Transcript Highlights:

• The idea that we could purchase enough practices to make any huge impact on the market in terms of antitrust

Bills: HB2118, HB2181, HB2308, HB2309, HB2402, HB2476, HB2682, HB2698, HB2875, HB2877, HB2903, HB2910

Keywords: mobile food vendors, licensure, food safety, statewide regulations, health standards, zoning, temporary vendors, HB2181, death certificate, death certificates, vital records, funeral establishment, funeral home, human remains, medical certification of death, death registration, state registrar, local registrar, county medical examiner, alternate medical examiner

Summary: The House Commerce Committee heard and advanced several bills. HB 2181, as amended, would extend the deadline for funeral establishments to submit death certificates from 7 days to a maximum of 14 days and clarify that a provider’s medical certification period excludes weekends and holidays. The sponsor and a mortuary owner testified that the current timeline is often difficult to meet because of weekends, holidays, doctor availability, county delays, and family circumstances. Several members said the bill did not fully address the underlying compliance problems, but the committee adopted the amendment and passed the bill 6-4-1. HB 2682 would create a DES rental assistance program offering up to two months or $5,000 in aid, with a $5 million general fund appropriation for administration. The sponsor and a tenant advocate described the bill as a short-term bridge to prevent eviction and homelessness, while an industry representative said rental assistance is an effective early intervention tool. Some members raised concerns about limiting eligibility to households with children and about program administration, but the bill passed 7-4. HB 2698 would create a rental assistance study committee to evaluate program effectiveness and repeal in 2028; it passed on a 7-4 vote. HB 2476 would revise CPA certification and reciprocity requirements, creating multiple pathways to licensure and updating related rules and fees. Supporters said it would help address a CPA shortage and align Arizona with other states; after clarification from the sponsor and the State Board of Accountancy, the committee passed it unanimously, 11-0. The committee then heard HB 2308, which would bar dental insurers and certain holding companies from owning dental practices; the Arizona Dental Association supported it as a safeguard against vertical integration, while Delta Dental opposed it as overbroad and burdensome. The bill passed 8-0-3. Finally, the committee began hearing HB 2118 on mobile food vendors and local permitting, with the sponsor and food truck operators arguing for streamlined county/state licensing and reduced local duplication, while a vendor representative warned the proposal could affect existing local ordinances and private-property vendors.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm an assistant attorney general in the consumer protection and antitrust bureau, which is what we normally
• So again, Mary Stewart, Assistant Attorney General, the Consumer Protection Antitrust Bureau.
• afternoon again. >> Good afternoon, Mary Stewart, Assistant Attorney General, Consumer Protection and Antitrust

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, the antitrust division of the Department of Justice has also published an economic analysis, and
• The Department of Justice Antitrust Division published that economic report that I talked about.
• The Department of Justice Antitrust Division published that economic report that I talked about.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In a concurring opinion, Brett Kavanaugh stated that antitrust laws, quote, should not be a cover for
• We have an impending potential settlement of three antitrust cases.
• The settlement of three antitrust cases, known collectively as the House settlement, if it is approved

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard testimony on House Bill 167, a PFAS-related measure to add ski, snowboard, and boat wax to the state’s list of banned consumer products containing PFAS. The sponsor said the product is already banned in many other places, alternatives exist, and the concern is that these products go directly into water rather than landfills. She cited high PFAS levels in several New Hampshire lakes and argued the bill would help stop further contamination. A member of the public also described personal experience with ski wax products disappearing from the market, suggesting PFAS may have been the reason. The chair then closed the hearing on HB 167. The committee next opened a hearing on House Bill 312, dealing with college athletes’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. Representative Moffett explained the bill was prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s NCAA v. Alston decision and was modeled on New Jersey law. He said the bill would prevent colleges from restricting NIL compensation, require athletes to use licensed attorneys or registered sports agents, and limit certain endorsements involving addictive drugs, adult entertainment, firearms, and weapons. He framed the measure as a proactive response to a changing college sports landscape and noted possible future conflicts involving schools, agents, and endorsements. Committee members raised several concerns and suggested changes. One member questioned the bill’s exclusion of two-year institutions, another objected to the weapons restriction, and others asked how the bill would affect scholarships. The sponsor said the intent was to protect scholarships, especially athletic scholarships, and clarified that need-based scholarships were not meant to be affected. He also acknowledged discomfort with the endorsement restrictions and said the committee might want to broaden or revise the language. The hearing remained open for further consideration, with no vote taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• gives in additional money to the AG's office that would be used specifically to further enforce antitrust

