Transcript Highlights:

• The bill omits funding for our legal costs, which will force these costs to be paid from programs and
• processes in the face of rising costs. processes in the face of rising costs.
• <00:08:54.720> And<00:08:54.880> without<00:08:55.200> this with rising costs
• And without this with rising costs.
• costs, which will force uh these costs costs, which will force uh these costs to<00:09:30.480>

Bills: HF2439

Keywords: environmental protection, pollution reduction, waste management, climate change, funding allocations, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, that increases operating costs of $827,789, and a fleet management solution of $804,000.
• and consumer protection, that is $20 million in general revenue to implement a fuel transfer switch cost
• The base budget supports operation and maintenance costs of water treatment facilities and water supply
• planning, with the remaining funding primarily supporting BMP cost-share projects.
• So this year, the DEP has allocated $80.8 million to combat the blooms and red tide.

Summary: The Agriculture and Natural Resources Budget Subcommittee met to hear member-led presentations on agency budget requests after prior meetings with the agencies. Representative Barnaby summarized the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services’ fiscal year 2025-26 request, highlighting major funding for the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program, Florida Forest Service wildfire and land management needs, citrus disease and research efforts, a new Conner Complex facility and lab, agricultural water and BMP projects, agricultural law enforcement staffing and equipment, maintenance and vehicle needs, and federal grant-related spending. No vote was taken on the department’s request during the meeting. Representative Bartleman presented the Department of Environmental Protection request and said the subcommittee supported it fully. The request emphasized Everglades restoration, water quality grants, springs, harmful algal bloom and red tide response, alternate water supplies, resilience and flood prevention, beach and coral reef restoration, land acquisition and state parks, and cleanup of petroleum, dry cleaning, and hazardous waste sites. Representative Alvarez asked DEP to provide a list of the most contaminated lakes, along with estimated costs, so the committee could prioritize cleanup efforts. Representative Black summarized the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission request, which included additional law enforcement funding in high-demand areas, oyster and reef restoration, habitat restoration, heavy equipment for land management and prescribed burning, a water survival training center, and red snapper data research. Representative Salzman then presented the Department of Citrus request, describing a lean agency budget focused on operations, PALM readiness, marketing and consumer awareness, greening-resistant plant material, and building repairs; the workgroup recommended fully funding the request. The meeting ended with members thanking the chair and staff for the more member-driven budget process, and the subcommittee adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• Relating to the allocation of certain constitutional transfer of the monies to certain funds and accounts
• By Isaac relating to the allocation and deposit of certain surplus state revenue to the property tax
• HB 228 by Bell of Montgomery Ruling. to the allocation and disposition of certain surplus state revenue
• Relating to the allocation.
• increasing the criminal penalty for certain false reports and the restitution for emergency response costs

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• One, business costs. How do we reduce cost for business?
• One, business<00:02:04.240> costs.
• Business costs.
• How do we reduce cost for business?
• So this particular position and the allocation, uh, is that contract only the allocation?

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That project's going to end up costing us about seven...
• That's just been the increases in cost and labor.
• But with costs increasing, and costs having already increased But with costs increasing, and costs having
• So, I mean, pavement cost is pavement cost.
• So therefore, when you look at the total cost over a span of time for maintaining a roadway, it costs

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Transportation held its first hearing of the session on H. 53, Governor Healey’s Chapter 90 proposal to increase state funding for municipal roads, bridges, sidewalks, and culverts. Committee chairs outlined the hybrid hearing process and invited testimony from municipal officials, labor groups, regional planning organizations, contractors, and administration officials. Across the hearing, speakers consistently supported the bill, emphasizing long-deferred maintenance, inflation in construction costs, climate-related flooding, and the need for more predictable, multi-year funding so cities and towns can plan projects and take advantage of the construction season. The administration described H. 53 as part of a broader $8 billion transportation package, proposing to raise annual Chapter 90 funding from $200 million to $300 million for five years, with the additional $100 million distributed by road mileage to better support rural and small communities. They also highlighted $200 million for culverts and small bridges, plus other transportation investments, and said the five-year authorization would provide certainty for municipal capital planning. Municipal witnesses from places including Carlisle, Beverly, Granby, Hatfield, Newton, Nahant, Gardner, Beckett, and Yarmouth described local road and culvert backlogs, rising asphalt costs, and the difficulty of maintaining infrastructure on limited local budgets. Labor and industry witnesses from the AFL-CIO and MAPA said the bill would support good-paying jobs and provide stability for contractors and producers. The MBTA Advisory Board and regional planning representatives also backed the proposal, noting the connection between local roads and the broader transportation system. Committee members asked questions about the road-mile formula, culvert needs, asphalt costs, and the rationale for a five-year authorization. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the committee adjourned after testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• And with the savings from the bond being retired and the cost of the rental, we can easily.
• As an example, if a drug costs the big pharma.
• This drug costs you $10, but. Because of our good effort, we're going to get it reduced by 30%.
• It costs them one, so their profit margin is beyond extraordinary.
• Where is this money allocated or appropriated for individuals' salaries?

