Transcript Highlights:

• So to that end, how much do you have an idea in terms of total cost in closed primaries?
• , just making the Bessie closed party primaries, an additional $7 million.
• “Is there going to be open and closed primary elections on the same day?”
• “There will be, because only five races, as you know, are closed primaries, and that’s U.S.
• There’s no reason for them to move it just because of closed party primaries.

Summary: The committee heard a budget presentation for the Department of State. House Fiscal Division said the FY27 recommended budget is $128.6 million and 367 positions, with elections making up the largest share. Secretary of State Nancy Landry said the office is implementing Louisiana’s first closed party primary, continuing voter education efforts, and moving toward procurement of a new voting system that would produce a voter-verifiable paper ballot and support risk-limiting audits. Members asked about polling place confusion, machine replacement costs, election commissioner pay, and the cost of educating voters about the new primary system. Landry said polling places are not changing because of the new primary law, the new system is expected to cost about $100 million total, and a bill this session would raise election commissioner pay by $100 per day. Fiscal staff also estimated the closed primary law will add about $31.5 million in costs over five years, mostly from converting local elections to statewide elections and voter outreach. The committee then reviewed the Department of Veterans Affairs budget, which was presented at about $105.2 million with a mix of federal, state, self-generated, and interagency funds. The department said most costs are tied to personnel and veterans’ homes, and that the homes are funded largely by federal dollars plus self-generated revenue. Members focused heavily on delays in processing National Guard disability claims and payments to veterans. Representatives said constituents had waited about a year for claims to be resolved, while the department said it had increased staffing and was processing a backlog of more than 400 claims, but still had about $950,000 in approved claims awaiting funding. The department said the payout program is governed by statute and that additional supplemental funding has been requested. Members also discussed veterans’ home care, including how service-connected disability status affects eligibility and costs, and whether chronic wound care and related complications could increase long-term costs. The department said veterans with higher service-connected ratings receive care with federal support, while others pay fees. Several members urged the department to provide clearer timelines and better communication to claimants, and one member suggested a separate oversight hearing to address the disability claim process and any needed statutory changes. The committee adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will now go to primary witnesses in opposition. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition?
• Would you like to respond or answer in your close? Madam Chair, happy to answer in my close. Okay.
• Would you like to close?
• And are there any primary witnesses in opposition—sorry, in support? Primary witnesses in support?
• Any primary witnesses in opposition? Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition?

