Transcript Highlights:

• The other change, which is absolutely necessary, is the effective date of the bill wasn't changed in
• c> up<00:05:21.840> with<00:05:22.080> the changed one to match up with the changed
• The other change 2725H is included.
• The three changes are the three changes which are mentioned: the effective upon passage, line 11 changing
• The three changes changes and myself.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference on HB 718 met to reconcile House and Senate language. Members discussed two main parts of the bill: provisions requiring the Department of Education to report on rules that exceed state or federal requirements, including any fiscal impact on school districts, and language related to the new Pasquaney school district and its tax-rate setting timeline. Conferees said they were agreeable to the Senate’s additions on reporting and the handling of indeterminable fiscal impacts. The group focused on a House amendment, 2725H, which made two technical changes to the Senate language: adding the word “certified” to align with existing statutory language and changing the bill’s effective date to “upon passage” so the Department of Revenue Administration could act in time. A further clarification was proposed to specify July 1, 2025, for the tax-rate language, and members agreed to that change as well. There was some concern raised that the bill’s underlying special education implications could have indeterminate fiscal effects on school districts, and one member said that without a fiscal note they could not support it. After discussion, the House members voted in favor of the three changes, the Senate member present also supported them, and the chair announced the result as effectively unanimous. The committee then said the report would be drafted and the bill would move forward, with HB 102 mentioned as another item to be placed on consent.

Transcript Highlights:

• Second is statutory changes.
• change to constitutional language or maybe a statutory change in century code or procedural changes in
• Second is statutory changes.
• you through the changes.
• So there's no real change there. We didn't have a provision for an independent Real change there.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee met with a quorum, approved the previous meeting minutes, and heard an update from Garty Consulting on the interim study of legislative term limits. The consultants outlined their research plan and preliminary themes, including loss of institutional knowledge, shifts in power toward executive agencies and lobbyists, reduced long-term policy capacity, faster leadership turnover, and recruitment/support challenges. They also described possible recommendation categories ranging from constitutional and statutory changes to procedural and cultural adjustments. Committee members asked about how other states repealed term limits, how the public survey would address perceptions of term limits, and how stakeholder focus groups would be selected. The committee also heard a presentation from NCSL on term limits in other states, including examples from Nevada, Montana, and Colorado, with discussion of training programs, staffing changes, annual-session debates, bill limits, and impacts on decorum and leadership continuity. Several members requested follow-up data on part-time versus full-time legislatures, taxpayer costs, and nonpartisan staff devoted to oversight. The committee then considered revisions to the legislature’s workplace harassment policy and related forms. Legislative Council explained changes that clarified the definition of harassment, added captions for readability, extended several deadlines, allowed informal resolution before a review panel is appointed, clarified the role of Legislative Council in intake and documentation, and updated confidentiality/open-records language. Members, especially Senator Hogan, said the revisions better formalize the role of counsel and provide a less intimidating path for resolving complaints. The committee adopted the revised policy and forms by roll call vote. Finally, the committee approved a motion to enter executive session at 1:00 p.m. to review the results of a capital threat assessment and discuss legislator security, citing the applicable open-meetings exemptions. Members were instructed to limit discussion to the stated purpose and not take final action until returning to open session.

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the changes is a target change in the general fund, and then one is the health care access fund
• change.
• And that change um the it's 29 million.
• and onward is taking one of the changes where we directed the department to do by rule to make a change
• changes.

Bills: HF2436, HF2435

Keywords: child welfare, economic assistance, child care, grant program, video security cameras, healthcare, dementia services, public health funding, opioid prevention, women's health, community health boards, mental health, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• In section two, line 397, we changed In section two, line 397, we changed shall<00:02:40.560>
• <00:02:49.840> that latitude in dealing with uh changes that latitude in dealing with uh changes
• This is in terms of notifying us of any changes, the legislature, of any changes.
• uh uh us of any changes, the legislature of<00:05:18.960> any<00:05:19.199> changes.
• In um lines 1610, we uh of any changes.