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We had to allocate funds for this.
• So, the states with high error rates can get a delay before having to pay the cost.
• Step down cost share, so that could go in effect in FY 30.
• That last bracket shows that if you're below six percent, the feds will pick up the cost.
• Then, the projected cost to implement 100% state-funded SNAP for newly ineligible clients.

Transcript Highlights:

• Division um to align that with the cost Division um to align that with the cost of<00:04:17.880>
• assess are inadequate to fund the costs assess are inadequate to fund the costs of<00:04:33.600>
• <01:04:14.799> of artificially inflating the cost of artificially inflating the cost of things
• > to in government the inflationary cost to in government the inflationary cost to the<01:04:34.760
• <01:24:31.560> gets thank you go ahead um the cost gets thank you go ahead um the cost gets

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They're here, and the costs are minimal.
• We don't anticipate any new costs for this.
• The Grappler, what does that cost? I heard you mention that one. The Grappler, what does that cost?
• The grappler, what does that cost? I heard you mention that one. The Grappler, what does that cost?
• Allocated through this committee to pay for that.

Bills: HB316, HB549, HB646, HB752, HB824, HB873, HB1129, HB1157, HB1170

Keywords: literacy, adolescent, teacher education, high-dosage tutoring, reading intervention, workforce development, training programs, Bayou Growth Opportunity, funding, employment, skills gap, qualified employer, credential recognition, government growth limit, recurring revenue, state finance, Louisiana Income Tax Elimination Fund, fiscal responsibility, legislative sessions, regular sessions

Summary: The House Appropriations Committee met on April 22 and first considered Chairman Beaulieu’s House Bill 646, a constitutional amendment limiting the amount of State General Fund money that may be appropriated in a fiscal year. After adopting a set of amendments creating the Louisiana Income Tax Elimination Fund and making conforming changes, the committee reported the bill favorably as amended. The companion bill, House Bill 824, which establishes the growth limit formula based on CPI, medical CPI, and population change, was also amended and reported favorably as amended. Supporters framed both measures as a way to keep spending within recurring revenues and create a path toward reducing or eliminating the state income tax. The committee then reported favorably as amended House Bill 1157, creating the Louisiana State Infrastructure Fund to help finance infrastructure-related projects, with testimony that it would leverage private and federal dollars and initially focus on rail, port, road, and bridge projects. House Bill 316, which provides a framework for student literacy reforms for grades four through eight, was presented as having no new cost because the Department of Education said the work was already covered by existing resources; it was reported favorably. House Bill 549, creating the Bayou Growth Opportunity Workforce Program to provide employer-based training grants, also received support from business groups and was reported favorably as amended. House Bill 1129, dealing with the sale of state-owned surplus movable property, drew support from Louisiana auctioneers who argued local firms should be allowed to bid on the state’s auction contract instead of relying on an out-of-state vendor; it was reported favorably. House Bill 873, which would fund pursuit intervention technology through a $2 driver’s license fee, generated significant concern about adding fees and whether the money should instead come from existing budgets. After discussion of the proposed technologies and training, the committee deferred the bill voluntarily to work on alternatives, including a possible sunset and other funding options. Finally, House Bill 752, which would change the timing and duration of regular legislative sessions by joint rule, was reported without action after members noted the revised fiscal note showed a decrease in state general fund expenditures. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• They were all worried about the cost of child care.
• I want to point out that this comes... ...at a tremendous cost to California taxpayers.
• And it is costing us millions, if not billions, of billions of...
• Wealth, and it is costing us millions, if not billions of dollars, to be able to participate in the cost
• . 1 allocates $170 billion in funding to the Department of Homeland Security and ICE.