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on August 20, 2025, and considered a large number of bills, with most of the discussion centered on election redistricting and several health, labor, environmental, and government-operations measures. The first major item was ACA 8, a constitutional amendment tied to a proposed November special election and temporary mid-decade congressional redistricting in response to partisan redistricting efforts in other states. Supporters, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, a 2020 redistricting commissioner, labor groups, and allies of the measure, argued it was necessary to defend democracy, protect representation, and respond to federal actions affecting California. Opponents, including Assemblymember Tom Lackey reading a statement for Assemblymember Gallagher and Assemblymember Dixon, argued the measure would undermine the independent redistricting commission, amount to a partisan power grab, and cost taxpayers roughly $230 million. Committee members also focused heavily on fiscal questions, including litigation costs and county election funding, and Department of Finance staff said counties would be made whole and funding would be advanced. The committee ultimately voted the measure out on a B roll call. The committee then heard SB 280, the implementing bill for the special election and related redistricting process. Supporters repeated the argument that California needed to respond to Texas and other states, while opponents again emphasized the cost, the strain on county budgets, and the state’s broader fiscal pressures. Department of Finance witnesses said the election funding would be provided in advance and that the state would work with counties and the Secretary of State. The bill was moved out on a roll call after extended debate. The committee also advanced several other bills, including SB 283 on battery storage safety standards, SB 470 extending remote participation and open-meeting flexibility for state boards and commissions, SB 697 modernizing stream adjudication procedures, SB 513 requiring more accessible employee training records, SB 30 restricting transfer of older diesel locomotives, SB 841 and SB 81 creating protections for vulnerable facilities and health care spaces from immigration enforcement, SB 358 revising traffic impact fee standards, and SB 630 streamlining state parks land acquisitions. Other measures discussed included SB 62 expanding health coverage benefits, SB 68 requiring restaurant allergen disclosures, and the committee heard both support and opposition on SB 68 from the California Restaurant Association and consumer advocates. Supporters of the health and immigrant-protection bills emphasized patient safety, reproductive health, immigrant rights, and access to care, while opponents on the restaurant bill warned of added mandates and litigation risk for small businesses. Across the hearing, committee members frequently returned to fiscal impacts, county implementation burdens, and whether the bills would save money, cost money, or shift costs to local governments. Several bills were reported out of committee, often on A or B roll calls, with some members not voting on particular measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you have any primary witnesses in support? No. Any primary witnesses in opposition?
• Any primary witnesses in opposition?
• Any primary witnesses in support? Any primary witnesses in opposition?
• Yeah, would you like to close? Yes.
• Yeah, would you like to close? Yes.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 14, 2025, for a regular order hearing with a large consent calendar and many individual bill presentations. The committee first approved numerous bills on consent, then heard a series of measures spanning reproductive health, child care eligibility, transportation, mental health diversion, county recorder fees, groundwater management, election deadlines, parking enforcement, consumer protections, housing, immigrant and student protections, and utility/CPUC oversight. Several bills were taken up only for presentation because they were on suspense, including ACA 4 on long-term housing funding, and the committee later approved a very large suspense calendar as a whole. Among the bills discussed, AB 260 would protect medication abortion access and providers; AB 904 would clarify child care subsidy eligibility during family leave or job search; AB 1014 would give Caltrans more flexibility on speed limits in rural highway segments; AB 46 would clarify judicial discretion in mental health diversion; AB 1413 and AB 929 addressed groundwater adjudication and SGMA-related protections for small community water systems and wetlands; AB 930 would count vote-by-mail ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within seven days; AB 1022 would end towing solely for unpaid parking tickets; AB 290 and AB 302 dealt with automatic payments for the California Fair Plan and medical data protections; AB 1303 would remove the need for a Social Security number for California Lifeline eligibility; and several housing bills, including AB 920, AB 956, AB 1470, AB 893, and AB 1021, sought to streamline approvals or expand housing options. AB 1318 and AB 49 focused on immigrant-serving nonprofits and keeping immigration enforcement out of schools, while AB 1532 extended telecommunications and transportation access programs and added CPUC accountability measures. Testimony was generally supportive for the bills heard, with authors and sponsors emphasizing low or absorbable fiscal impacts, consumer protection, housing production, public safety, and protections for vulnerable communities. Opposition appeared on a few measures, including concerns about ADUs, towing authority, charter school-related issues, and the scale of proposed housing funding in ACA 4. Several members also commented in support of the housing and immigrant-protection measures, and some bills were voted out with recorded no votes or not-voting members noted. After the suspense calendar was deemed approved, the committee opened public comment on bills not presented that day, heard a long list of supporters and opponents on various measures, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• But this bill is about primary care, expanding into any other specialty. This is about primary.
• But my primary reason and my primary qualification... ...for being here today is that I am the husband
• Primary and preventative care.
• To address some other points, 70% of MPs may be boarded in primary care, but 70% do not work in primary
• Public testimony is now closed.

Bills: SB1888, SB3003, SB2417, SB2459, SB3055, HB1393, HB2884, SB2943

Keywords: grand jury, jury qualifications, jury wheel, small counties, Texas legislation, age verification, obscene devices, online sales, juvenile protection, penalties, antitrust, attorney general, Texas Free Enterprise, business regulations, legal confidentiality, personal identifying information, data brokers, judicial safety, civil rights, data privacy

Transcript Highlights:

• Any primary? Great. Any other folks in support? Any primary witnesses in opposition?
• Would you like to close, Mr. Alvarez? Thank you.
• Any primary or other witnesses in support? Any primary or other opposition?
• Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for an aye vote. And a second, would you like to close?
• Would you like to close, Mr. Hoover? Would you like to close, Mr. Hoover? So ask for an aye vote.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 13, 2026, and began by taking up a large consent calendar, moving a first group of bills to the floor consent calendar and a second group by due pass. The committee then heard and advanced a series of measures covering housing, public safety, health care, education, and local government issues. Among the bills discussed were AB 2641 on a sales tax exemption for pawnbroker redemptions, AB 2525 on a narrow Surplus Lands Act exemption for Mission Bay Park, AB 1732 and AB 2433 on student housing and the Affordable Homes Bonus Law, AB 2055 on boating safety and enforcement, AB 1579 on children’s crisis residential services, AB 2139 on a Surplus Lands Act amendment for an Inland Empire soccer project, AB 2041 on EMS reporting, AB 1973 on reproductive health scope for advanced practice clinicians, AB 1929 on health plan investment disclosures, AB 2700 on utility rates and wildfire victim compensation, AB 1809 on school job order contracting, SB 73 on election security, AB 2418 on commercial building permit timelines, AB 1970 on step therapy limits for serious mental illness and substance use treatment, AB 2361 on peer-to-peer vehicle-sharing liability, AB 1976 on bike and pedestrian project approvals, AB 2110 on tax increment financing for workforce housing, and AB 2146 on supportive housing documentation and vacancy rules. Testimony was generally supportive for the measures heard. Authors and sponsors emphasized consumer fairness, housing production, public safety, access to care, and administrative streamlining. Supporters included local governments, housing advocates, school districts, law enforcement groups, health care organizations, and affected individuals. AB 2700 drew especially extensive public testimony from wildfire survivors and local officials who urged stronger compensation for victims of PG&E-caused fires and relief from high utility costs. AB 2034 and AB 1790 were raised during public comment on bills not heard in committee, with several industry groups opposing AB 2034 and both supporters and opponents speaking on AB 1790’s Waters Edge issue. Most bills were reported out of committee on due pass motions, with several noted as amended or with members not voting on particular roll calls. The committee also read and approved a lengthy suspense calendar, then opened public comment on bills not presented that day before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• close it.
• I will just close with this.
• As was mentioned earlier, Madera Hospital closing, other hospitals closed, service line reduction, As
• was mentioned earlier, Madera Hospital closing, other hospitals closed, service line reductions.
• Primary care.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee held an informational hearing on the impact of federal H.R. 1 and related state budget actions on California’s health care system. Opening remarks framed the federal changes as a major threat to Medi-Cal, Covered California, hospitals, clinics, and the broader safety net, with warnings that millions could lose coverage and that costs would shift to providers, counties, and consumers. Testimony from the California Health Care Foundation and the Legislative Analyst’s Office focused on implementation challenges, the administrative burden of work requirements and more frequent renewals, the loss of federal funding, and the need for California to consider long-term structural changes to Medi-Cal, county safety-net programs, and cost containment. A Covered California enrollee, Chas Franklin, described sharply rising premiums for his family after losing subsidies, illustrating the personal impact of federal policy changes. Committee members raised concerns about whether premium increases were driven by H.R. 1 or insurer pricing, the cost of rebuilding county-based indigent care systems, and the need to account for the cost of inaction. Dr. Hernandez pointed to pre-ACA models such as Healthy San Francisco as examples of coordinated local safety-net care, while also emphasizing the importance of primary care, data interoperability, and the Office of Health Care Affordability in reducing waste and improving access. Department of Health Care Services officials then outlined the state’s implementation plan for H.R. 1, including work requirements, six-month redeterminations, reduced retroactive coverage, cost-sharing, and immigration-related eligibility changes. They said the department would try to automate eligibility checks, expand outreach, and train counties and partners, but estimated up to 2 million Californians could lose coverage over time. Covered California reported that the expiration of enhanced federal premium tax credits and new federal marketplace rules are already raising costs and reducing enrollment, with an estimated 400,000 enrollees at risk of dropping coverage. County, hospital, and safety-net representatives warned that coverage losses will increase uncompensated care and strain local systems, while one coalition proposed a temporary state-funded coverage option as a bridge if full-scope Medi-Cal cannot be maintained. The hearing concluded with a policy analyst urging stakeholder engagement, immigrant protections, and new state revenue options to preserve coverage and offset federal cuts.

Transcript Highlights:

• Denise helped me get to various locations to find a primary care doctor for me, but no primary care doctor
• finding a primary care provider.
• a primary care provider.
• And what would an investment in primary care... What would an investment in primary care look like?
• So we have close dialogue with them.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Health held a hybrid hearing on a wide range of bills focused on patient safety, workforce development, health equity, and access to care. A major portion of the hearing centered on H. 2362/S. 1491, which would require health care providers to offer trained chaperones for sensitive exams. Sponsors and supporters said the bill is a common-sense safeguard prompted by cases of physician sexual abuse, and survivors gave emotional testimony describing grooming, isolation, and abuse during exams when no chaperone was present. Support also came from a health services researcher, a physician, and a RAINN representative, all arguing that trained chaperones and clearer documentation would improve transparency and protect patients. Committee members asked about clarifying who may serve as a chaperone and whether the bill would apply to other clinicians such as PTs and OTs. The committee also heard testimony on H. 2401/S. 1485, which would require explicit informed consent for certain educational exams performed on unconscious patients. The bill’s supporters said patients should know in advance if students or physicians will conduct non-medically necessary exams while they are under anesthesia, and that the measure would protect survivors from retraumatization. The hearing then moved to H. 2537, a primary care access bill. Health Care for All, the Massachusetts Medical Society, pediatric and internal medicine physicians, and a patient advocate described long waits, provider shortages, and difficulty finding primary care, especially for low-income people and people of color. They supported the bill’s proposed primary care spending target, payment reforms, Medicaid graduate medical education funding, and a commercial payment floor for health centers. Another set of bills addressed workforce and safety issues. H. 2397/S. 1593 would establish a nursing workforce center; nursing leaders said Massachusetts should make the current workforce council permanent to support data collection, apprenticeships, and long-term planning for the state’s largest health care workforce. H. 2396/S. 1535 would require safe patient handling and mobility programs in health facilities; nurses described serious injuries from lifting patients and said better equipment and programs would reduce staff injuries and improve patient outcomes. H. 2501/S. 1505 on LGBTQ+ health disparities drew support from a medical student and Doctors for America, who urged collection of sexual orientation and gender identity data to improve care and school outcomes. Finally, H. 2448/S. 1522 on patient safety and equitable access to care drew strong support from nursing organizations and individual nurses who described unsafe staffing, burnout, and patient harm, while the Massachusetts Association of Behavioral Health Systems opposed the bill as redundant for psychiatric facilities already regulated by the Department of Mental Health.

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't have closed primaries. This is a problem.
• We don't have closed primaries. This is a problem.
• , we don't have closed primaries.
• Especially even now, if you want to do presidential primaries, we don't have closed primaries, and that
• I close.

Summary: The House opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and approval of the House Journal by a 104-0 vote. Members then spent a large portion of the session offering personal remarks and introducing guests, including the family of Lance Corporal Jared Schmitz, school groups, a Boy Scout troop, a Highway Patrol commander, and community figures such as Corey Johnson and boxer Devin Alexander. There was also a moment of silence for a member’s mentor and a personal privilege statement recognizing Autism Month and the work of teachers and therapists serving autistic children. The main floor debate centered on House Committee Substitute for House Bill 2481, which would tighten Missouri rules for SNAP and related public benefits by requiring proof of citizenship or lawful presence, using the federal SAVE system throughout eligibility checks, and directing the Department of Social Services to seek a waiver to steer SNAP purchases toward healthier foods. Supporters framed the bill as a matter of accountability, taxpayer stewardship, fraud prevention, and improved nutrition, while opponents argued it was unnecessary because federal law already limits eligibility, could add administrative costs, and could harm children, families in food deserts, and pregnant women who rely on programs such as Show Me Healthy Babies. An amendment offered by the gentleman from Johnson to extend the bill to MoHealthNet was adopted, and after extended debate the House invoked the previous question 91-46, then adopted and perfected the bill as amended. The House also advanced House Committee Substitute for House Bill 1869, which creates a process and fund to repair damaged veterans’ headstones in public and private cemeteries, with support from members who emphasized honoring veterans and preserving gravesites; the bill was adopted and perfected without opposition. House Bill 2927 was also moved forward; it would require settlement demands tied to extra-contractual or bad-faith insurance claims to be written, held open for 90 days, and reference the relevant statute. Supporters said it gives insurers reasonable time to evaluate large claims, while opponents said it could delay compensation for injured Missourians; it too was adopted and perfected. The House then began consideration of additional bills, including House Bills 2387 and 2480, as the session continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Petnel. >> Close.
• </c> House Bill 1388 is closed. House Bill 1388 is closed.
• primaries is inconsistent.
• </c> primaries in odd years. primaries in odd years.
• </c> session for House Bill 1298 is closed. session for House Bill 1298 is closed.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Number one, deals with primary care, which is the focus of the bill.
• The first one deals with direct primary care arrangements.
• focus of providing primary care.
• So that the role of the primary care doctor, physician, could be even further focused on primary care
• ...primary or, excuse me, of private equity investment in primary and specialty care practices so that

