Transcript Highlights:

• There's an analysis.
• I I don't I don't know the analysis.
• The reason we just don't keep the money has to do with actuarial certification.
• Rates from an actuarial standpoint have to be a reasonably efficient MCO.
• It needs to be able to achieve that, and that's what the actuary sets the rates at.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Fiscal Committee met on May 16, 2025, and first adopted a rules-and-procedures change extending online audit approval timelines for American Rescue Plan items through December 2026 and bipartisan infrastructure law items through June 30, 2027. The committee then approved the April 18 minutes and adopted the consent calendar with several items removed for separate discussion, including items from Tabs 4, 6, and 7. On Tab 4 item 2511, members questioned why the state was paying utility costs for the Laconia property while it is being sold. Commissioner Charlie Arlinghaus explained the budget line covered utilities generally, not just heat, that some buildings still require minimal heating, and that the main increase was tied to the Winnipesaukee River Basin Project wastewater charges. He said the charges had risen sharply, the property sale would eventually trigger a utility true-up at closing, and he would provide additional analysis. The committee then adopted the item. On Tab 4 item 25115, the Department of Justice said funding for a temporary fourth pathologist was removed from the 2026-2027 budget because it was no longer needed, and the committee adopted the item. On Tab 6 item 25126, Department of Health and Human Services officials explained the Medicaid managed care “withhold” as a performance incentive: about 2% of capitation payments are held back, then redistributed based on quality and operational metrics, with unearned amounts staying with the state until the end of the program and subject to actuarial requirements. They said the approach has improved performance and helped with Medicaid unwinding outreach, reducing enrollment by about 11,000 people in the past year. The committee adopted the item. On Tab 7 item 25139, the Department of Energy said it no longer needed an additional position because existing staff could handle the work, and the item was adopted. The committee also adopted regular-calendar items 25114 and 25131, noted that one regular-calendar item had been withdrawn, set the next meeting for June 20 at 11:00 a.m. in Room 100 of the State House, and adjourned after a motion and second.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, in fact, we are actuarially sound, even a little bit better than actuarially sound, a little bit.
• So in fact, we are actuarially sound even a little bit better than actuarially sound a little bit.
• That was built into the actuarial analysis. That was the expected amount of cost.
• This year, we need $500 million less to become actuarially sound, but we're not actuarially sound, which
• So when we do an analysis for our rate filing, and I have my chief actuary, Brian Donovan, if we need

Summary: The Insurance and Banking Subcommittee received a lengthy presentation from Citizens Property Insurance Corporation CEO Tim Serio, with Insurance Commissioner Michael Yaworski also answering questions. Serio reviewed Citizens’ role as Florida’s insurer of last resort, its statutory funding structure, eligibility rules, depopulation program, reinsurance obligations, and the surcharge/emergency assessment mechanisms that can be used if Citizens runs a deficit. He emphasized that recent legislative reforms, combined with lower litigation and improved market conditions, have helped the private market recover and reduced Citizens’ policy count from a peak of about 1.41 million in 2023 to 936,182 at the end of 2024, with a projected drop to about 771,000 by the end of 2025. He also said the reforms reduced Citizens’ rate need and helped avoid an emergency assessment after the 2024 storms. Members asked about Citizens’ rate increases, why Citizens still seeks higher rates despite lower litigation, how the 20% eligibility threshold works, whether Citizens should be wind-only, and whether the state or federal government could help with deficits. Serio explained that Citizens is still charging below actuarially sound rates in most areas, that rate filings reflect reduced litigation and lower reinsurance exposure, and that assessments on all Florida property policyholders are the reason Citizens tries to build surplus and depopulate. He said the depopulation program is working better than in the past, with less than 2% of takeout policies returning to Citizens, and that the Office of Insurance Regulation has been vetting takeout companies more carefully. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on claims handling after Debby, Helene, and Milton, including flood-versus-wind disputes and Citizens’ use of the Division of Administrative Hearings for some claim disputes. Serio said Citizens had received 76,625 claims from the three storms and had paid nearly $823 million in indemnity and expenses as of January 7, 2025. He said many closed-without-payment claims were either below deductible, withdrawn, duplicate, or flood-only, and that Citizens had asked its internal audit function to independently review the claims data and denials. He also described Citizens’ storm outreach, catastrophe response centers, managed-repair program, and claim review process, and said the corporation remains focused on paying valid claims while minimizing the risk of assessments on the broader Florida market.

