Under a bill signed Wednesday by Gov. Tony Evers, Wisconsin will seek health care coverage from the federal government for certain services for incarcerated people. 

A statement from Evers’ office said that AB 604 — now Wisconsin Act 233 — aims to improve health outcomes and reduce disruptions in care and rates of people committing new crimes. 

As people with substance use disorders return to the community from jail or prison, they are especially vulnerable to dying from an overdose. Supporters of the new law hope it will aid them.

A federal “inmate exclusion policy” limits incarcerated people’s ability to use Medicaid, but under the new law the state will apply for a waiver, taking advantage of an exception outlined by the federal government. 

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services will submit a request for a waiver to conduct a demonstration project to provide incarcerated people with health care coverage for certain services for up to 90 days before release. 

The department will request coverage for case management services, medication-assisted treatment for all types of substance use disorders and a 30-day supply of prescription medications. If the waiver is approved, incarcerated people would have to be otherwise eligible for coverage under the Medical Assistance program in order to qualify. 

As of Nov. 21, 19 states have approved waivers and nine states including Washington D.C. have pending waivers. 

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services must submit the waiver request by Jan. 1, 2027. The department told the Examiner in November that it needed the authority that the bill would provide before it starts work on putting together the details of the waiver. 

‘The care they need to live’

Rep. Shelia Stubbs (D-Madison), one of the lawmakers who introduced AB 604, said in a statement Wednesday that the bill gives incarcerated people “a greater chance of maintaining sobriety, preventing overdose, and remaining healthy after they rejoin the community.” 

The criminal justice advocacy organization WISDOM was among groups that expressed support for the bill. Tom Denk, the co-president of one of WISDOM’s affiliates, said in an emailed statement that this law is very personal to him and called it “a step forward.”

Denk, who was released from prison to extended supervision in 2022, said he’s had friends in and out of facilities and had too many die because of a lack of services. 

He said that “my own struggles, the trauma, and the deaths of some of my best friends are what motivated me to get involved in advocating for a better system.”

“Medications, and access to medical care, will literally save lives,” Denk said. “Too many people don’t have either, when they’ve left facilities.” 

Denk also emailed the Examiner a statement signed by Bev Kelley-Miller, who wrote that she lost her 22-year-old daughter, Megan Kelley, to a preventable heroin overdose. Kelley-Miller wrote that her daughter had an ankle bracelet “but that didn’t stop her from using.” 

Kelley-Miller, who expressed support for AB 604, wrote that substance use disorder is a medical condition and that using substances is not a choice once you are addicted. 

“I wish Megan was still here,” Kelley-Miller wrote. “Since she’s not, I advocate for others to receive the care they need to live.”

In December, Gabriel Lugo gave testimony to a state Assembly committee about his time in prison before he was exonerated of the crime for which he served more than a decade. He’d been serving his sentence in the Waupun Correctional Institution when his conviction was finally overturned. 

In a statement read by an attorney, Lugo said some correctional officers treated him as less than human and that prison lockdowns severely restricted his movement and made it hard for his family members to visit him. 

Living conditions at Waupun generated headlines in 2023 and 2024 about unsanitary facilities and lack of medical care. Lugo finally got out of prison in 2023, when he was exonerated of the crime he’d been convicted of in 2009. 

Rep. Jessie Rodriguez (R-Oak Creek) wrote in a column in December that Lugo is her constituent and his case prompted her to co-author a reform bill with Wanggaard and Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee). Under the amended Assembly bill, wrongly convicted people who were released after Jan. 1, 2015 — like Lugo — and had already received compensation would have been able to petition for more money. But the bill did not pass the Legislature before its session ended this month.

On Friday, Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine), chair of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, who announced his retirement earlier this month, expressed frustration in a newsletter about the bill not passing the Legislature despite multiple attempts. He said that “people move the goalposts and come up with new (and baseless) reasons for not supporting it.”

While lawmakers in committees in both chambers voted to advance wrongful conviction compensation bills, neither chamber brought the issue up for a vote. 

It was not the first time the effort had failed. Bills that aimed to boost compensation for wrongly convicted people did not pass in 2016, 2017 or 2020.

“The failure to get this common-sense bill done has been frustrating,” Wanggaard said.