Summary: The Select Committee on Latina Inequities met at Los Angeles Mission College in Sylmar, hosted by Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez and joined by Assemblymember Mia Bonta. Rodriguez opened by framing the committee’s work around the economic status of Latinas and the effects of federal policies on the economy and social safety net, while the college president welcomed the committee and described campus services for undocumented and housing-insecure students. Rodriguez also emphasized the local impact of immigration enforcement in the San Fernando Valley and said the hearing would focus on Latinas’ economic conditions, immigration enforcement impacts on the workforce and safety, and H.R. 1’s effects on the safety net. The first panel featured HOPE’s Maria Morales and Dr. Elsa Macias, who presented findings from HOPE’s National Economic Status of Latinas report. They said Latinas are a major and growing part of California’s population and workforce, but face persistent inequities, including a large wage gap, higher unemployment, high uninsured rates, student debt, and affordability pressures around child care, housing, and education. They also discussed entrepreneurship, noting both the growth of Latina-owned businesses and barriers such as limited access to capital, technical assistance, and retirement and health coverage. In response to committee questions, they said higher education can still offer a strong return on investment, but only if students can complete degrees without being overwhelmed by debt and care costs; they also pointed to policy solutions such as SB 642, mentorship, financial literacy, CalSavers access, and support for community development financial institutions. The second panel focused on immigration enforcement and Latina safety in the workforce. Luis Nolasco of the ACLU described arrests tied to apparent ethnicity and Spanish-speaking, the chilling effect on families, and the loss of wages, school attendance, and mobility. Dr. Amada Armenta said immigration enforcement harms California’s economy, public health, and mixed-status families, and noted that undocumented workers are concentrated in agriculture, construction, and child care. SEIU’s Jen Baca Beltran said raids and school-based enforcement traumatize children and families and highlighted the need for Know Your Rights trainings. Megan Ortiz of IDEPSCA described repeated Border Patrol raids on day labor centers, injuries to staff, and the need to protect worker centers, domestic workers, and street vendors. Inclusive Action’s Shannon Camacho said raids have forced many informal workers to stop working, prompted emergency cash assistance and rent relief efforts, and strengthened advocacy for vendor protections and CDFI support. CHIRLA’s Jeanette Zanipatine said the rapid response network has expanded, documented widespread arrests and detention conditions, and is providing direct support and legal referrals; committee members asked about detention, maternal health, and what the state can do, and panelists urged stronger oversight, more legal representation, and protections for pregnant and detained people.

Transcript Highlights:

• No extra costs, no consequences for dragging out the claim.
• All of those costs that they can't control.
• All of those costs that they can't control.
• All of those costs that they can't control.
• All of these are the costs of doing business for the landlord, and they can pass those costs on to the

Summary: The committee heard several bills, beginning with AB 1521, the Judiciary Committee’s civil law omnibus measure. The bill makes a number of minor, mostly clarifying changes, including repealing obsolete Government Code provisions, allowing juvenile courts to hear petitions to establish records of birth, death, or marriage, requiring notice of probate petitions to the Department of Child Support Services, and correcting typos in existing law. It had no opposition and was moved on a do-pass basis to Appropriations, though it was later placed on call pending additional votes. Members then heard AB 57, which would reserve at least 10% of California’s Home Purchase Assistance Program funds for descendants of formerly enslaved people. The author and supporters framed it as a reparative, race-neutral-by-lineage effort to address historic housing discrimination and the racial wealth gap, while opponents argued it was an unconstitutional racial proxy and should instead be based on individual injury. The bill drew strong support and opposition testimony, was amended, and was approved on a do-pass as amended vote to Appropriations, then placed on call. AB 495, the Family Preparedness Plan Act, was heard next. The bill would expand and standardize caregiving and guardianship tools for families facing immigration-related separation, including broader use of caregiver authorization affidavits, recognition of non-relative extended family caregivers, and a new short-term guardianship process that preserves parental rights. Supporters said it would reduce trauma and help children remain with trusted caregivers; there was no opposition testimony. The committee approved it on a do-pass to Human Services vote and placed it on call. The committee also heard AB 392, which would address non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit media by requiring uploader consent certifications, faster takedown procedures, and civil remedies against uploaders and hosting sites. A survivor testified in support, and members discussed implementation details and possible amendments; the bill was moved on a do-pass as amended basis to Appropriations and placed on call. AB 692, which would prohibit employer “stay-or-pay” debt agreements that require workers to repay training or other costs if they leave or are terminated, also advanced despite opposition from business and industry groups concerned about impacts on signing bonuses and voluntary training programs. It was sent to Appropriations on a do-pass as amended vote and placed on call, along with AB 1234, a wage-claim enforcement bill aimed at reducing Labor Commissioner delays and adding consequences for employers who fail to participate in the process. The committee also heard AB 394, which expands protections for transit workers and allows transit agencies to seek restraining orders against violent riders; it received broad support, some concern about system-wide bans, and was discussed with amendments that preserved judicial discretion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Rising costs, shifting supply chains, tariffs. Inflation are not abstract ideas.
• These laws have created costs, including start-up costs, that the Department has had to absorb. within
• As a result of the supporting startup costs for new mandated programs.
• The department is required to recover its costs.
• , the increases in fees aim to cover program costs going forward.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , particularly the cost of vehicles.
• Already, as we discussed, I'm concerned about the high cost of vehicles.
• Do you think that tariffs will increase the cost of drugs for Americans?
• One of my big concerns is the impact of the cost on the American people.
• The cost of expanding Internet access.