Transcript Highlights:

• Sarah Baker, actuarial update. Sure. Sarah Baker, actuarial update. Thank you, Chair.
• You did just hear about one of the biggest projects, which is the actuarial evaluation report on the
• Is there anything on the actuarial evaluation results that the members want to talk about?
• What are those key questions that you're seeking to answer, what data analysis or actuarial insights
• And you might not have actuarial numbers at this...

Summary: The executive committee approved the May minutes by roll call vote, then received an actuarial update from Sarah Baker of the State Actuary’s Office. Baker explained the office’s annual work, including the DRS pension actuarial evaluation, support for state financial reporting, cash flow analysis, a six-year pension contribution outlook, interim support for GIT and WAL CARES, and an upcoming actuarial evaluation of the volunteer firefighters pension plan. She also responded to questions about bills allowing members to transfer into PERS, noting that such transfers have historically increased PERS costs and that any added cost would be borne by PERS members and employers depending on bill structure and affected demographics. Kate Adams of the Attorney General’s office reported no new developments in the cases the committee is monitoring. She said the Dawson case is still in its early stages, with a judge assigned and a discovery plan due at the end of July. The committee asked for continued updates on that litigation. The committee then discussed interim work planning, focusing first on animal control officers’ eligibility for PERS and asking staff to continue researching definitions, comparable treatment in nearby states, and the cost and service-credit implications for affected employees. Members also discussed Plan 3 issues, including comparisons of Plan 2 and Plan 3 membership and data, and possible future briefing topics. The largest discussion centered on Plan 1 COLAs: members and retiree representatives debated whether to pursue a permanent COLA or an ad hoc COLA, and whether budget language should require future budget writers to consider a COLA. Retiree groups said they preferred a permanent COLA but were open to further discussion; staff was asked to continue work on possible language and policy options. The committee reviewed correspondence on four topics: Plan 1 COLA requests, a request to study LEOFF 2-style medical reimbursements for Washington State Patrol survivors, and a request to allow certain members to change survivor option elections after the federal Social Security Fairness Act. The committee agreed to bring the State Patrol medical reimbursement issue and the Social Security Fairness Act issue back for July, with staff to gather more information and provide an informational briefing. The July agenda was approved and includes the OSA annual update, the LEOFF 2 Board annual update, a PERS/TRS Plan 1 ad hoc COLA item, and the two survivor-related topics.

Transcript Highlights:

• Every two years, we commission an actuarial study.
• So of the DCYF cases, how many of them are... an actuarial study.
• The actuaries also will proportion the risks to each, to consider.
• Aaron Gutierrez with the Office of the State Actuary. Thank you.
• It wouldn't be an actuarial slide if I didn't have a disclaimer.