In testimony, Wanggaard called the Senate’s measure a “long-overdue bill” that would update an outdated law.

The proposed reform measure aimed to provide an eligible wrongly convicted person with $50,000 per year of imprisonment, up to a maximum of $1 million. The bill would also allow a person released on the basis of a claim of innocence to petition the court for an order directing the Department of Corrections to create a transition-to-release plan.

Currently, the Wisconsin Claims Board decides whether a person meets the standards for compensation for wrongful imprisonment. The evidence of the person’s innocence must be “clear and convincing,” and the person must not have contributed to bring about their conviction and imprisonment. The board’s five members come from the Department of Justice, the Department of Administration, the Office of the Governor, the Wisconsin Senate and the Wisconsin Assembly. 

The claims board can award $5,000 per year of imprisonment but with a total cap of $25,000, and it has also awarded attorney fees. The board can recommend a higher award to the Legislature. According to Rodriguez, since 1990, seven people have received recommendations for compensation above the $25,000 cap.

Wanggaard’s chief of staff, Scott Kelly, said in an emailed statement to the Examiner, “I don’t know what the price of someone’s freedom is, taking away their family, their support system, their job. But Senator Wanggaard knows it’s not $5,000 a year, with a maximum of $25,000.”

The board awarded Lugo the full $25,000 allowed under the law, as well as about $77,000 in attorney fees. The board recommended that the Legislature award Lugo an additional $750,000. The vote was 3-2, with Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Gillett) and Rep. Alex Dallman (R-Markesan) dissenting.

The Wisconsin Innocence Project, the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Board of Governors and the Wisconsin Catholic Conference have given testimony supportive of increasing compensation for wrongly convicted people. Christopher Lau of the Wisconsin Innocence Project testified that the project has helped exonerate more than 30 people, and that many clients struggle to re-enter society. Last year, the Examiner reported on the struggles that exonerated brothers Robert and David Bintz have experienced after leaving prison in 2024.

“After years of wrongful imprisonment, our clients leave prison without savings, without employment, and often, without a place to call home,” Lau said. They also leave with medical ailments and emotional trauma, he said. 

Rodriguez’s office said that an amendment to the Assembly bill followed discussions with Assembly lawmakers to address concerns she had heard from them and from the Department of Administration. But Rodriguez said it became clear that more discussions were needed as the legislative session wound down.

Rodriguez is optimistic that the bill can pass in the next session, she told the Wisconsin Examiner. She thinks “we can get to the finish line with enough time to work out any issues” when the Legislature reconvenes, and “finally update this process.” 

Correction: This piece has been updated to reflect that Lugo gave his testimony in December, not January

A bill that would have offered sentence adjustments for crimes committed when the offender was younger than 18 died in the Wisconsin Senate last week. The measure would have applied to people who received sentences of at least 15 years for offenses that didn’t involve a death and to those sentenced to at least 20 years for crimes that did include a death. It also  would have prohibited a life sentence without parole or extended supervision for youth offenders, and required the consideration of mitigating factors, such as age and maturity, at sentencing. The bill failed to gain traction or a public hearing in the Senate because, according to the lead sponsor, Sen. Jesse James (R-Altoona), there was a lack of clarity about the number of residents in prisons who would be affected. 

At a Feb. 12 event held by the criminal justice reform advocacy group WISDOM near Eau Claire, James told the gathering that information he had originally distributed concerning the number of residents who would be eligible for a sentence adjustment was not accurate, and because of that, he would not call for a public hearing on the bill.

In response to a Wisconsin Examiner request for clarification, a staff person in James’ office said in an email message: “After talking to the Senator to help with more context, I think there was a misinterpretation of what he meant. We received data from DOC (Department of Corrections) that does not necessarily match with data that advocacy groups have been circulating to other members of the Legislature. While we do work with advocacy groups on the bill, we did not provide them their data, so we are not 100% sure where they got it from. The discrepancies between the data our office was giving out versus these advocacy groups caused some confusion about how many individuals this bill would actually help. Given the time frame left in the session with the Assembly being done sooner than the Senate, clearing up the confusion and getting a public hearing in either chamber just did not come to fruition in time.”

Nikki Olson, founder and executive director of the Wisconsin Alliance for Youth Justice (WayJ), represents one of those advocacy groups.

