WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1069

Public finance; Local Development Act; definitions; procedures; review committees; impact statement; effective date.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Tom Gann and 1 co-sponsor

Repeals NDCC § 23-01-40, removing the statutory mandate for state diabetes goals/plans and likely shifting diabetes program duties from law to policy.

Referred to General Government
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1069

Summary — HB 1069 (North Dakota)

An Act to repeal section 23‑01‑40 of the North Dakota Century Code (relating to diabetes goals and plans)

Purpose / Intent

HB 1069 would remove from statute the specific provision codified at N.D.C.C. § 23‑01‑40, which — by its caption — concerns “diabetes goals and plans.” The bill’s immediate purpose is a statutory repeal: eliminating the legal requirement, authority, or framework that had been set out in § 23‑01‑40.

Key provision

  • Repeal. The bill contains a single operative section: repeal of N.D.C.C. § 23‑01‑40 in its entirety. No replacement language or transition provisions are provided in the bill text provided.

What this changes / likely effects

Because the bill is a straight repeal, its practical effect depends on the current content of § 23‑01‑40 (the bill text provided does not quote the statute). Generally, repealing a statute that establishes “diabetes goals and plans” could have one or more of these consequences:
- Remove a statutory mandate for the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) or another state entity to develop, maintain, or publish statewide diabetes prevention/control goals and implementation plans.
- Eliminate any legally required reporting, planning schedules, or specified targets tied to diabetes prevention, monitoring, treatment coordination, or public education that the statute previously required.
- Shift related responsibilities from a statutory requirement to administrative policy (if DHHS continues comparable activities under administrative authority) or result in the cessation of any activities that relied solely on the statutory requirement.
- Potential indirect effects on stakeholders that relied on the statute for program guidance, funding justifications, or coordination (public health units, clinics, community programs, tribal health providers, grant programs, advocacy organizations).

Fiscal effects are not specified in the bill text. A repeal of an administrative mandate often has minimal direct fiscal impact, but could indirectly affect program funding or reporting workload depending on whether DHHS continues similar efforts administratively.

Who is affected

  • Primary: North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), program managers responsible for chronic disease prevention and diabetes programs.
  • Secondary: Local public health units, health care providers, community diabetes prevention/treatment programs, organizations that collaborate with the state on diabetes initiatives, and residents living with or at risk for diabetes.
  • Legislative/oversight bodies and grant administrators if the statute currently tied program requirements to state funding or reporting.

Procedural / timeline details

  • Sponsor / Origin: Introduced at the request of the Department of Health and Human Services (Human Services Committee).
  • Introduced: (Filed) November 12, 2024 (per provided metadata).
  • Chamber action: Enrollment form in the provided materials shows unanimous chamber votes recorded (House: Yeas 93, Nays 0, 1 absent; Senate: Yeas 47, Nays 0).
  • Filed with Secretary of State: March 14 (year in materials appears to be 2025).
  • Current status (from provided bill information): Filed with Secretary of State 03/14.

Notes and recommendations

  • The summary above is based on the bill’s plain instruction to repeal § 23‑01‑40. To determine the precise statutory and programmatic effects, review the current text of N.D.C.C. § 23‑01‑40 (to see what requirements, deadlines, reporting, funding, or definitions it contained).
  • Check for any accompanying administrative rulemaking or DHHS directives indicating whether the agency plans to maintain diabetes planning activities by policy rather than statute.
  • If evaluating policy impacts for stakeholders (health providers, local public health, advocacy groups), confirm whether any contracts, grants, or federal reporting requirements depended on the repealed statutory language.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.