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held a work session covering the state revenue outlook, caseload forecasts, wildfire costs, budget balance, tort liability, water supply, and pension policy. The Economic and Revenue Forecast Council reported modest near-term U.S. growth, no near-term Washington employment growth in 2026, continued personal income growth, and elevated inflation, with tariffs and federal policy cited as major risks. Revenue forecasts were slightly improved for the current biennium by about $105 million but down about $185 million for the next biennium. Members asked about income inequality and housing permits; staff said personal income is an aggregate measure and housing production remains below long-term needs. The Caseload Forecast Council then reported that most forecasts were unchanged or only slightly changed, but several programs increased, including Washington College Grant, Working Connections, aged/blind/disabled cash grants, nursing homes, home and community services, and developmental disabilities personal care. The largest policy-driven change was in Medicaid low-income adult caseloads, where federal H.R. 1 was projected to reduce coverage substantially through narrower eligibility, community engagement requirements, and shorter eligibility periods. The committee also heard a wildfire funding update and a 2025 fire season review. Staff explained that the state budgets $93 million annually for suppression and uses supplemental appropriations for costs above that level, with an estimated state supplemental need of about $139 million for the current year. Department of Natural Resources officials said 2025 fire activity remained below the 10-year average in acres burned, but fires were more complex and closer to communities, contributing to higher residence loss. They described expanded use of aircraft, firefighters from other states, corrections crews, and the Arcadia 20 hand crew, and said the state did not need National Guard ground support this year. A budget preview then showed that the near general fund outlook had worsened after vetoes, lapses, and forecast changes, and that maintenance-level costs alone would leave a projected negative balance by fiscal year 2027 and about $4.3 billion by fiscal year 2029, before any policy decisions. Jason Seams, the state risk manager, reported a sharp rise in tort claim costs, with indemnity expenses nearly doubling from fiscal year 2023 to 2025 and DCYF accounting for most of the increase. He said the state self-insurance liability account has run deficits for four straight biennia and is now facing nearly $600 million in deficits, driven largely by a surge in DCYF claims, especially juvenile rehabilitation and long-running sex abuse cases. Members asked about the role of old claims, comparisons with other states, excess insurance, and whether more Attorney General staff could reduce special assistant attorney general costs. The committee then shifted to water policy, hearing from tribal leaders, Ecology, and the Washington Water Trust. Tribal witnesses emphasized overappropriation, declining flows, climate impacts, and the need for legislative oversight and tribal participation in water policy. Ecology described major projects in the Odessa sub-area, Yakima Basin, and Dungeness, along with the need for storage, recharge, conservation, and policy changes to support water supply development. The Washington Water Trust argued that climate change is reducing summer flows and that the state needs more funding, enforcement, and long-term commitment to restore instream flows. The final item was a pension update on LEOFF 1 surplus assets; staff reviewed two 2025 bills that would have merged or restructured the plan and used surplus assets, but neither passed, and instead the budget directed the Select Committee on Pension Policy to study the issue and report back.

Transcript Highlights:

• I said actuarial time that it depends.
• Just a little bit of detail on that. >> Uh, each of our actuaries, and we have actuaries for other areas
• Um a need to select a >> Uh each of our actuaries and we have >> Uh each of our actuaries
• </c><00:52:38.480><c> memorandum</c> uh had to perform a actuarial memorandum uh had to perform a actuarial
• I will give our careful analysis. I will give our actuaries<00:56:57.839><c> credit.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:00:23 Kentucky Bankers Association 00:02:32 How to Read and Understand KRS 6.948 Health Mandate and Federal Cost Defrayal Impact Statements 00:25:40 Proposed Amendments to Kentucky's Essential Health Benefit-Benchmark Plan 00:50:18 Proposed Health Insurance Legislation for the 2026 Session 01:04:22 Reimbursement for Covered Benefits Delivered Through the Psychiatric Collaborative Care Model 01:01:46 Coverage of Eating or Feeding Disorders 01:18:47 Coverage of Hearing Loss 01:25:31, 958, all