“Sen. James was essentially given a range while WayJ has a specific number,” she said. “Our specific number fits into the range, so I consider his data and ours to be accurate.”

She added, “Sen. James was given two numbers. The number of people who will be impacted. A separate number was given of people that may or may not be impacted. There was data overlap between the two numbers. These two numbers combined means 130ish-300ish people would be impacted. Our number of 253, as of the end of 2024, fits within that range. The range represents a snapshot in time during 2025. Our specific number is a snapshot as of the end of 2024. I would anticipate the change between the two snapshot dates to be minimal and still within the range.”

The Examiner reported in December 2025 on a bill that had been in the works since the 2022-23 session addressing the same focus of youth sentencing. One of the advocacy groups that supported that effort, Kids Forward, estimated the number of residents who could be affected was more than100.

In a unanimous decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that police officers must read K-12 students their Miranda rights before interrogating them in a school setting. 

The case stems from an incident at a Two Rivers middle school in which a 12-year-old seventh grade student, referred to in the case under the pseudonym Kevin, touched the groin of a classmate. Kevin was pulled out of class to be interviewed in a small room dedicated for use by school resource officers. After an initial interview around 10 minutes, Kevin was allowed to leave before being interviewed again about an hour later by the officers and a vice principal. The boy was not able to call his parents and was not informed he was allowed to leave the room. 

While he was in the room, a uniformed officer stood in front of the door and the school resource officer doing the interview lied by saying there were witnesses to the incident. Police officers are allowed to lie during interviews to elicit a confession. 

Kevin said during both interviews that he had touched the boy’s groin but that it was an accident. 

Kevin was later charged with fourth-degree sexual assault and in a bench trial was found delinquent by a Manitowoc County Circuit Court judge. 

The boy appealed the ruling, arguing that the statements he made during the interview were inadmissible because he had not been read his Miranda rights. 

In the majority decision, authored by Justice Janet Protasiewicz and joined by the Court’s three other liberal-leaning justices, the Court found that taking Kevin to the room for questioning amounted to being in police custody and he should have been read his rights. 

The ruling found that the interview statements weren’t admissible. However it also found that the evidence for the delinquency finding did not rely on the statements so the circuit judge’s decision was upheld. 

“While Kevin sat across from one officer who questioned him, another fully uniformed and armed officer stood positioned in front of the door. The questioning officer asked him about an alleged sexual assault. She told him — untruthfully — that there were witnesses,” Protasiewicz wrote. “She also accusingly told him ‘it happened.’ No one told him he could reach out to his parents or any other adult. No one told him he was free to leave. No one told him he did not need to answer questions.” 

“But in the end, a 12-year-old boy was questioned in a closet-like law-enforcement office with two police officers, one who was fully uniformed and standing in front of the door,” she continued. 

Ryan Cox, the legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said the ruling would protect the constitutional rights of children.

“The Supreme Court’s decision is a major victory for the due process rights of Wisconsin students,” Cox said in a statement to the Wisconsin Examiner. “The ruling means that, in deciding whether a student must be read their Miranda rights during a police interrogation in a school setting, Wisconsin courts must consider the reasons why a child in the student’s position would feel coerced and not free to leave. This decision upholds students’ Fifth Amendment right to protect themselves against self-incrimination during encounters with law enforcement. Students retain their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and seek counsel when interacting with law enforcement, even in the school environment. Police are not exempt from their responsibilities to uphold the rights of a person simply because the student is a minor in a school environment. The Court affirmed this fundamental principle and protected Wisconsin students across the state from coercive and unconstitutional police conduct.”

In a concurring opinion joined by the other two conservative leaning justices, Justice Brian Hagedorn said the issue was made larger than it should have been, writing that the majority transformed “a rather ordinary schoolhouse questioning” into a matter of constitutional import. 

Hagedorn wrote that a seventh grader would likely see being questioned by police as intimidating but recognize that school resource officers are trusted parts of the school community. 

“Would a reasonable 12-year-old in this situation feel some pressure? Absolutely. But was this the kind of hostile, inherently coercive questioning that animated the court in Miranda? It was not,” Hagedorn wrote. “A reasonable person in Kevin’s position would not see SROs as unfamiliar and antagonistic adults. The reasonable person would see them as dedicated and familiar faces — intimidating to be sure — but nonetheless present to keep everyone safe.” 