Keywords: 1212, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Brine, would you like to close? Absolutely.
• We will now go to primary witnesses in opposition. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition?
• Any primary witnesses in support?
• Are there any primary witnesses in support?
• Any primary witnesses in opposition? Sorry, in support? Primary witnesses in support?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• people choose to go into primary care.
• The primary care task force is meeting to look at some of the disparities in primary care, but we need
• We have to keep a close eye on those.
• We watch those closely as well.
• And it starts with primary care. And I have to come back to primary care.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Ways and Means held a Health and Human Services budget hearing in Clinton, with opening remarks from Chairs Meg Kilcoyne and Robin Kennedy, local officials, and many House and Senate members introducing themselves. The hearing focused on Governor Healey’s FY27 EOHHS and MassHealth budgets, with repeated themes of rising health care costs, federal funding uncertainty, workforce shortages, and access to care in underserved regions. Members also raised concerns about primary care shortages, rural and regional disparities, behavioral health access, maternal health, food insecurity, and the impact of federal policy changes on Massachusetts programs. EOHHS Secretary Kiame Mahaniah said the FY27 EOHHS budget totals $33.7 billion, reflecting mostly non-discretionary growth from health care costs, labor costs, caseload increases, and provider rate pressures. He highlighted targeted investments in foster care, family resource centers, maternal health, youth services, nutrition programs, immigrant legal services, and human service workforce rates, while warning that federal actions could strip roughly $3.5 billion annually from the state’s health care funding. In response to questions, he defended the administration’s cooperation with federal audits and program integrity efforts, discussed the primary care crisis, and said the state is trying to preserve core services while preparing for a more difficult FY28 budget cycle. MassHealth Undersecretary Mike Levine then described two major FY27 challenges: double-digit cost growth and the expected effects of the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act. He said MassHealth’s proposed $22.7 billion gross budget includes a 7.5% increase and relies on a moratorium on new expansions plus targeted reductions, including a $1,000 annual adult dental cap, ending GLP-1 coverage for weight loss only, reducing care management to peer-state levels, and work groups to slow growth in PCA, adult foster care, and adult day health spending. Members questioned the impact on Boston Health Care for the Homeless, preventive care, and regional access; Levine said the changes are meant to preserve sustainability, that children and certain disabled populations remain protected, and that the administration will continue working with providers, advocates, and the Legislature on implementation and longer-term reforms.

Transcript Highlights:

• And would you like to close? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
• Do you have any primary witnesses in support?
• Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional opposition?
• Would you like to close? Let's give Berman and I to. Okay.
• Would you like to close?

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee heard a regular order agenda with 101 bills and first took up AB 2215, which would extend the time for the Department of Water Resources to fully develop its State Water Project water rights. The author and supporters argued it would improve water reliability and affordability for millions of Californians and could save ratepayers money, while opponents said it would bypass the Water Board’s administrative process, set a precedent for other water rights holders, and potentially facilitate costly projects like the Delta Conveyance Project. The bill was moved on a do pass vote, with Mr. Hoover voting no and Ms. Krell not voting. The committee then approved two consent calendars and heard several bills with little or no opposition. These included AB 2038 on extending insurance nonrenewal/cancellation protections for wildfire victims; AB 2322 on clarifying which commercial, industrial, or institutional sites are subject to municipal stormwater permits; AB 1794 on direct home shipment of enteral nutrition; AB 1696 on clarifying that nurse midwives do not need physician supervision within their scope of practice; AB 1860 on allowing county offices of education to use design-build methods; AB 1876 on codifying nondiscrimination protections in health care; AB 2281 on election cybersecurity resources; AB 2448 on protecting sensitive medical records and reproductive health data; AB 1994 on providing victims with information about federal immigration relief options; and AB 1829 on expanding how CalWORKs community college funds may be used to support student parents. Most were supported by sponsoring organizations and related stakeholders, with limited opposition noted on AB 1696 and AB 2281. The committee also placed a large suspense calendar on approval, listing dozens of additional bills, and then opened public comment on bills not heard that day. No members of the public came forward, and the hearing was adjourned. Several bills were reported out on roll call votes, with some members not voting or voting no on particular measures, but the transcript does not provide full vote tallies for each bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first one deals with direct primary care arrangements.
• Primary care, I think, is something that will touch that.
• focus of providing primary care.
• So that the role of the primary care doctor, physician, could be even further focused on primary care
• , or excuse me, of private equity investment in primary ...primary or, excuse me, of private equity investment