Summary: The Interim Joint Committee on Banking and Insurance met for its first interim meeting, established a quorum, approved routine opening items, and welcomed a new committee assistant and a legislative intern. The committee first heard a Kentucky Bankers Association presentation from Tim Shank and John Cooper focused on the state’s housing shortage, which they described as affecting all 120 counties and especially low- and moderate-income and workforce housing. They urged support for a proposed $20 million banker-backed revolving fund, paired with tax credits, to finance new housing construction; they said the program would be flexible, could support alternatives such as manufactured housing, and would use below-market loans with tax credits vesting over five years only after units are completed. They also asked for extension of the historical tax credit carryforward from five to seven years and for continued support of new market tax credits, arguing that supply-chain delays make the longer period necessary for historic rehabilitation projects. The bankers also raised concerns about credit unions, arguing that because credit unions do not pay the same taxes as banks, they should not be allowed to acquire healthy state-chartered banks or hold state and local deposits. They cited the recent purchase of First State Bank of Middlesborough as an example, saying the transaction would reduce state, county, and city tax revenue and weaken local tax bases. In response to committee questions, the presenters said local regulations, zoning, parking, sidewalk, and utility easement issues can significantly delay housing projects, and they emphasized that state policy and infrastructure support are needed to help address affordability and development barriers. The committee then shifted to a Department of Insurance presentation by Commissioner Sharon Clark on how to read KRS 6.948 health mandate and federal cost defrayal impact statements. Clark explained that the mandate statements were created in 1998 so legislators would have actuarial estimates of how proposed health insurance mandates would affect administrative costs, premiums, and total costs, and she noted that later legislation added federal cost-defrayal analysis. She also reviewed the background of the Affordable Care Act’s essential health benefits framework and said the department’s statements are intended to help lawmakers make informed decisions on proposed health coverage mandates. No votes or formal actions were taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Notably, our Actuaries raise objections on nearly 75% of the rate filings we receive.
• TDI has a staff of actuaries and forms reviewers who examine those documents very closely.
• In insurance language, our rates are not actuarially adequate.
• And Let me say, I'm not an actuarial person at all, I'm not an actuary, but I think when we talked about
• As I said, I'm not an actuary, but I'm having a hard time understanding why.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• is the actuarial accrued liability?
• Page 26: every two years, NHRS has our actuary do a detailed actuarial valuation, and they calculate
• Page 26: every two years, NHRS has our actuary do a detailed actuarial valuation, and they calculate
• </c> actuary do a detailed Actuarial actuary do a detailed Actuarial valuation<04:01:10.920><c> and</
• </c><04:01:29.279><c> acred</c> it's the value of the Actuarial acred it's the value of the Actuarial

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held an orientation for new and returning members of the House committee on agencies and administration, with introductions from members and staff. Chair Carol Maguire outlined her expectations for hearings: keep questions focused on the bill, be respectful to witnesses, and use the committee’s orientation opportunities to learn about the jail staff, retirement system, and Office of Professional Licensure. Members also discussed related assignments on other bodies, including the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules and the Joint Committee on Employee Classification, and noted that some members already serve on those panels. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on the State Building Code and the committee’s upcoming workload. Members explained how the state code is intended to provide a common baseline while allowing limited local options, and why municipalities must formally adopt and publish any local amendments. They reviewed several anticipated bills: a consolidation bill to gather building-code enforcement materials in one place, a bill to update the state energy code, a bill to restrict municipal adoption of building-code changes, and a bill to update the electrical code. Members also discussed how building codes apply to older homes and commercial buildings, and why code updates are important for safety and clarity. The chair said the committee had 36 bills currently scheduled, including many early bills that must move by March 6 because they will be heard by two committees. She said the committee would use subcommittees for harder bills, with three subcommittees this year: pensions, licensing, and likely state building code. She also outlined the hearing schedule, including lighter bills on February 12 and the expectation of executive sessions later in the month. No votes were taken during the orientation, but members were told that public hearings do not require a quorum and that hard copies of bills would be distributed by committee staff.