Communities across Wisconsin have had fights over the presence of school resource officers for years. Officers were removed from Milwaukee Public Schools in 2016 at the request of community members, but returned last year by state legislators under a provision of a law providing local governments with increased state financial support. Opponents of SROs have argued the presence of cops in schools makes Black students in particular targets of inappropriate monitoring at school, which is supposed to be a safe place for them to learn. 

In his opinion, Hagedorn wrote that the ruling was a close call but that he wanted to distinguish between a true police interrogation and the normal functions of school discipline. 

“These facts give some support to the idea that a reasonable person in Kevin’s situation would have felt pressured to confess,” Hagedorn wrote. “Under my read of the cases, however, more is required to approximate the coercive environment at issue in Miranda. Someone in Kevin’s shoes would certainly feel the weight of adult condemnation. His conscience might even call him to come clean in the face of a serious infraction. But this normal human experience should not so quickly be placed on par with the uniquely coercive station house questioning to which Miranda applies.”

From 2021 to 2024, a new report reveals there was a dramatic increase in the number of incarcerated residents of Wisconsin’s jails and prisons accessing medications for opioid use disorder.

“Treatment Behind Bars: Medication for Opioid Use Disorder in Wisconsin’s Jails and Prisons” by the Wisconsin Policy Forum was released Wednesday at a press conference hosted by Vital Strategies Overdose Prevention Program, a global public health organization that has been working since 2018 to use “advanced evidence-based strategies on overdose prevention and to expand access to harm reduction and treatment, particularly for populations at highest risk,” said Giavana Margo, program manager.

The report notes that “medications for opioid use disorder are an important tool to help people manage symptoms of opioid withdrawal, as well as recover from symptoms of active opioid addiction. Research also shows that individuals who are newly released from prison are at elevated risk for overdose fatalities.”

The report said there are three factors that have “likely” resulted in the higher use of opioid use disorder medications  in carceral settings:

1. The high number of opioid deaths in the state that reached a peak in 2024
2. The availability of opioid lawsuit settlement dollars from pharmaceutical companies to address treatment.
3. Federal and professional agencies promoting the medications, and pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice to offer them to carceral residents under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A fourth factor discussed during the press conference is the higher percentage of jail and prison facilities offering the medications, encouraging wider acceptability.

Jason Stein, president of the Wisconsin Policy Forum, said that even though the number of opioid deaths has dropped noticeably since 2024, the number of overdose deaths statewide is slightly higher than vehicle deaths, making overdoses a “significant public policy issue.”

He noted that of 71 jails in the state, 58 filled out a 42-question survey fully and seven answered partially, resulting in a 97% reporting rate for the jails, while the Department of Corrections (DOC) reported data via its central pharmacy that serves all the state prisons.

The primary two opioid use disorder medications used by facilities are methadone and buprenorphine.

“Both of those medications are associated with a decrease in overdose deaths as well as improvements in other important indicators such as recidivism,” he said.

The study also looked at the use of naltrexone, another medication that is not strictly for opioid use disorder, and it also looked at the prevalence of naloxone or Narcan, which is used to reverse opioid overdoses.

The report notes that only four residents in the DOC system took buprenorphine in 2021, but 148 were receiving it in 2024, and 44 took naltrexone in 2001 — a number  that increased to 154 in 2024.

Stein said a 2021 Department of Health Services (DHS) report showed that only one-third of prisons offered any medication for opioid addiction, but by 2025 all 36 prisons were offering at least one medication.

Currently, Stein said, most Wisconsin jails — 53 of 65 that responded or 81.5% — offer one form of opioid medication. That is more than double the 25 jails, or 41%, that reported at least one medication in 2021.

“It’s more common for jails in the central and southeastern parts of our state to have multiple forms available,” he said of opioid medication. “In northern Wisconsin, it’s typically one form … such as buprenorphine.”

The report notes that offering the medications to those in jails and prisons results in a reduction of overdose deaths after release, as well as a decreased risk of death for any cause and a lower risk of reincarceration.