Summary: The Senate first considered several amendments to a primary care/health care bill. Amendment 1, on artificial intelligence in health care and mental health services, was withdrawn by unanimous consent. Amendment 37, which would have required a rate band for outpatient primary care reimbursement, was debated and then defeated on a roll call, 5-33. Amendment 39, on direct primary care arrangements and deductible credits, was also defeated 5-33. The chamber then took up and passed the conference report for An Act Relative to Teachers Preparation and Student Literacy (H. 5511), with senators emphasizing the need for evidence-based literacy instruction, universal screening, dyslexia screening, teacher training, and implementation funding; the bill was enacted and sent to the Governor after a 39-0 roll call. The Senate then returned to Amendment 60 on the primary care bill, which would have created a “safety valve” allowing alternative payment systems to be proposed to the Health Policy Commission. After debate over whether the bill already allowed flexibility, the amendment was defeated 5-33. Amendment 50, requiring stronger health equity reporting, was adopted. Amendment 66, a technical fix setting commercial payment rates for community health centers at the MassHealth PPS rate, was adopted. Amendment 24, excluding pharmaceutical spending from the primary care spending baseline and target, was adopted. Amendment 45, a study on expanding the role of allied health professionals, was withdrawn. Amendment 48, a group purchasing cooperative pilot, and amendments 53, 61, and 63 were also withdrawn. The Senate adopted Amendment 64, which prohibits prior authorization from delaying FDA-approved medications for serious mental illness, and rejected Amendment 68 on reporting private equity investment in primary and specialty care, as well as Amendments 71 and 72 on scope of practice and ownership disclosure. Amendment 62, a technical change modernizing the definition of primary care and clarifying the care team, was adopted. Amendment 21, the Senate Ways and Means amendment, was then adopted, the bill was ordered to a third reading, and the Senate passed An Act relative to primary care for you (S. 3116) to be engrossed on a 35-4 roll call. The Senate then adjourned to a later date, with memorial references at adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearing none, the debate is closed.
• Hearing no negative debate, the debate is closed.
• For debate on the motion, hearing none, the debate is closed.
• For debate on the motion, hearing none, the debate is closed.
• Continue to close.

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't have closed primaries. This is a problem.
• , we don't have closed primaries, and that is a problem.
• I close.
• Gentleman from Pulaski, you're recognized to close. I close.
• I close.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The first one deals with direct primary care arrangements.
• You know, I remember when for a free hour, the office was closed.
• measures relating to health equity and disparity in primary care.
• focus of providing primary care.
• , or excuse me, of private equity investment in primary ...primary or, excuse me, of private equity investment

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate considered a series of amendments to a primary care health care bill and also took up a separate literacy bill. Several amendments were withdrawn, including one on artificial intelligence in health care and others related to cost controls, direct primary care, and provider studies. The Senate adopted amendments on preserving access to treatment for serious mental illness, modernizing the definition of primary care, clarifying payment rates for community health centers, excluding pharmaceutical spending from primary care expenditure calculations, and strengthening health equity reporting. Other amendments on rate bands, alternative payment systems, private equity reporting, scope of practice, and ownership disclosure were rejected. The Senate then approved the Ways and Means amendment and ordered the primary care bill to a third reading. The chamber also took up final passage of An Act Relative to Teachers Preparation and Student Literacy, with senators describing it as a long-awaited compromise focused on improving early reading outcomes. Supporters said the bill requires evidence-based K-3 literacy curricula, regular student screening and family notification, dyslexia screening protocols, professional development for teachers, and a free state-developed curriculum option. Senators emphasized the need to address declining third-grade reading proficiency and equity gaps. The bill passed to be enacted by a unanimous roll call and was sent to the Governor. After the literacy bill, the Senate returned to the primary care bill, where senators again debated cost containment, innovation, and access. The final version included the adopted amendments and was passed to be engrossed by a roll call vote of 35-4. The Senate then adopted an adjournment order and recessed, adjourning in memory of Henry Thomas III, former Representative Ben Swan, and Mr. Dennis Frane.

Transcript Highlights:

• I will say that this bill would take New Mexico out of the ten remaining states that have closed primaries
• The DTS voters already have the right or the ability to vote in primaries. Primaries.
• , quote unquote, closed or as closed as they were before, but I do think, Madam Chair and sponsors, we
• But, Madam Chair and sponsors, I do think that even if you want to argue if it's closed or not closed
• to influence that primary.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any primary witnesses in opposition? Anyone else in opposition?
• Would you like to close, Mr. Alvarez? Thank you.
• Any primary or other witnesses in support? Any primary or other opposition?
• Any primary witnesses or other witnesses in support?
• Would you like to close, Mr. Hoover? So ask for an aye vote. Thanks. Great.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Great.
• Do you have any primary witnesses in support? No. Any primary witnesses in opposition?
• Any primary witnesses in support? Any primary witnesses in opposition?
• Do you have any primary witnesses in opposition?
• Okay, mr Haney, would you like to close respectfully ask? Great.

Keywords: 988, house, all