or a sore jaw from poor dental health can put a child at risk of falling behind in school from the discomfort alone.

"If a child cannot be comfortable in the classroom because of oral health problems, how do we expect them to achieve academic success?" he posed. "We are constantly striving to meet the goal of having our 21st century workforce to be the best equipped in the world, and achieving this begins in the classroom.

"The Hope for a Smile Program is in further pursuit of eradicating the 'at risk' factors that plague our children's education while providing an opportunity for our families."

Per the bill, a municipal corporation that establishes and operates a Hope for a Smile Program may do any of the following:

• Apply on the program's behalf to the Department of Medicaid for a Medicaid provider agreement;

• Arrange with private entities that provide health care insurance or other forms of health care coverage in this state for reimbursement from them for services provided to children who have health care insurance or coverage through those entities. The director of health shall assist the municipal corporation in complying with this division upon the municipal corporation's request;

• Seek payments from the Medicaid program for services provided to children who are Medicaid recipients;

• Seek reimbursement from private entities that provide health care insurance or other forms of health care coverage for services provided to children who have insurance or coverage through those; and

• Apply for money allocated by the United States Department of Labor or other entities for workforce or economic development initiatives.

Analysis of Barnes' bill found that the bill may be unnecessary based upon the state's grant of home-rule powers to municipalities, which do not depend on state law.

"These powers include the power of local self-government, the exercise of police powers and the ownership and operation of public utilities," Joe McDaniels wrote for the Ohio Legislative Service Commission. "Some of the authority that is expressly granted by the bill might qualify as a lawful exercise of a home rule power, meaning that it could be undertaken independently of the bill's express grant of authority."

HB 675 had not been scheduled a second hearing at time of publication, while HB 682 awaits an initial hearing.

[Back]