Keywords: Medicaid - Room 210; 2 February, 2026: 2:30 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first took up a placeholder bill related to the Medicaid “L tax” for long-term acute care hospitals. The sponsor explained that these hospitals pay into Medicaid but do not receive Medicaid reimbursement, and said members had reached a general consensus that a solution is needed. The bill was described as a dummy bill with no firm language yet, and the committee adopted a motion for title sufficient do pass; the bill was reported despite one opposing vote. Members then heard a detailed explanation of the committee’s Medicaid technical bill. The sponsor said it was much lighter than in prior years because of uncertainty around federal Medicaid conditions and the lack of a signed bill in recent years. Most changes were described as federal-language updates, cleanup, or department-requested revisions, including changes from “shall” to “may” to give the department more flexibility, shortened notification and care-period timelines, and removal of outdated provisions. Substantive items mentioned included allowing the department to review value-based payment models, adding pediatricians to a covered list, increasing ambulatory surgery center reimbursement from 80% to 85%, approving “treat in place” for ambulances, allowing supplemental payments to hospitals, and reestablishing the Medical Advisory Council. After brief questions, the committee adopted a motion for title sufficient do pass on the tech bill and reported it, again with one opposing vote. The chair then announced a follow-up hearing for the next day at 1:30 p.m. in Room 216 on the L tax, the hospital bed tax, a Medicaid 101 overview on hospital financing, and a briefing on nonopioid medications and a device intended to prevent or reduce epilepsy seizures.

Transcript Highlights:

• who are changing diapers.
• I needed to change him, and while we were changing him, a car had actually pulled up behind us.
• I needed to change him, and while we were changing him, a car had actually pulled up behind us.
• enough time, since our name change in 2010, we were the Department of Mental Retardation and we changed
• Even though it may not be a law, it has changed my life.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities held a hybrid hearing focused largely on DDS-related bills, with chairs Kennedy and Livingstone outlining strict time limits, accessibility procedures, and a 5 p.m. stop to preserve ASL and CART services. The committee heard testimony on several measures, including a bill from Sen. Mike Moore to create a centralized electronic education records system for students in out-of-home placements, which supporters said would improve communication, preserve IEP continuity, and reduce missed services. Paul DePaulo also testified in support, describing the educational and justice-system harms that can follow when foster youth do not receive coordinated records and supports. A major portion of the hearing centered on H. 242/S. 149, a bill to enhance standards of care for people with autism and intellectual and developmental disabilities. Rep. Garballey and many advocates, parents, clinicians, and disability leaders supported the bill, saying it would require provider training, statewide standards, and better emergency department practices to reduce misdiagnosis, trauma, and unnecessary ER boarding. Testimony described sensory and communication barriers in medical settings, lack of provider training, and the need for continuing education and license-related requirements. Related testimony also supported H. 213/S. 111, which would improve access to behavioral health services for children involved with state agencies by requiring better discharge planning, coordination with hospitals and agencies, and more appropriate post-hospital placements. The committee also heard strong support for H. 256/S. 102, requiring universal changing stations in public buildings, from parents, advocates, and the Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council. Witnesses said current restroom accommodations often force unsafe or undignified changes on floors, in cars, or in inaccessible spaces, and argued the cost of adding changing stations to new or renovated buildings would be modest compared with the benefits to dignity, safety, and community access. Another major topic was H. 261/S. 155 on supported decision-making agreements for certain adults, which supporters described as a less restrictive alternative to guardianship that preserves autonomy while providing trusted support. Finally, testimony on Tommy’s bill (S. 168/H. 282) described a preventable death after a hospital discharge and urged clearer communication and training requirements for residential staff handling life-sustaining equipment; the bill was presented as a safeguard for people with disabilities relying on such equipment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, third change is on page three, line item 3A.
• Uh, third change is on page three, line item 3A.
• c><00:13:07.959> on<00:13:08.279> page<00:13:08.920> three change uh Third change
• is on page three change uh Third change is on page three line<00:13:10.160> item<00:13:10.440
• and then we're going to fourth change and then we're going to change<00:13:20.800> to change