Bills: SB1, HB500, SB1, HB1400, HB 1094, HB365, HB 1109, HB647, HB500

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, state budget, mental health funding, education funding, infrastructure improvements, public safety, groundwater, water conservation, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, innovation fund, local conservation districts, transportation protection agreement, funeral services, insurance exemption

Transcript Highlights:

• After years of consolidation and lax antitrust enforcement, the defense industry has ossified around
• /c><02:57:08.080> lacks years of consolidation and lacks years of consolidation and lacks antitrust

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, July 15, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I’m an antitrust attorney and senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee hearing focused on a package of Massachusetts privacy and technology bills, especially measures to ban the sale of location data, establish a comprehensive consumer data privacy law, and regulate biometric recognition and surveillance pricing. Chairs and sponsors argued that self-regulation has failed, that data brokers and large tech companies routinely collect and monetize sensitive information, and that state action is needed because federal protections are weak or absent. Several speakers tied the bills to reproductive health, gender-affirming care, domestic violence, children’s data, and other sensitive uses of location and biometric information. Supporters included legislators and advocates who backed H. 86/S. 197 (Location Shield), H. 78/S. 45/H. 104/S. 29 (comprehensive privacy bills), H. 99/S. 47 (surveillance pricing in grocery stores), and H. 36/S. 36 (biometric recognition accountability). They emphasized data minimization, bans on selling sensitive data, consumer rights to access, delete, and opt out, and in some cases a private right of action. Several witnesses said Massachusetts should lead or align with other states, while others argued that stronger protections are needed because data can be weaponized by stalkers, anti-abortion actors, abusive partners, insurers, or law enforcement. Industry and coalition witnesses urged the committee to favor a more standardized, interoperable framework modeled on laws already adopted in other states, warning that novel definitions, data-minimization rules, and private rights of action could create compliance burdens, confusion, and costs for businesses, including small businesses. They argued that entity-level exemptions for sectors already covered by federal laws like HIPAA or GLBA promote consistency, and that Attorney General enforcement is preferable to private lawsuits. Committee members questioned witnesses on patchwork concerns, the scope of exemptions, and whether the proposed bills would harm or help consumers and small businesses. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing; written testimony was noted as due later, and the committee continued taking testimony from multiple panels and virtual witnesses.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 1427 by Representatives Espinosa and Senator Snyder, concerning updates to the Uniform Antitrust

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But just north of us, there's an attorney general's antitrust and price-fixing division that I think

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The committee first heard an Aging and Long-Term Services Department budget presentation comparing the LFC and executive recommendations. The main differences were in the Aging Network, Adult Protective Services, Program Support, and Long-Term Care Division, especially the executive’s proposed $10 million infusion into the Kiki Savadra Senior Dignity Fund and $6.2 million for expanding New Mexico Care. LFC staff explained that the committee recommendation was lower in general fund and fund-balance use, while the executive emphasized rising senior population needs, meal and transportation costs, and the cost savings of keeping older adults at home. The secretary also reviewed the department’s special requests, including the conference on aging, outreach, emergency preparedness, and the Kiki fund, and described New Mexico Care’s growth, its evaluation results, and the department’s plan to separate Kiki into its own accounting fund. Members largely focused on senior services, rural meal delivery, transportation, caregiver support, and the Kiki fund. Several members urged stronger support for non-metro aging providers and for New Mexico Care, citing its role in keeping seniors out of nursing homes and the program’s reported savings and outcomes. Questions also covered eligibility, background checks for caregivers, respite care, dementia and Alzheimer’s screening, and whether Kiki funds can support home modifications such as ramps. The committee then voted to adopt the LFC recommendation with one executive language change: adding the executive’s page 14 language allowing an additional 12.5% distribution for initial payments to aging network providers at the start of FY27. Representative Dow opposed the motion. The committee then moved to the Attorney General’s budget. LFC staff explained that the office’s budget relies heavily on the Consumer Settlement Fund, with both recommendations reducing general fund revenue while increasing settlement-fund use, and that performance measures were in consensus. The Attorney General said the office was not seeking more general fund, but wanted greater ability to use funds it recovers. He highlighted major consumer and public safety work, including litigation against major social media and AI platforms, a case involving Snapchat and child exploitation/extortion, the statewide crime gun intelligence center, efforts to address oilfield theft, work on missing and murdered Indigenous persons, and efforts to protect federal funds coming into New Mexico.