Transcript Highlights:

• Actuarially sound rates is is... policy. We do cover renters, landlords, obviously owner occupied.
• Actuarially sound rates is is So, just at a really high level, right, actuarially sound rates are simple—although
• the actuaries will tell you it’s not simple—but it’s pretty simple, right?
• And if they are, then you have actuarially sound rates.
• That’s a very high-level description from a non-actuary.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held an oversight hearing on the California Fair Plan, focusing on its rapid growth, financial stability, rate adequacy, and whether it is still functioning as an insurer of last resort. Fair Plan representatives explained that the plan is a private, statutorily created involuntary association regulated by the Department of Insurance, and that it has grown substantially because of non-renewals and limited availability in the admitted market. They said the plan now has more than 668,000 policies and about $724 billion in exposure, and that it is increasingly being used because it can be cheaper than admitted-market coverage in some areas, especially when paired with a difference-in-conditions policy. The Fair Plan outlined its rate history, saying prior rate approvals had fallen well short of requested increases, and that its current filing seeks a 35.8% increase after working with the department on new modeling and reinsurance cost treatment. Officials said the plan remains underfunded relative to its liabilities, but recent reforms such as AB 226 have helped it secure a $600 million line of credit and improve its ability to manage cash flow and reduce assessment risk. They also described a $7.1 billion reinsurance tower and a $750 million catastrophe bond, while noting that the plan still had to assess the admitted market for $1 billion after the 2025 fires. Members questioned the Fair Plan about coverage limits, broker education, depopulation, and smoke claims from the Eaton and Palisades fires. The Fair Plan said it does not deny applicants because their homes exceed the $3.3 million limit, but only insures up to that cap and allows excess coverage to be purchased elsewhere. It said it is requiring broker training, has reviewed closed smoke claims, and continues to pay covered smoke damage under revised policy language that removed the “sight and smell” test. The committee also discussed CDI recommendations, with Fair Plan officials saying many are in progress but that strategic planning is difficult because the organization cannot control market conditions or legislative mandates. Public commenters from the insurance industry, builders, agriculture, and nonprofit child-and-family services largely agreed that the Fair Plan’s growth signals a broken market, but they differed on solutions. Industry groups urged higher Fair Plan rates and stronger depopulation tools, while nonprofit and agricultural representatives asked for better access to coverage and more effective clearinghouse processes. No vote or formal action was taken; the hearing concluded after member questions and public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• consultants may be contracted by the department for facilitation, legal regulatory review, comparative analysis
• Also under the first be it further resolve subsection three, we're going to include an actuarial study
• or analysis of Hawaii's workforce, employers, potential beneficiaries as part of the elements necessary
• </c><00:02:37.440><c> study</c><00:02:37.760><c> or</c><00:02:38.080><c> analysis</c> include an actuarial
• study or analysis include an actuarial study or analysis of<00:02:38.959><c> Hawaii's</c><00:02:39.440

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Labor and Technology met for decision making on Friday, March 28, 2025, and considered two related resolutions, STR 145 and SR 117, concerning the creation of a legislative working group to develop recommendations for establishing and implementing a paid family and medical leave program for Hawaii. The chair explained that the committee would move the measures as a Senate draft with several amendments to clarify that the Department of Labor would convene the working group and could contract with an independent third-party consultant for facilitation, legal and regulatory review, comparative analysis, compliance and eligibility analysis, staffing and operating requirements, drafting recommendations, and the final report. The committee also amended the resolutions to require review of relevant federal and state laws and existing programs, specifically including the Orisa prepaid healthcare act family leave reference as stated in the transcript, and to add an actuarial study or analysis of Hawaii’s workforce, employers, and potential beneficiaries. Another amendment removed LRB as a technical assistance resource because of budget concerns raised in testimony, while clarifying that the Department of Labor may contract for those services. The chair also noted that a representative would be added as a member of the working group, and that the chair of the working group could add other stakeholders as needed, along with any technical, non-substantive amendments for clarity and consistency. No questions or concerns were raised, and the committee voted to recommend passage of STR 145 and SR 117 with amendments. The votes were unanimous, and the recommendations were adopted, concluding the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• It would be great to have people that have actuarial and risk analysis, so worth actually running the
• Or future actuarials, right? And Mr.
• But do we have an expert actuary on the board? No, we don't.
• And I think it has to be what the actuary says.
• It couldn't be anything less than the actuary for the board.