Keywords: Meeting start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:12 Discussion on 2025 Regular Session Proposals 00:01:00 Discussion for Future Meetings 00:18:25, 958, all

Summary: The Investments in IT Improvements and Modernization Projects Oversight Board met for its first meeting, approved the minutes from November 13, 2024, and then discussed BR 355, a bill draft intended to revise and clarify the board’s governing statute based on its first year of experience. The draft would rename the body as the Information Technology Oversight Committee, add or refine definitions for cybersecurity projects/systems and legacy projects/systems, move the annual submission deadline earlier, and require a six-year outline and funding-source information for transition planning. Members and staff said the bill was largely a codification of current practice, with no major controversy. State Budget Director John Hicks and CIO Jim Baird offered technical comments and suggested several drafting changes: using “system” instead of “project” for legacy and cybersecurity references, adjusting the first reporting deadline to give agencies more time if the bill becomes law in March, and clarifying that the statute should ask agencies for estimated expenditures and funding sources rather than implying an electronic link to the budget request. They also suggested that the linkage to the budget process could be handled through budget instructions rather than statute. Members discussed whether the six-year outline should be biennial and agreed that the April timing fit the capital planning process. After the discussion, the board agreed in principle to revise the draft along those lines, including changing the terminology, making the six-year outline biennial, and refining the budget-related language. The board also discussed future meeting dates and agreed to meet on Fridays upon adjournment, with February and March meetings to be scheduled later. The meeting ended with a motion and second to adjourn, which passed.

Transcript Highlights:

• issued, we have not seen dramatic change issued, we have not seen dramatic change there.
• classification changes as part of that. classification changes as part of that.
• changes uh towards industrial. changes uh towards industrial.
• as well. changing as well.
• So uh for example the changes.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Do any members wish to change their vote?
• The next changes are just pretty... we change civil to juvenile on page six, and then we... ...reorganize
• Do any members wish to change their vote?
• to change the Constitution.
• This just changes a structural change.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The North Dakota House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a quorum present, then received a gubernatorial veto message on Senate Bill 2261. The governor vetoed the bill creating a prison industries workforce development tax credit, citing dormant Commerce Clause concerns and arguing the tax credit would create an unfair market advantage and not meaningfully help Rough Rider Industries. The House agreed to place SB 2261 on the next day’s calendar for a possible veto override. The chamber also re-referred Senate Bill 2159 to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and appointed a conference committee for Senate Bill 2133 after the Senate refused to concur with House amendments. The House then took up a series of Senate amendments and final passage votes on several bills. It concurred in amendments and passed House Bill 1140 naming the Specialist John P. Fettig, Iraq Bridge; House Bill 1241 allowing funeral home vehicles to display flashing purple lights and clarifying emergency vehicle lamp rules; House Bill 1316 imposing additional penalties for repeated violations of temporary restricted licenses; House Bill 1127 expanding Department of Financial Institutions authority and data security provisions; House Bill 1564 on Indian child welfare; House Bill 1167 requiring AI disclosure statements in political communications; House Bill 1170 on state employee annual leave; House Bill 1447 regulating virtual currency kiosks; House Bill 1278 creating a cash management board for state treasury funds; House Bill 1024, the deficiency appropriation bill; House Bill 1205 on newborn safety devices; House Bill 1204 expanding false-information rules for political ads to text messages and telephone calls; House Bill 1001, the governor’s budget; House Bill 1206 increasing penalties for DUI offenses involving a minor; House Bill 1088 on insurance penalties and restitution; and House Bill 1515 on motor vehicle warranty work compensation. Most passed with strong margins, though HB 1170 and HB 1024 drew notable opposition, and HB 1447 and HB 1204 also had several nays. The most extended debate came on Senate Concurrent Resolution 4008, which proposed a constitutional amendment to change legislative term limits from the current structure to four four-year terms and repeal a constitutional restriction on proposing such changes. Supporters argued the measure would preserve institutional knowledge, allow voters to reconsider the 2022 term-limit decision, and let the public decide on the ballot. Opponents said the people had already spoken, the measure was confusing or unnecessary, and it could distract from other ballot issues. After reconsideration was granted, the House passed SCR 4008 by a vote of 53 yeas to 39 nays. The session ended with announcements, committee meeting notices, and adjournment until April 3, 2025.