Transcript Highlights:

• I am senior assistant attorney general and chief of the consumer protection and antitrust bureau at the

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, May 14, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• conditions, civil rights, policing, detention, disability rights in education, the environment, and antitrust
• ><03:50:55.920> and in education, the environment, and in education, the environment, and antitrust
• 58.000> bill<03:50:58.399> appears<03:50:58.720> to<03:50:58.800> have antitrust
• This bill appears to have antitrust law.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, May 14, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If we get Cartwright Act authority, we will have the justification to bring antitrust experts with resources

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Consider a recent federal antitrust complaint that detailed the ways in which Walmart used Pepsi to set

Bills: HF3794, HF3408

Keywords: surveillance, price discrimination, wage discrimination, automated decision systems, consumer protections, data privacy, biometrics, consumer protection, price setting, biometric data, retail, privacy, 1183, house

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from March 3, 2026, and then received a presentation from the Minnesota Office of the Attorney General on the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act. Assistant Attorney General Caitlin Miko and Deputy Attorney General Jessica Whitney reviewed the law’s scope, consumer rights, business obligations, and enforcement history. They said the law took effect July 31, 2025, gives Minnesotans rights to access, delete, and opt out of sale, profiling, and targeted advertising, and is enforced by the Attorney General with penalties up to $7,500 per violation. They reported more than 200 complaints in the first six months, many warning letters, and a shift from education to active enforcement now that the initial warning-letter period has expired. Committee members asked about how the universal opt-out works, what happens when companies deny deletion or editing requests, how the office determines willful noncompliance, and whether the law could burden small businesses. The AG’s office said the opt-out can be set through privacy-protective browsers or extensions, companies must respond to consumer requests within 45 days, small businesses are exempt as defined by the SBA, and investigations look for patterns and evidence of willful conduct rather than minor technical violations. The office also said it needs additional funding to fully staff enforcement efforts and noted that it has already issued subpoenas and civil investigative demands. The committee then took up House File 3408, the Stop Grocery Surveillance Price Gouging Act. The author explained that the bill would prohibit retail grocers, physical and online, from setting individualized prices based on consumer information, would limit certain uses of facial recognition and electronic shelf labels, and would preserve narrow exceptions for discounts and loyalty programs. Public testimony followed from the Minnesota Farmers Union in support, arguing that grocery consolidation and surveillance pricing could worsen already high food costs and harm fair competition. The Minnesota Grocers Association opposed the premise that grocery stores use surveillance pricing, said shelf prices are generally uniform and set from a single storewide database, and argued electronic shelf labels are efficient and not nefarious. A technology company representative similarly said ESLs do not use personal data or facial recognition, prices are uniform, and a 2025 study found no meaningful price increases after ESL adoption. The bill was laid over for possible further discussion after the testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• gather together to have that kind of a conversation, they would be concerned about a violation of the antitrust

Bills: HF747, HF1014, HF320, HF400

Keywords: corporate governance, shareholder rights, beneficial ownership, defective corporate acts, Minnesota Business Corporation Act, Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Association, MIGA, insurance guaranty fund, insurer insolvency, covered claim, net worth threshold, high-net-worth insured, financial information request, insurance claims, self-insured retention, deductible, commercial insurance, insurance regulation, Minnesota Statutes 60C.09, guaranty association

Transcript Highlights:

• interested in upholding the rule of law, the importance of that in our society, technology privacy and antitrust
• McFarland continued, saying he is interested in upholding the rule of law and in technology privacy and antitrust

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met for its first meeting of the new session with opening remarks, member introductions, and a discussion of committee logistics. Members described their backgrounds and priorities, including criminal justice, right-to-know and privacy issues, domestic violence, death-with-dignity legislation, abortion, firearms, landlord-tenant policy, housing, and technology/privacy concerns. The chair noted there were already 34 bills assigned to the committee and expected more, and said the committee would likely continue to have a heavy workload this session. The chair also outlined how the committee would operate: meetings would generally be on Wednesdays, with possible Mondays as needed; hearings would not require a quorum, but executive sessions would; and members were asked to provide updated phone numbers and email addresses, especially cell numbers. He explained that the committee would continue its practice of seating members in a mixed partisan arrangement to encourage communication, and that the new clerk had joined the committee. A significant portion of the meeting focused on procedures for executive sessions and meeting times. The chair said the committee would follow the traditional rule allowing executive sessions on bills heard that day if proper notice was given, but he would avoid taking up controversial matters without full attendance. Members then discussed whether meetings should start at 9, 9:30, or 10 a.m., with concerns raised about long commutes, evening obligations, and winter driving after dark. No formal vote was taken in the portion provided, but the chair indicated he would try to accommodate the committee’s preference while balancing the workload.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a senior Assistant Attorney General and chief of the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau at