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 61, which would raise aggravated battery on a peace officer from a third-degree to a second-degree felony in cases involving great bodily harm or a deadly weapon. The sponsor and supporters said the bill fixes an inconsistency in current law, where aggravated assault on an officer can be punished more severely than aggravated battery causing serious injury. Law enforcement representatives, the Chiefs Association, CBRC, and chamber representatives testified in support, and the New Mexico Sentencing Commission was noted as having endorsed the bill by a 6-3-4 vote. After questions about proportionality and plea bargaining, the committee voted due pass on HB 61 without objection. The committee then returned to House Bill 99, a medical malpractice reform bill, and several members made conflict-of-interest disclosures before debating amendments. The discussion focused heavily on the patient compensation fund, surcharge setting, and whether an advisory board or the superintendent should control rates. Amendments to segregate future fund money, require surcharges no lower than the advisory board’s recommendation, and create a commission with more actuarial and financial expertise were debated at length; the committee rejected the first two amendments. Members and witnesses argued over whether past undercharging of hospitals and doctors led to insolvency and taxpayer bailouts, and whether the bill should require more transparency and oversight. The committee also debated amendments on punitive damages. One proposal would have delayed punitive damage claims until after substantial discovery; opponents said it would conflict with civil procedure, prolong litigation, and likely be struck down. Another would have tied punitive damages to a multiple of compensatory damages or a percentage of net worth; supporters said that would better deter harmful conduct, while opponents said it would create uncertainty and more discovery. That amendment also failed. A final punitive-damages amendment would have removed caps in cases involving sexual assault or intoxication by a health care provider and protected the first $5 million of an independent provider’s personal assets; it too was rejected after members said it would shield egregious misconduct and go beyond the bill’s purpose.

Transcript Highlights:

• Sarah Baker, actuarial update. Sarah Baker, actuarial update. Thank you, Chair.
• Is there anything on the actuarial valuation results that the members want to talk about?
• What are those key questions that you're seeking to answer, what data analysis or actuarial insights
• Do you, and you might not have actuarial numbers at this... Capped?
• Do you, and you might not have actuarial numbers at this point in time.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think staff analysis, right?
• Do you want to explain it in more actuarial terms than I can? Yes, Mr.
• Can I refer to my actuary to talk about that?
• I understand actuaries well, as I was on the board for eight years.
• And I'm seeing nodding from our actuary who's here.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the course of our analysis, we found three different groups of users.
• This would eliminate the application of the actuarial analysis review to the initial registration application
• analysis review by the OIC rather than receiving a satisfactory review from the OIC.
• It requires DSHS to include a link to the results of any actuarial analysis review received by the Department
• needed to complete the actuarial analysis review.