Transcript Highlights:

• Nothing had changed in that.
• Nothing had changed in that.
• Nothing had changed in that.
• There might be a few changes, and then we made a couple other changes, but anyway.
• <00:29:29.760> a changes, it's not going to change a changes, it's not going to change a thing

Bills: SF0079, SF0080, SF0039

Keywords: sales tax, use tax, economic development, impact assistance, industrial facilities, tax exemptions, local control, electronic notice, compliance, tax collection, administration, tax exemption, long-term homeowners, property tax, seniors, residential property, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Climate change exists.
• That has now changed.
• by climate change is, in my view, essentially theft.
• of climate change.
• , so climate change can't torpedo our transit network.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee hearing focused on a broad set of climate, energy, and environmental justice proposals. Early testimony strongly supported the Climate Change Superfund or “Polluter Pays” bill (H.1014/S.58), which would assess the largest fossil fuel emitters for a one-time fee based on historic emissions to fund climate adaptation. Sponsors argued the bill is modeled on Superfund cleanup principles, would target only the largest multinational polluters, would not be passed on to consumers, and would direct a significant share of funds to environmental justice communities. Committee members asked about the number of companies covered, consumer impacts, and whether the bill would address other forms of environmental destruction; sponsors said it was limited to major fossil fuel companies with a Massachusetts footprint and did not cover other pollution sources. The committee also heard testimony on a fusion energy compact proposal (S.673) that would direct the administration to develop a framework for a New England regional compact to accelerate fusion research, workforce development, and supply-chain growth. Supporters from MIT and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities said fusion could become a major clean-energy and economic opportunity, but acknowledged the technology is not yet commercially viable and still has unresolved technical, cost, and waste-management questions. Members pressed on environmental impacts, siting, waste, costs, and whether the bill would create a compact or only a framework; sponsors said it would only create the framework and that the administration would need to negotiate with other states. Another major topic was a pilot program for nature-based climate solutions (H.971/S.??), backed by legislators, Boston Harbor Now, and UMass Boston’s Stone Living Lab. Witnesses said the bill would help speed permits for research and demonstration projects such as living shorelines, marsh restoration, and hybrid “green-to-gray” flood protections, while maintaining safeguards and protecting Indigenous and historic resources. Committee members asked how the proposal would interact with other permitting reforms and whether it could conflict with housing or wetland-related streamlining; supporters said it was complementary and aimed at making projects faster, more affordable, and more data-driven. The hearing also covered climate-safe buildings and climate adaptation funding bills. Supporters of H.1004/S.583 said current building codes do not adequately account for future flooding, heat, and wind, and the bill would add climate expertise to the building board, allow stretch resilience codes, expand floodplain standards, and create a retrofit program. Related testimony backed H.938/S.572, which would create a dedicated climate and community resilience fund financed by a small fee on property insurance premiums; advocates said it would provide stable long-term revenue for adaptation, especially in environmental justice communities, and help replace unreliable federal funding. One witness from CLF supported the climate-safe buildings and funding bills but opposed S.560/H.939 as too broad. The committee also heard testimony on airport air-quality legislation (H.997) calling for more monitoring and mitigation of ultra-fine particulate pollution around Logan Airport and Massport communities. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are changes that observed changes.
• First, that Minnesota is changing. changing. changing.
• And it changed things.
• And it changed things.
• And it changed things. So when weather. And it changed things.