Transcript Highlights:

• A building that might have cost $15 million then might cost $40 million now, due to inflation, especially
• that you will actually cut your costs. that you will actually cut your costs.
• Thank you. be raising the cost of a boat decal fee be raising the cost of a boat decal fee and<00:54:
• <00:54:52.640> by and allocating the funds collected by and allocating the funds collected
• <01:22:00.080> for at different designs, uh the cost for at different designs, uh the cost

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard testimony on House Bill 1042, which would increase the BFA contingent credit limit. State Treasurer Monica Misipelli explained that under RSA 66, state debt capacity is tied to unrestricted revenue and that guaranteed debt counts in the calculation even though it is contingent rather than direct debt. She said the state currently has about 4.2% to 4.3% debt-to-revenue ratio, about $120 million in additional capacity, and that approving the bill’s proposed increase would reduce available capacity for future state borrowing, including capital budgets. She noted the BFA has a long history of using guarantees without a state payout, but said the legislature should consider whether the full additional $250 million is needed and whether unused guarantee authorizations, such as one for the Pease Development Authority, should be reviewed in the future. Committee members asked whether guarantees have the same effect as actual debt for bonding capacity, and the treasurer confirmed that they do for purposes of the formula. Members also asked about the usual level of debt relative to the statutory 10% cap, and she said the state generally stays well below that limit. BFA Executive Director James Key Wallace then testified that the request was driven by rising project costs, inflation, and the need for more runway so the agency does not have to return to the legislature in an emergency. He said the BFA is self-supported, has never had a guarantee paid out by the state, requires collateral and reserves, and believes the appropriate range is closer to $400 million to $450 million; he also said a Senate bill would raise the limit to $400 million. He added that the BFA’s pipeline includes projects from about $15 million to $100 million and that housing availability is an important factor in business location decisions. After closing the work session on House Bill 1042, the committee opened House Bill 241, a bill on health insurance coverage for pain management services for chronic pain. Representative Dave Nagel, the prime sponsor, gave extensive background on his long career in pain medicine and said the bill is intended to improve access to non-opioid therapies and evidence-based pain management. He described the broad population affected by chronic pain and opioid use disorder, and said the proposal has long had bipartisan and stakeholder support. No vote or final action was taken on House Bill 241 in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:29:48.080> uh million bym as the operating costs uh million bym as the operating costs
• we uh certainly uh uh the capital costs we uh certainly uh uh the capital costs of<00:30:08.399>
• <00:32:12.159> and line so that's the kind of costs and line so that's the kind of costs and
• <00:51:08.839> and levels so staff compensation costs and levels so staff compensation costs
• including salaries healthc care cost including salaries healthc care cost rents<01:14:17.159>

Bills: HF5

Keywords: tax modification, transportation funding, electric vehicle tax, Social Security subtraction, retail delivery fee, motor vehicle registration, state budget, transportation policy, 1183, house