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 733-FN, a bill on third-party litigation financing (TPLF). Representative Cole, the prime sponsor, described TPLF as outside investors financing lawsuits in which they have no personal stake, arguing that the practice is largely unregulated, can involve foreign entities, and contributes to litigation abuse, higher insurance costs, and what he called a “tort tax.” He said the bill is modeled on an NCOIL proposal and would require disclosure of TPLF agreements, with specific references to foreign-entity restrictions, consumer-protection guardrails, and reporting requirements. He also noted a few technical fixes to the draft, including adding the word “knowingly” and restoring a section that had been omitted. Committee members questioned how the bill’s foreign-entity language would work, including whether a governor or the Department of Safety would designate countries of concern, and whether the bill would bar foreign parties from using litigation funding. Cole and others clarified that the bill was intended as a reporting measure, not a ban on litigation funding itself, and that the goal was to disclose who is funding lawsuits and to what extent. Representative Sal asked whether the bill would prevent a litigant from getting outside financing; Cole answered no, emphasizing disclosure rather than prohibition. Brandon Grat of the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau testified that the bill’s enforcement provisions were too limited. He said the draft appears to give the Attorney General only a civil-penalty remedy, likely too small to deter violations, and not the broader Consumer Protection Act tools such as injunctions, restitution, or investigation authority. He also raised concerns about whether the Attorney General or Insurance Department would have proper jurisdiction, given that the product may be financial or insurance-related. Insurance Commissioner DJ Benton Court said the department sees possible benefits from transparency because disclosure of litigation funding could help insurers assess risk, improve underwriting, and potentially ease hard-market pressures, especially for nonprofits and child care providers. He also said the bill’s language likely needs further work to clarify agency authority and suggested involving the Attorney General, Insurance Department, and banking regulators. Opposition testimony came from the New Hampshire Trial Lawyers Association. Marissa Chase and Samantha Hering argued the bill is one-sided because it requires disclosure only on the plaintiff side and not from defendants or insurers. They said New Hampshire already has court rules and discovery procedures that cover relevant disclosures, making the bill unnecessary, and questioned whether the existence of a funding contract is even relevant in litigation. The hearing ended with the committee continuing to discuss possible revisions and enforcement options, but no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a Senior Assistant Attorney General and chief of the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau at

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 733-FN, a bill concerning third-party litigation financing (TPLF). Representative Cole, the prime sponsor, described TPLF as outside investors funding lawsuits in which they have no personal stake, arguing that the practice is largely unregulated, can involve foreign entities, increases litigation abuse, and contributes to higher insurance and consumer costs. He said the bill is modeled on an NCOIL proposal and would require disclosure of TPLF agreements, with guardrails and reporting requirements on specified pages of the bill. He also noted a couple of drafting fixes, including adding the word “knowingly” and incorporating a missing section later. Members raised questions about the bill’s foreign-entity language, especially the provision allowing a governor or the Department of Safety to designate a country as a threat to critical infrastructure. Representative Cole said he would have lawyers review that issue. Another member asked whether the bill would prohibit a party from obtaining outside funding for a lawsuit; Cole clarified that the bill is intended as a reporting measure, not a ban, and that disclosure would be required. He also said the bill is aimed at American citizens rather than foreign-backed financing, and that some states had considered caps on such arrangements, though this bill does not. Brandon Gratz of the Attorney General’s office testified that the enforcement language appears too limited, because it would allow only civil penalties and not broader Consumer Protection Act remedies such as injunctions or restitution. He suggested the Attorney General may not have meaningful authority under the bill as written and raised possible insurance-law issues. Commissioner D.J. Benton-Court of the Insurance Department said the disclosure could help insurers better assess risk and potentially soften the hard insurance market by improving transparency, competition, underwriting, innovation, and claims management. He also said the bill likely needs further work on jurisdiction and enforcement, and that the committee may need to coordinate with the Attorney General, Insurance Department, and possibly banking regulators. No vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I am a senior assistant attorney general and chief of the consumer protection and antitrust bureau at