Bills: HF4470, HF2418, HF3417, HF3365, HF3463

Keywords: HF4470, Melissa Hortman, memorial, statue, memorial garden, State Office Building, Capitol Mall Design Framework, capital investment, appropriation, Capitol Area Architectural and Planning Board, Department of Administration, public art, commemorative monument, landscaping, artist selection, family consultation, Minnesota legislature, state building site, capital appropriation, political subdivisions

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'll start with... a effective date change on the treatment a effective date change on the treatment
• Primarily these are cleanup changes.
• <00:02:18.720> in with the first um chunk of changes in with the first um chunk of changes
• primarily these are cleanup uh changes. primarily these are cleanup uh changes.
• This is not a substantive change.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If there's no change, just say no change.
• However, the change occurs on page 9.
• I like the change we're doing, but this one seems unnecessary to add to the change, unless there's a
• The Senate made some changes to it, and this...
• But anyway, so we'll continue to make your changes. To continue to make your changes.

Bills: SB2156

Keywords: campaign finance, disclosure, political contributions, election transparency, North Dakota Century Code, 908, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to review HB 2156, which reorganizes North Dakota campaign finance disclosure law by repealing Chapter 16.1 and moving the provisions into a new Chapter 16.2 with mostly technical cross-reference updates. Legislative Council and the Secretary of State’s office walked through the bill section by section, explaining that most language is carried over from current law, with some cleanup to definitions, reporting requirements, public access rules, and filing procedures. The committee discussed how the new chapter would apply to candidates, candidate committees, political committees, political parties, ballot measure groups, and conduits. Several substantive issues were raised and adjusted during the discussion. Members questioned the open-records language for expenditures and contributions over $250, the use of “deposit” versus “receipt” as the reporting trigger, and whether the 48-hour supplemental reporting deadline should be changed to three calendar days; the group ultimately favored keeping 48 hours and using “deposit” consistently. They also clarified reporting dates, including changing one special-election deadline from 40 days to 39 days, and confirmed that balances of campaign funds would be reported but not made publicly available. The Secretary of State’s office also explained that the bill would make late fees public and that the chapter-wide penalty for willful violations remains a Class A misdemeanor. The main policy change debated at length was the late-filing fee schedule. Members expressed concern that the existing penalties were too low to deter intentional non-filers, and after discussion the committee agreed to increase the final late fee from $100 to $500 while keeping the new public posting of delinquent filers. The committee also reviewed an inflation-adjustment provision for reporting thresholds and the “ultimate true source of funds” language, which was described as existing law being carried into the new chapter. The meeting ended with the understanding that additional drafting changes would be made and that the bill would be ready for further committee action later in the week.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:16:09.199> extends District classification changes extends District classification changes
• <00:22:36.200> that incorporate some of those changes that incorporate some of those changes
• So I think these changes are needed. They're important.
• So I think these changes are needed. They're important.
• So I think these changes are needed. They're important.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:15 Roll Call 00:25 HB 403 Discussion 02:11 HB 403 Vote 03:08 HB 555 Discussion 04:55 HB 555 Vote 08:42 HB 321 Discussion 10:55 HB 321 Vote 13:22 HB 18 Discussion 15:21 HB 18 Vote 35:10 HB 85 Discussion 39:08 HB 85 Vote 46:40 HB 371 Discussion 49:22 HB 371 Vote 52:03 Adjournment 53:48, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Local Government met with a quorum and took up several bills, mostly focused on local planning, zoning, and municipal administration. House Bill 403, a simple measure giving coroners a six-month grace period to complete continuing education, was presented by Rep. Deanna Gordon with testimony from Madison County Coroner Jimmy Cornelson and received unanimous support. House Bill 555, a technical bill affecting audit deadlines and flexibility for small cities and certain expo center audit arrangements, was explained by JD Cheney of the Kentucky League of Cities; he said it would help about 97 cities comply with audit requirements and allow more flexibility when municipalities are making good-faith efforts. The committee approved HB 555 on a roll call vote, with one no vote from Rep. Griffee and others in favor, and reported it favorably to the House floor. House Bill 321, also presented with JD Cheney and Rep. DJ Johnson, would expand the time for planning commission and board of adjustment members to complete orientation and continuing education, with a focus on housing supply and accessibility. Supporters said it would help recruit more members and concentrate training on land-use impacts on housing; Rep. Roarx and others discussed Louisville Metro’s planning process, while Rep. Brown and Rep. Fleming raised concerns about infrastructure and long-range planning. The committee passed HB 321 favorably after roll call, with one no vote from Rep. Griffee. House Bill 18 drew the most extended debate. Sponsor Rep. John Hodgson said the committee substitute would create incentives for infill development in urban areas and extend a moratorium on zoning district classification changes for two more years, arguing that local elected officials should have more control over major density changes and that unelected boards were approving projects without adequate infrastructure review. Opponents, including Liam Gallagher of Americans for Prosperity Kentucky and several members, argued the bill would restrict housing development, interfere with property rights, and limit Louisville Metro’s ability to update its Land Development Code; supporters countered that the bill would not stop development but would require elected officials to weigh in and address traffic and infrastructure concerns. After discussion, the committee approved HB 18 as amended by the substitute and reported it favorably to the House floor, with several members explaining their votes and some opposing the moratorium on local zoning changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Would anyone like to change your vote? The Chief Clerk will record the vote.
• Would anyone like to change our vote? The Chief Clerk will record the vote.
• Would anyone like to change your vote? Would anyone like to change your vote?
• Would anyone like to change your vote? Chief Kirk will record the vote.
• Would anyone like to change your vote? Chief Crook will record the vote.