Summary: The committee began with member and staff introductions, then heard an overview of the governor’s transportation budget recommendations from fiscal staff Andy Lee. He explained that the spreadsheet showed only proposed changes, not base spending, and highlighted General Fund and trunk highway adjustments for MnDOT and the Department of Public Safety, including operating changes, extensions of prior appropriations, increased state road construction and Blatnik Bridge authority tied to anticipated federal funds, State Patrol hiring and a metro headquarters item, aeronautics changes, and revenue adjustments in the Driver and Vehicle Services special revenue account. The main testimony came from Metropolitan Council Chair Charlie Zelle, who outlined three budget-related items: advancing funds to MnDOT to help coordinate a highway reconstruction with a transitway project, making Metro Mobility riders eligible for free fixed-route transit, and reducing the Metro Transit general fund appropriation by $32.454 million annually. He said the advance would speed delivery and reduce disruption, the free-fare pilot had been successful and could save money if even a small share of Metro Mobility trips shifted to fixed-route service, and the general fund reduction was manageable in the near term because of new revenue streams but could constrain future expansion and capital maintenance. Members questioned the long-term effects of the proposed reduction, possible impacts on safety, service expansion, and capital maintenance, and whether federal funding uncertainty could affect operations and bus procurement. Zelle said the cuts would not affect immediate operations but could limit future BRT, microtransit, and transitway expansion, while also noting that capital maintenance needs include platform rebuilds, track work, rolling stock, and station repairs. He also said the 2023 funding package had accelerated projects and that the council was opening three transit lines this year. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, it would continue to cost taxpayers far more than what is already allocated in the budget
• Okay. would cost taxpayers far would cost taxpayers far more more more um<00:05:59.039> in<00:
• :09.639> the than what is already allocated in the than what is already allocated in the budget
• as a normal programmatic cost incurred as a normal programmatic cost so<00:10:57.120> it's<00
• So just to follow up on maybe the administrative costs, do you think there will be some cost reductions

Keywords: Due to a technical issue in the room, the quality of the stream will be diminished. We apologize for the inconvenience. Meeting start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:02:00 SB 61 Discussion Only 00:03:25 SB 13 Discussion Only 00:07:19 SJR 25 Discussion 00:25:33 SJR 25 Vote 00:28:40 SB 61 Discussion Only 00:29:44, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 61, relating to swimming pools, but initially had no representative from the governor’s office or cabinet available to explain the fiscal estimate. Senators questioned why the executive branch’s estimate was $4.25 million to $8.5 million while the committee’s internal fiscal note showed little or no impact. When Department for Public Health staff later joined, they explained their estimate was based on a roughly $85,000 cost for a large outbreak investigation, using a 2014 outbreak as a benchmark, and said the bill could increase workload and outside laboratory costs if private swimming pools became more common as rental properties. They reported 822 waterborne cases in 2024, with 8 tied to private swimming pools, and later corrected an earlier figure to 14 private-pool-related investigations over five years. Senators pressed on the discrepancy between those numbers and the projected 50 to 100 incidents, and staff said the higher figure was a ballpark estimate. The discussion also clarified that private pools are generally excluded by definition, while pools held out for rent may be treated as public pools under current definitions. No vote on SB 61 was taken in the portion provided. The committee then heard Senate Bill 13, concerning the reprocurement of managed care organizations for Medicaid. Department for Medicaid Services officials said the bill would require work on a new RFP, system changes, and oversight improvements, and estimated the cost at $2.8 million based on prior procurement spending of about $2.5 million in 2018-2019, with a 10% growth adjustment. They explained that the work is administrative and therefore matched at 50/50 federal-state funding, not the 80/20 rate used for benefits, and said the expense would be incurred whether the bill passed or not if the state proceeded with an RFP. Senators discussed possible savings from reducing the number of MCOs from five to three, but agency staff said those savings were hard to quantify and that provider and member disruption could create offsetting costs. The committee later moved on to Senate Joint Resolution 25, which would ask the Revenue Department to report on the cost of issuing farmers a wallet-sized tax-exempt card instead of a paper certificate. The resolution was adopted by roll call, with all members present voting aye, and it was reported favorably to the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• And how would they recover that cost?
• What's the cost compared to pumping that much water?
• I'm bringing the cost down.
• McCarthy, you referenced costs, the export fees.
• of pipe, the cost of of these high wells, bringing in the electricity, all the other costs, it's very

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And is the driver of cost the Number of claims or is the driver of cost the size of the claims?
• So what is happening is it's driving up the cost of these cases.
• Chair, so the deficit has been allocated between physicians and hospitals.
• Chair, so the deficit has been allocated between physicians and hospitals.
• I mean, they're not going to come until we have, you know, constant low cost energy.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What would cost them $7,000 a year? Mr.
• So if you look at the cost of what employees put in versus the cost of the plan, our state employees
• roughly pay 7% of the cost and the state pays 93% of the cost for health insurance.
• Corrections costs about $30 a day. We also…” “$5 a day. Corrections costs about $30 a day.
• Corrections costs about $30 a day. We also $5 a day. Corrections costs about $30 a day.