“We want to note that there is increased availability of these medications in both county jails and prisons around the state, making it available to thousands of individuals in 2024 at a substantial increase from 2021, but at the same time, there are some gaps, meaning access at the county level,” Stein said. “We had eight counties that stated they did not currently provide any access to these medications. We had five more counties that did not answer the survey. There are now 24 counties that provide some access to methadone, but that is still a minority, and we have a number of jails that, while they may provide continuation of existing prescriptions, they do not initiate individuals on those medications.”

He added, “We do see some opportunity … despite the challenges that may exist, to increase access; we do see some tools that local counties can turn to. One, there are more counties and private providers that are offering this service around the state, so there’s the potential for partnership, and then, as well, the availability of opioid settlement funds also makes the possibility of funding this service more practical in some cases for counties.”

Joanna Hernandez of Milwaukee shared her experience of struggling with addiction while incarcerated and the importance of continuing medication.

She recounted being arrested in 2013 in Walworth County while possessing a valid prescription for Suboxone (a medication to treat opioid addiction).

“The jail verified my prescription, but even after confirming it, they refused to give me my medication,” she said. “I was there for five days and went through very severe withdrawal. I was extremely sick and eventually segregated to a single cell. I remember guards telling me, ‘You know, this isn’t a hospital.’ As soon as I was able to post bail and get out, I used immediately. If I had been able to continue my prescription while incarcerated, I could have focused on healing and making sure my mental health medications were the right fit for me. Mental health plays a huge role in withdrawal.”

She added, “Experiences like mine show why access to medications for opiate use disorder is so important. Withdrawal in jail does not treat addiction. It actually increases the risk of relapse and overdose when people are released. Jails and correctional facilities need to treat opiate use disorder like the medical condition it is. Access to medications for opiate use disorder is about dignity, medical care and saving lives.”

Kenosha County Sheriff David Zoerner said an important part of his jail’s intake is an initial screening, so the residents get the resources they need and they also have those resources when they leave.

He noted it was a grant that provided the dollars to do the initial screening, and also stressed the limiting factor on how much his office can do is money, mostly from tax levies.

Zoerner said the most efficient way to offer methadone would be at the jail but he fears methadone could be “diverted nefariously,” so instead those who need it are driven daily to a facility, but that is also costly because it requires a deputy to transport the residents.

“My hope, based on what we’re doing right now with the early screens, is being able to work with the affected population while they’re in our custody, getting them peer support and some need therapy,” he said.  “You understand that drug addiction, behavioral health issues, mental health, they all go hand in hand, so to facilitate that through and then with new legislation, hopefully we’re going to be able to get these folks prescriptions, a 30-day supply, before they leave.”

The new legislation Sheriff Zoerner referred to is AB 604, which passed the Legislature and is waiting for Gov. Tony Evers’ signature. It would allow the state to apply for Medicaid coverage for incarcerated people, including a 30-day supply of opioid medication prior to release.

At the press conference, Adriena Hust, state team leader of Vital Strategies, shared recommendations for expanding opioid use disorder medication access in Wisconsin jails and prisons.

“The first recommendation, incarceration is not treatment,” she said.  “More should be done to avoid reincarceration. Most admissions to prison in Wisconsin are due to supervision and technical violations, rather than a new crime. While reforms are in progress, Vital Strategies recommends that Wisconsin continue to minimize revocation and eliminate incarceration sanctions for drug use while on supervision, considering reoccurring drug use is a common part of substance use treatment. Although today’s study did not deal with the issue of revocations, we know they are costly, and the savings to minimize them can go toward medication and staffing.”

Another recommendation is to make methadone and buprenorphine standard treatments for opioid use disorder.

And she said counseling should be optional and not a condition to receive medication because it is the medication that saves lives.

 “As mentioned, people are at extreme risk of dying by overdose in the first few weeks after leaving carceral settings,” she said. “It is important that re-entry planning focus on seamless continuation of medication in the community, which greatly reduces this mortality risk.”

And she noted that those incarcerated who have a right to medication under the Americans with Disabilities Act should have “recourse against violations without fear of retaliation,” in demanding medication. Lastly, she said, the state and counties should prioritize opioid settlement dollars for “opioid use disorders in jails and prisons.”