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's a change in that section.
• Madam President, that's the changes to 1369.
• So that's the first change.
• due to market changes over the years.
• So we concurred with that change and concurred with the rest of the changes that were on line seven and

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge, a quorum call, and approval of journal corrections. It then handled several House messages, appointing conference committees on Senate Bills 2004 and 2006 and House Bills 1018, 1019, and 1363, and re-referring House Bill 1216 to Appropriations. The chamber also adopted amendments to House Bill 1601, which would have expanded special assistant attorney general authority for certain offices, but the bill failed on final passage after strong opposition centered on preserving the Attorney General’s control and avoiding a solution in search of a problem. A major portion of the day focused on education funding. House Bill 1369 was amended to raise per-pupil aid from 2% and 2% to 3% and 3% and to increase the school construction loan transfer from $75 million to $100 million; supporters said this would help local schools and military base projects, while opponents raised questions about special education placement language and state coordination. The bill passed 44-3. House Bill 1013, the DPI budget, was also amended extensively to adjust staffing, funding sources, grants, meal assistance, teacher training, and other education programs; it passed 45-2. House Bill 2234, dealing with Choice Ready grants, was amended to shift funding away from general funds and toward federal or other sources, but then failed on final passage after the sponsor urged a red vote. The Senate also approved House Bill 1482, restricting bond and indebtedness elections for counties, cities, school districts, and park districts to primary or general election days, and House Bill 1332, creating a value-added agriculture facility incentive program with an emergency clause. House Bill 1010, the Insurance Department budget, passed unanimously after amendments reflecting the merger of the Securities Department into Insurance and adding staff and fee changes, while House Bill 1011, the separate Securities Department budget, failed because its funding was already included in HB 1010. House Bill 1584, a major pharmacy benefit manager reform bill, passed with an enforcement fund and new licensing/enforcement structure despite debate over ERISA and market transparency. In other action, the Senate concurred in House amendments and passed Senate Bills 2226, 2230, 2069, 2082, 2387, 2385, and 2186, with SB 2186 on parenting time interference and a child custody task force passing 27-20 after debate over whether the issue should be left to the courts. Senate Bill 2234, on Choice Ready grants, and Senate Bill 2243, on driver’s license points and traffic penalties, both failed after concurrence motions were adopted but final passage votes were overwhelmingly negative. The chamber also advanced Senate Bill 2291 to conference committee consideration near the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:00.600> We it's just a such a simple change. We it's just a such a simple change.
• <00:04:03.800> to eliminate change to eliminate change to individuals.<00:04:06.120> We
• The changes on the CAN startup grants, but not the change in the private match from 50% to 25%.
• change. So, yeah. change. So, yeah.
• policy changes. policy changes.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• largely a series of technical changes. largely a series of technical changes.
• ,<00:02:57.760> line<00:02:58.160> three The change on page two, line three The change
• Um, it changes the property belongs to. Um, it changes the fee<00:04:52.160> structure.
• Do you change anything clarification.
• No, no changes. Curran. No, no changes. All<00:05:35.759> right.