Summary: The House Health Care & Wellness Committee held public hearings on HB 2564 and HB 2599, then moved into executive session on several bills. HB 2599, which would restrict the use of AI in therapy and psychotherapy services, drew strong support from the prime sponsor, mental health professional groups, a privacy advocate, and an AI ethics researcher, all of whom warned that chatbots can mislead users, encourage delusions or self-harm, and lack licensure, accountability, and confidentiality protections. Several witnesses from health systems and telehealth organizations supported the bill’s intent but asked for narrower definitions and amendments to avoid unintended impacts on clinician-supervised tools, screening questionnaires, scribes, and other legitimate uses of AI. No vote was taken on HB 2599 during the hearing. HB 2564, which would give the Health Benefit Exchange authority to adopt market-factor certification criteria for exchange plans, was presented as a way to address affordability, bare counties, and plan duplication. Supporters included the Exchange, consumer advocates, rural and tribal representatives, navigators, and some individual consumers, who said the bill could improve access, preserve bronze plan availability, and help stabilize the market in counties with too few carriers. Opponents from health plans, Regence, Premier, and insurance producer groups argued the bill would expand exchange authority without clear standards, could reduce competition and carrier participation, and might conflict with existing OIC filing and confidentiality processes; the OIC supported the bill but requested an amendment on rate disclosure timing. The committee then moved to executive session and later reported out HB 1784, HB 2242, HB 2384, and HB 2505 with due pass recommendations, while deferring action on HB 1809 and HB 2261. In executive session, the committee adopted a substitute for HB 1784 on certified medical assistants by an 18-0 vote, adopted one amendment and passed a substitute for HB 2242 on preventive services and immunization recommendations by an 11-7 vote, and passed a substitute for HB 2384 on actuarial reviews for continuing care retirement communities by a 16-2 vote. It also adopted an amendment and passed a substitute for HB 2505 on limited adult family home licensure exemptions for certain foster family situations by an 18-0 vote. The meeting adjourned after those actions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Actuarially sound rates is... policy. We do cover renters, landlords, obviously owner occupied.
• Actuarially sound rates is is So, just at a really high level, right: actuarially sound rates are simple—although
• the actuaries will tell you it’s not simple—but it’s pretty simple, right?
• And if they are, then you have actuarially sound rates.
• That’s a very high-level description from a non-actuary.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held an oversight hearing on the California Fair Plan, focusing on its rapid growth, financial stability, rate adequacy, and role in the homeowners insurance market. Committee members described the Fair Plan as increasingly functioning as a “safety net” rather than a true insurer of last resort, while Fair Plan representatives said the plan was created by statute, is privately funded by member insurers, and is now taking on more business because of non-renewals and limited availability in the admitted market. They emphasized that the plan offers residential and commercial coverage, but not a full HO-3 homeowners policy, and said expanding into that product would require major new staffing, vendor, and claims infrastructure. A major topic was pricing and assessments. Fair Plan officials said their rates have historically lagged their projected costs, especially because reinsurance costs were not fully recoverable in rates until recently. They reviewed recent filings, including a 2023 filing that was reduced from an estimated 80% need to a 35.8% request after working with the Department of Insurance. They also discussed the plan’s reinsurance tower, a new catastrophe bond, and the $1 billion assessment triggered by the 2025 Los Angeles fires after losses exceeded available capital. They said AB 226 helped secure a $600 million line of credit to reduce assessment risk, and they thanked lawmakers for supporting that measure. Members raised constituent concerns about coverage limits, underinsurance, and misinformation from agents. Fair Plan officials said they do not deny applicants because their homes exceed the plan’s $3.3 million limit; instead, policyholders can combine Fair Plan coverage with excess insurance. They said broker training and webinars are being expanded to address misunderstandings, and they noted that raising the cap would depend on achieving actuarially sound rates and sufficient financial capacity. Members also asked about smoke claims from the 2025 fires; the Fair Plan said it has paid covered smoke claims under California law, reviewed closed claims, and removed the “sight and smell” language from its policy form after litigation and CDI action. Public commenters from the insurance industry, builders, agriculture, and nonprofit service providers largely urged faster depopulation of the Fair Plan, more adequate rates, and reforms to the clearinghouse process. Some warned that the Fair Plan is now competing with the admitted market because it can be cheaper in some areas, while others said the plan is still essential because the private market is not serving high-risk or specialized properties. The hearing ended without a vote or formal action, but committee members and Fair Plan representatives agreed to continue working on rate, transparency, and depopulation issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• If we have time at our next meeting, maybe figuring out what the actuarial analysis looks like, because
• >> Um, Madam Chairman, yes, I probably the best information available is the annual actuarial analysis
• >> Um, Madam Chairman, yes, I probably the best information available is the annual actuarial analysis
• >> Um, Madam Chairman, yes, I probably the best information available is the annual actuarial analysis
• If he has any comments on this and what this may do to his actuarial analysis for October.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• you always want to base that inflationary analysis on a per-pupil analysis right so at least factors
• We're actuarially sound. That definition of actuarial soundness is in statute.
• I apologize for the confusion that the fiscal note – or we have to do an actuarial impact analysis on
• any bill that could have an impact on the fund and unfortunately that analysis from our actuary did
• That's unfunded actuarial accrued liability.