The Wisconsin State Senate passed a bill last week that will request funding for health care coverage for incarcerated people from the federal government. State Assembly lawmakers had already passed the bill last month. 

In a Facebook post last week, Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) celebrated the measure and said he hopes Gov. Tony Evers will sign it into law. 

James said that “as people leave our correctional system, they have a 40 TIMES higher risk of overdose death within the first TWO weeks after release.” This appeared to be a reference to a North Carolina study of opioid overdose death rates between 2000 and 2015. 

“This bill is a great step forward for Wisconsin as it ensures we become a healthier, safer community,” James said.  

The vote was nearly unanimous, with only Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) voting no. 

A federal “inmate exclusion policy” limits incarcerated people’s ability to use Medicaid, but the bill seeks to have the state apply for a waiver under an exception outlined by the federal government. 

Under the bill, the state’s Department of Health Services would submit a request to conduct a demonstration project to provide 90 days of prerelease coverage to incarcerated people for case management services, medication-assisted treatment for all types of substance use disorders and a 30-day supply of prescription medications. Incarcerated people would have to be otherwise eligible for coverage under the Medical Assistance program, which provides health services to people with limited financial resources.  

The advocacy organization WISDOM celebrated the Senate’s passage of the bill in an email newsletter signed by Mark Rice, the group’s transformational justice campaign coordinator. 

Rice said that full implementation of the bill would reduce needless suffering and the number of people being detained, benefit public safety, save resources and put more people on a path to successful reentry into society. 

In written testimony dated Oct. 31, director Dawn Buchholz of the Juneau County Department of Health Services said that passing the bill “will help us provide crucial services to inmates reentering our communities.”

“In the past, our agency literally completed hundreds of suicide and other behavioral health assessments for inmates experiencing emergency mental health and substance use crises in the Juneau County Jail,” Buchholz testified. “This was a frustrating process because while we can assess inmates, we cannot provide them with mental health or substance abuse treatment due to Medicaid rules.”

Buchholz testified that providing prerelease coverage to incarcerated people, along with a 30-day supply of prescription medications, “will help our agency work more effectively with our jails and prisons, result in a seamless reentry into community behavioral health services and decrease recidivism.”

DOC communications director Beth Hardtke referred the Examiner to the DOC fiscal estimate for information on what the agency is currently able to provide and the potential impact of the legislation. 

The department estimated it may have over $750,000 in potential cost savings if the waiver is approved and implemented, allowing the state to expand health care access for incarcerated people. 

The Examiner reported last month that in the fiscal estimate, the DOC said that in FY 2025, the agency spent $500,000 on the 30-day medication supply dispensed for incarcerated people before they were released, $300,000 on pre-release medication assisted treatment medications and $3.9 million on the Opening Avenues to Reentry Success (OARS) program. The OARS program supports the transition from prison to the community of incarcerated people living with a severe and persistent mental illness who are at medium-to-high risk of reoffending. 

Because not all incarcerated people will qualify, the estimate assumes that half of the medication and medication assisted treatment medications costs will be reimbursed, as well as 10% of the OARS program costs. There may be other costs DOC can have reimbursed. 

The Examiner previously reported that states have to reinvest federal matching funds received for carceral health care services currently funded with state or local dollars. Reinvested money must go toward activities that increase access or improve the quality of health care services for people who are incarcerated or were recently released, or for health-related social services that may help divert people released from incarceration from involvement in the criminal justice system. 

In the fiscal estimate, the DOC said that incarcerated people in local detention facilities may also be eligible for the services. This could result in local cost savings in addition to DOC cost savings. The department couldn’t estimate the potential local cost savings of the bill because not all local detention facilities provide the same type or level of services.  

Hardtke noted that the bill only allows the state to apply for the federal waiver, and it isn’t guaranteed that a waiver would be approved. 

As of Nov. 21, 19 states had approved waivers, according to the health policy research organization KFF. Nine, including the District of Columbia, had pending waivers. 

In an email to the Examiner in November, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services said the bill requires the three services that the waiver would need to include to be submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The bill doesn’t require other criteria for the project, aside from current Medicaid eligibility requirements. 

Beyond those requirements, the department said it needs the authority that the bill would provide before it starts work on putting together the details of the waiver. The bill requires the department to submit the request for a waiver by Jan. 1, 2027.