Bills: HF2300

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• was via legislation, not a rule change.
• The rules change that we brought were based on two rule changes in order to get all the pieces done:
• That's a pretty important change, even though it was just one word.
• But of course that isn't the lone reason for this change.
• list, change required comments statements for tax levied in counties, change for version into consolidation

Bills: LB737, LB753, LB788, LB913, LB1055, LB1195, LB1216, LB1256, LB429, LB721, LB722, LB727, LB743, LB745, LB749, LB778, LB787, LB365A, LB823, LB900, LB903, LB940, LB954, LB1127, LB1127A, LB1205, LB1240, LR293, LR296, LR422, LR505, LR507

Keywords: LB737, Olmstead, developmental disabilities, disability services, community-based services, integrated settings, DHHS, Department of Health and Human Services, stakeholder advisory committee, independent consultant, public hearing, legislative oversight, disability rights, community integration, housing, employment, education, transportation, community supports, self-advocacy

Transcript Highlights:

• So we will start thinking about Medicaid changes. So we will start thinking about Medicaid changes.
• First, there are two primary changes to benefits.
• And all of these create changes we need to make retroactively. And we have to change our systems.
• And all of these create changes we need to make retroactively. And we have to change our systems.
• And we know that there are some changes, I think, coming down, or we've ourselves had some changes administratively

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held a work session to review how H.R. 1 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) could affect Washington’s Medicaid, long-term care, developmental disabilities, and food assistance programs, with a focus on implementation challenges, fiscal impacts, and likely coverage losses. Staff and agency officials explained Washington’s Medicaid financing structure, eligibility categories, caseload trends, and the role of the Health Care Authority and DSHS in administering Apple Health and related services. They also described how Medicaid expansion increased access to behavioral health services and how H.R. 1’s provisions are expected to affect the expansion population most directly. Health Care Authority and DSHS officials outlined several major H.R. 1 changes: new work and community engagement requirements for the Medicaid expansion population, six-month redeterminations instead of annual renewals, changes to immigrant eligibility, limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments, new cost-sharing requirements, reduced retroactive coverage, and changes affecting long-term care eligibility. They said Washington is still awaiting federal guidance on many details, but estimated that about 620,000 Apple Health expansion enrollees could be subject to work requirements, that roughly 30,000 immigrants could lose Medicaid eligibility under the new definition of qualified alien, and that some long-term care and developmental disability clients could be indirectly affected. Officials also said the state is working with other agencies to build shared verification systems and may seek a delay waiver, though they do not expect broad federal flexibility. The committee also heard that H.R. 1 immediately blocks Medicaid reimbursement for Planned Parenthood services for one year, with the state planning to backfill about $11 million to preserve access. In addition, officials warned that the law could reduce federal Medicaid revenue by billions over time and strain hospitals and emergency rooms as more people become uninsured. They noted that Washington’s rural health transformation grant application is due November 5 and could bring some funding, but not to offset coverage losses. No votes were taken; the session was informational only. The committee then heard a separate presentation on food assistance, where staff and DSHS described H.R. 1’s SNAP changes, including expanded work requirements, immigrant eligibility restrictions, higher state administrative costs, and a possible future state share of benefit costs tied to payment error rates. DSHS estimated a four-year fiscal impact of about $750 million for food assistance changes and said the state is working on system and policy changes across agencies before the new requirements take effect.