Keywords: infrastructure, water supply, flood mitigation, Texas Water Fund, community projects, funding allocations

Summary: During this committee meeting, the focus was on discussing critical infrastructure funding, especially related to water supply and flood mitigation projects. Chairwoman Stepney and the Water Development Board presented extensive details regarding the Texas Water Fund, which included $1 billion appropriated to assist various financial programs and tackle pressing water and wastewater issues. Additionally, funding allocations aimed at compromising the state's flood risk and improving water conservation were hotly debated, emphasizing collaboration among committee members and the necessity of addressing community needs in such projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll now go to our actuarial update from Michael Harbor. Thank you, Mr.
• Again, for the record, Michael Harbor, actuary for OSA.
• I would think that in your fiscal analysis, we can ask ourselves that question.
• So I think the question then is, Ken, is the actuary office prepared?
• Ken, is the actuary office prepared to move forward with the bill next session?

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• WE'VE GOT A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION THAT WILL GO OVER AND JOINING ME TODAY IS OUR CHIEF ACTUARY KYLE
• THEN HAVE YOU DONE ANY ANALYSIS.
• MY QUESTION IS WHAT SPECIFIC CHANGES AND I KNOW YOUR ACTUARY IS THERE.
• Bakofsky: WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR FROM MY ACTUARY?
• THAT IT IS ACTUARIALLY JUSTIFIED AND SOUND AND WE DO PUSHBACK.

Transcript Highlights:

• It takes actuaries.
• And what we found in our actuaries.
• range that our actuaries prepare.
• </c><01:49:32.480><c> So</c> range that our actuaries prepare. So range that our actuaries prepare.
• And so we hire Milliman, the actuaries, to do a capital adequacy reserve analysis.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee took up the pooled risk management program bill and reviewed a new amendment drafted with input from the Insurance Department and Legislative Services. Department witnesses explained that the proposal would move oversight of pooled risk management programs from the Secretary of State’s office to the Insurance Department, add a licensure requirement, preserve the programs’ non-insurer status, and exempt them from third-party administrator licensure. They also described a series of solvency tools in the draft, including financial reporting, risk-based capital standards, minimum capitalization, investment limits, commissioner examination and enforcement authority, rulemaking authority, merger and affiliate-transaction review, confidentiality protections, and a separability clause. A major theme of the discussion was that pooled risk management programs differ from commercial insurers because the risk remains with the member local governments rather than being backed by a state guarantee fund. Witnesses said the bill is designed to emphasize solvency over return of premium and to give the Insurance Department a regulatory “toolbox” to prevent insolvency, including a proposed $5 million excess or stop-loss coverage benchmark, optional accessible policies, and a requirement that boards vote on dividends or premium returns when capital exceeds 600% of risk-based capital. Members questioned how this approach differed from the original Secretary of State bill and whether assessments on towns would still be possible; the department responded that the new framework would allow more flexible oversight and alternatives to immediate court action. The committee also discussed why the statute should continue to say the programs are not insurers, with the department explaining that this preserves their autonomy and avoids applying unrelated insurance laws and premium taxes. Members asked about the department’s workload and were told the department believed it could absorb the new duties without additional funding. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• They're just relatively broad, and to conduct an actuarial analysis we need to sort of scope things down
• </c> um about to be able to do an analysis um about to be able to do an analysis and<00:12:58.519><c>
• A separate actuarial analysis is required.
• We create and produce aggregated data that contributes to the actuarial analysis.
• </c><00:40:08.440><c> at</c> Actuarial analysis so again looking at Actuarial analysis so again looking

Keywords: 1183, house