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Stable Token Study Commission held its first regular meeting, welcomed all remaining appointed members, and completed brief introductions from legislators and agency designees. The chair outlined the commission’s plan to use the first part of the enabling legislation as a “level-setting” discussion, focusing this meeting on the basics of blockchain, the current landscape for stablecoins and tokenized real-world assets, and leaving blockchain-based trust for a later meeting. No votes were taken. The main presentation came from Deanna Bario Zales of the Global Blockchain Business Council, who described stablecoins as increasingly converging toward fiat-backed or asset-backed models, with algorithmic designs viewed more cautiously. She said stablecoins are being used for payments, remittances, DeFi activity, cross-border transfers, retail use in high-inflation markets, and treasury functions, while noting risks such as peg instability, reserve transparency, counterparty and network risk, and possible capital flight from weaker banking systems. She cited growth in supply, wallet activity, and transfer volume, and said U.S.-pegged stablecoins dominate the market, with USDT and USDC leading. Zales also discussed tokenized real-world assets, describing them as digital representations of physical assets that can enable fractional ownership, liquidity, and faster settlement. She said the market is growing quickly, with institutional participation from firms such as BlackRock and Franklin Templeton, and projected continued expansion. She closed with an overview of regulatory developments, emphasizing the new U.S. stablecoin framework under the Genius Act, the proposed Clarity Act, OCC guidance, and similar regimes in the EU, UK, UAE, Singapore, Japan, and elsewhere, all of which she said are shaping compliance requirements and market development.

Transcript Highlights:

• investigations conducted and actions brought by the Attorney General under the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust

Bills: HB3902, HB4420, HB3269, HB469, HB336, HB316, HB5396, HB993, HB1342, HB5216, HB2046, HB2188, HB2450, HB2813, HB2857, HB4075, HB2911, HB4682, HB3117, HB3253, HB3442, HB4820, HB4336, HB5356, HB3669, HB3428, HB5465, HB3662, HB2590, HB2288, HB1886, HB3458, HB5603, HB5620, HB1489, HB4101, HB4990, HB5685, HB4950, HB4980, HB5684, HB3507, HB3566, HB4487, HB4462, HB4876, HB4915, HB4663, HB5570, HB2929, HB5261, HB2920, HB4642, HB4746, HB1609, HB5403, HB5453, HB3844, HB2336, HB1572, HB 1226, HB2806, HB2617, HB2827, HB3948, HB3945, HB4266, HB4542, HB3319, HB1772, HB2496, HB1970, HB3434, HB5545, HB5577, HCR59, HCR135, HB4, HB46, HB3221, HB1403, HB3892, HB4234, HB722, HB4105, HB4413, HB170, HB551, HB3053, HB3142, HB3180, HB3722, HB1794, HB1784, HB1581, HB2530, HB4308, HB1896, HB2974, HB3359, HB4580, HB2458, HB2215, HB3332, HB2278, HB3015, HB3151, HB1368, HB40, HB 101, HB 112, HB146, HB214, HB413, HB1523, HB493, HB521, HB594, HB557, HB305, HB549, HB854, HB 1057, HB 1052, HB842, HB3174, HB3196, HB824, HB 1039, HB2529, HB2713, HB4936, HB4995, HB4830, HB4864, HB5219, HB5263, HB5154, HB2674, HB5525, SB529, SB541, SB2004, SB1012, SB2269, SB1886, SB1236, SB693, SB2308, HB2486, HB4862, HB4689, HB4520, HB2225, HB168, HJR218, HB4921, HB5623, HB2494, HB2545, HB2587, HB2625, HB5520, HB5436, HB4926, HB1573, HB5165, HB4811, HB5081, HB4755, HB3179, HB4310, HB4611, HB2159, HB4626, HB3637, HB3153, HB3066, HB2786, HB2966, HB638, HB640, HB876, HB497, HB5539, HB4809, HB5308, HB4687, HB4070, HB4421, HB4412, HB3284, HB3369, HB3420, HB3449, HB4098, HB4281, HB4120, HB4504, HB4370, HB 1106, HB2370, HB2404, HB3863, HB2407, HB2253, HB2273, HB2040, HB1586, HB3788, HB3993, HB4690, HB4309, HB4696, HB2308, HB 1142, HB1533, HB1621, HB2242, HB2012, HB2193, HB2442, HB2464, HB2348, HB2313, HB2289, HB1942, HB2011, HB1629, HB2993, HB3592, HB3824, HB4076, HB4535, HB4623, HB4773, HB 1091, HB5115, HB5515, HB3372, HB5659, HB 127, HB386, HB 115, HB2868, HB 1249, HB4766, HB3720, HB4656, HB4879, HB 105, HB5383, HB4621, HB5431, HB5678, HB5534, HB4174, HB4212, HB3954, HB3966, HB3636, HB3918, HB1422, HB4765, HB4732, HB4742, HB5122, HB4518, HB5084, HB3986, HB4045, HB4144, HB3911, HB3976, HB4473, HB3425, HB3641, HB3642, HB3475, HB3509, HB3424, HB3383, HB4744, HB4531, HB4539, HB3159, HB5228, HB5370, HB4359, HB4398, HB4443, HB4466, HB3861, HB3849, HB4240, HB4706, HB4685, HB5354, HB5141, HB5686, HB3629, HB3554, HB3567, HB2015, HB3575, HB5381, HB1431, HB3514, HB4614, HB4546, HB4683, HB5681, HB5673, HB5663, HB4271, HB4350, HB4035, HB3807, HB3812, HB3552, HB3540, HB3715, HB3710, HB3664, HB4196, HB4233, HB4173, HB1998, HB3333, HB3510, HB4222, HB2070, HB2854, HB2347, HB 113, HB983, HB4847, HB1449, HB3833, HB5151, HB265, HB1845, HB782, HB 108, HB1960, HB158, HB1954, HB1955, HB2512, HB605, HB2581, HB2803, HB627, HB2667, HB1738, HB636, HB3679, HB2638, HB2655, HB871, HB2438, HB 1107, HB1765, HB1822, HB2153, HB4099, HB3732, HB3171, HB3178, HB3182, HB3749, HB2814, HB3977, HB4204, HB4207, HB4449, HB1820, HB1876, HB1939, HB1347, HB2593, HB2136, HB2132, HB2658, HB2413, HB2757, HB2080, HB3154, HB3063, HB3009, HB3448, HB3006, HB2844, HB3241, HB3680, HB3169, HB2078, HB2507, HB4559, HB3946, HB3460, HB3405, HB475, HB3463, HB3441, HB3520, HB2060, HB4731, HB4991, HB1991, HB5596, HB2014, HB2142, HB2673, HB2731, HB2417, HB2399, HB2301, HB3335, HB3234, HB3320, HB5573, HB4848, HB4748, HB4769, HB4795, HB2086, HB2234, HB2203, HB4916, HB5624, HB4505, HB139, HB5093, HB5302, HB5402, HB5606, HB2333, HB4630, HB4701, HB2583, HB2983, HB4924, HB3339, HB3793, HB3631, HB4882, HB5509, HB5499, HB5430, HB5561, HB5611, HB5043, HB5064, HB3733, HB3781, HB3219, HB32, HB4515, HB5348, HB3902, HB4420, HB3269, HB469, HB336, HB316, HB5396, HB993, HB1342, HB5216, HB2046, HB2188, HB2450, HB2813, HB2857, HB4075, HB2911, HB4682, HB3117, HB3253, HB3442, HB4820, HB4336, HB5356, HB3669, HB3428, HB5465, HB3662, HB2590, HB2288, HB1886, HB3458, HB5603, HB5620, HB1489, HB4101, HB4990, HB5685, HB4950, HB4980, HB5684, HB3507, HB3566, HB4487, HB4462, HB4876, HB4915, HB4663, HB5570, HB2929, HB5261, HB2920, HB4642, HB4746, HB1609, HB5403, HB5453, HB3844, HB2336, HB1572, HB 1226, HB2806, HB2617, HB2827, HB3948, HB3945, HB4266, HB4542, HB3319, HB1772, HB2496, HB1970, HB3434, HB5545, HB5577, HCR76, HCR127, HCR9, HCR40, HCR118, HR559, HCR59, HCR135

Keywords: Medicaid, reimbursement, nursing facilities, ownership change, healthcare policy, mental health, psychiatric beds, inpatient psychiatric treatment, acute psychiatric care, bed availability, bed capacity, hospital reporting, HHSC, Health and Human Services Commission, state hospitals, private mental health facilities, civil commitment, competency restoration, not guilty by reason of insanity, jail diversion