Summary: The joint appropriations committee met on April 28 to review the FY 2027 budget package, including the general appropriations feed bills (HB 4138 and SB 1831) and related budget reconciliation measures. Staff described the budget as including about $17.96 billion in general fund appropriations, a one-time transfer of state monies to increase revenues, a 5% lump-sum reduction to most agencies’ discretionary general fund budgets, and several one-time restorations or continuations for items such as school facilities, child care, child safety, corrections stipends, and public safety operating costs. Members spent much of the meeting debating how the across-the-board cuts would be implemented, which programs might be affected, and how fund sweeps from prior-year appropriations and special funds would work, including questions about universities, public safety, rural hospitals, transportation grants, the Corporation Commission, and health insurance costs for state employees and troopers. A major point of discussion was the impact on universities and higher education. Arizona Board of Regents representatives said the proposed reductions and fund sweeps would affect already obligated dollars, research, staffing, and student aid programs, and could force difficult decisions about programs such as the Promise Program, Teachers Academy, and other pass-through funds. Committee members also raised concerns about whether the cuts could lead to tuition increases or reductions in services, while majority members emphasized that agencies and the executive branch should decide how to absorb the reductions. Another major topic was health care and the state employee health plan: staff explained that the budget includes a $228 million general fund infusion to stabilize the plan, while a separate reconciliation bill would raise employee premiums over three years. Members also discussed whether the budget’s changes to AHCCCS/Access and hospital eligibility rules could increase costs for hospitals and reduce coverage. Public testimony largely opposed the budget. Speakers from Opportunity Arizona, the Arizona Board of Regents, and local governments argued that the proposal would shift costs onto working families, reduce support for education, housing, SNAP, health care, and rural infrastructure, and protect tax benefits for data centers and higher-income taxpayers. A mayor from Globe asked for state help after severe flooding damaged roads, water lines, and homes, while a motorcycle safety advocate asked the committee to review a DPS motorcycle safety fund appropriation. Committee members and staff repeatedly clarified that some items discussed were one-time appropriations not continued into FY 2027, that some fund sweeps were from unspent or unencumbered balances, and that the committee planned to take a mass roll-call vote on the budget bills at the end of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• HR1 is that it gets at federal cost HR1 is that it gets at federal cost drivers.<00:09:42.080>
• Although um I will flag that uh cost Although um I will flag that uh cost sharing<00:21:00.080><
• <00:21:28.640> So cost and coverage impact. So cost and coverage impact.
• <00:34:41.839> of financing and then what the cost of financing and then what the cost of
• Cost.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee met and approved the minutes from its August 27 meeting. It then received a presentation from Katherine Castanza of the National Conference of State Legislators on the Medicaid provisions in the 2025 budget reconciliation bill, referred to as HR1. She explained that the bill is estimated by CBO to save the federal government $911 billion over 10 years, with more than 20 Medicaid-specific provisions, most of the savings concentrated in five policies and largely backloaded into 2030-2034. She emphasized that the bill’s effects will vary by state, but that expansion states and hospitals are expected to be most affected, in part because of changes to eligibility, provider taxes, and state-directed payments. Castanza highlighted several new funding and flexibility provisions, including a $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Fund for 2026-2030 and a new home- and community-based services waiver option effective July 1, 2028, with $100 million in grants in fiscal year 2027. She also outlined major eligibility changes for Medicaid expansion adults: work or community engagement requirements effective January 1, 2027; twice-yearly redeterminations for the expansion population effective the same date; and new cost sharing for certain expansion adults effective October 1, 2028. She noted that Kentucky, as an expansion state, would be subject to these changes and that state agencies would face significant implementation demands, especially because federal guidance and timelines are tight. A substantial portion of the presentation focused on financing changes. Castanza described new limits on provider taxes, including a 0% safe harbor for new taxes and a phased reduction for existing taxes in expansion states beginning in 2028, while nursing facilities and intermediate care facilities are exempt from the reduction if already taxed. She also explained that state-directed payments will be capped and phased down over time, with existing arrangements grandfathered only briefly; she said Kentucky has 11 approved state-directed payments and could see significant fiscal effects. She added that the bill also bars Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood or similarly situated providers for one year, changes immigrant eligibility rules effective October 1, 2026, lowers the federal match for certain emergency services, and expands the scope of the federal erroneous payment recoupment provision effective October 1, 2029. Throughout, she stressed that federal savings may translate into state cost shifts and that implementation timing will be critical.