Transcript Highlights:

• But now let's take a look at who 340B covered entities actually are.
• Second, a covered entity may not resell or transfer drugs to non-patients.
• entities at a capped price. 340B covered entities may then be reimbursed... ...to covered entities at
• Can you share a list of the hospitals that are 340B covered entities?
• Can you share a list of the hospitals that are 340B covered entities?

Bills: HB2145, HB1828, HB2155, HB2437

Keywords: 340B drug pricing, healthcare access, patient rights, discounted medications, manufacturer limitations, health professions, plasma donation, physician substitutes, medical regulation, nursing titles, healthcare, regulation, professional standards, licensure, accreditation, opioid treatment, health services, fee authority, public health, 904

Transcript Highlights:

• It doesn't say covered entities that are also public entities.
• It just says covered entities, and then covered entities is described in a way that includes private
• It doesn't say covered entities that are also public entities.
• It just says, It doesn't say covered entities that are also public entities.
• It just says covered entities and then covered entities is described in a way that includes private entities

Summary: The committee first approved a motion to send an IRS-related item to print, then took up House Bill 822, which would require covered entities such as schools, child care providers, and medical or behavioral health providers to notify parents when a minor requests help with a social transition and would restrict assisting a child’s transition without parental consent. Representative Skaug, the sponsor, said the bill is intended to protect parents’ rights and ensure they are not kept in the dark about serious matters involving their children. Committee members questioned the bill’s scope, including the use of terms like “request,” “facilitate,” and “aid and abet,” the applicability of mandamus to private entities, and the potential for a $100,000 civil penalty; Skaug said penalties would be proportional and that the bill was aimed at social transition, not ordinary behavior or medical treatment. Public testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including representatives of Idaho Family Policy Center, a parent, a father, and Alliance Defending Freedom, argued the bill would restore parental authority, stop schools and providers from concealing a child’s gender-related concerns, and close loopholes in existing school policies. Opponents, including physicians, a nurse, a parent, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, and a trans constituent, said the bill was vague, would chill professional judgment, could endanger vulnerable youth, and might force disclosure in situations where a child is not safe at home or is not ready to involve parents. Several opponents also warned the bill could worsen Idaho’s provider shortages and create legal and ethical conflicts for educators and clinicians. After sponsor closing remarks, senators debated the measure. Supporters emphasized parental rights and the need for notification, while opponents argued the bill lacked clear definitions and safety exceptions. The committee then voted on the motion to send House Bill 822 to the floor with a due pass recommendation; the motion carried, and the bill was advanced to the Senate floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• entities use their own in-house pharmacies to distribute 340B drugs and allowing covered entities to
• entity, a pharmacy under contract with a covered entity, or... ...of a 340B drug to a covered entity
• , a pharmacy under contract with a covered entity, or any location authorized by the covered entity to
• such data. ...of a 340B drug to a covered entity, a pharmacy under contract with a covered entity, or
• Providers by providing that revenue back to the covered entity helps these covered entities provide more

Bills: SB5904, SB5915, SB6025, SB5933, SB5990, SB5981

Keywords: nursing titles, licensure, healthcare professionals, patient safety, professional standards, SB 5915, health technology assessment, HTA, clinical committee, medical technology review, coverage determination, state-purchased health care, Washington health care, RCW, evidence-based medicine, cost-effectiveness, safety and efficacy, Medicare coverage, national coverage determination, clinical guidelines

Transcript Highlights:

• They have to request transition help from one of these covered entities.
• They have to request transition help from one of these covered entities.
• suit for a writ of mandamus compelling covered entities.
• It doesn’t say covered entities that are also public entities.
• It just says covered entities, and then covered entities is described in a way that includes private

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee first approved the gubernatorial reappointment of Brian Marks to the Sex Offender Management Board and agreed to print RS 33773. The committee then heard House Bill 822, which would require covered entities such as schools, child care providers, and medical or mental health providers to notify parents within 72 hours if a minor requests assistance with social transition, and would restrict aiding or abetting such efforts without parental consent. The bill sponsor argued it was intended to protect parental rights and ensure parents are informed about serious matters involving their children; committee members raised questions about the bill’s definitions, the use of mandamus, and the scope of penalties and enforcement. Public testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including parents and policy advocates, said the bill would stop schools and providers from concealing gender-related information from parents and would reinforce family authority. Opponents, including physicians, nurses, Planned Parenthood, and other advocates, argued the bill was vague, would chill medical and school counseling, could endanger vulnerable youth, and might force disclosures in situations where safety is a concern. Several opponents emphasized that trusted adults can be critical for youth who do not feel safe at home, while supporters said parental involvement should be the default and that safety concerns can be handled through existing reporting channels. After the sponsor closed, committee members debated the measure. Supporters said parents are the primary authority in a child’s life and that the bill corrects secrecy in schools and health care; opponents said the language is overly broad and lacks clear exceptions. The committee voted to send House Bill 822 to the Senate floor with a due pass recommendation, with one senator recorded as opposed.

Transcript Highlights:

• they provide than non-covered entities.
• entity for 340B drugs at a rate lower than paid to entities that are not covered, or providing a lower
• entity for 340B drugs at a rate lower than paid to entities that are not covered, or providing a lower
• But despite those restrictions, these covered entities and the...
• They are covered entities.

Bills: HB2720, HB2073, HB2487, SB5816, SB5919, SB5831, SB6137, SB6244, SB6044, SB6132, SB5109, SB5877, SB6258

Keywords: behavioral health, emergency services, health insurance, provider access, mental health funding, premium assistance, funding, healthcare, subsidies, insurance tax, state regulation, insurers, taxation, budget impact, juice grapes, agriculture, commerce, market access, fire safety, insurance incentives

Summary: The House took up and passed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5292, which modifies the paid family and medical leave program. Supporters said the bill uses an actuarial model to set rates and maintains a four-month reserve to improve program stability. It passed final passage 95-1. The House then considered Substitute Senate Bill 5841, dealing with completion of course and financial aid-related requirements. An amendment was adopted to add a financial aid calculator and require outreach to students who indicate they have completed a financial aid form, with supporters saying it would help students understand aid eligibility and access college opportunities. The bill then passed as amended, 92-4. The most extensive debate was on Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5981, concerning the 340B drug pricing program and contract pharmacy relationships. Members offered many amendments seeking to limit the bill’s scope, add transparency, or direct 340B savings toward patient care, low-income patients, rural areas, or charity care; most were rejected. Supporters argued the bill would help safety-net providers, hospitals, and FQHCs, while opponents warned it would mainly benefit large hospital systems, create administrative burdens, and likely face litigation. After the House adopted the committee amendment and rejected the floor amendments, the bill passed 67-30. The transcript then moved on to other business, including Senate messages and the start of debate on House Bill 2487 on taxes, with one technical amendment to clarify taxpayer definitions.

Transcript Highlights:

• c> or</c> 340b covered entity by refusing or 340b covered entity by refusing or withholding<00:04:27.160
• </c> 340b covered entity is not the 340b covered entity is not the definition<00:37:16.319><c> in</c>
• </c><00:37:30.240><c> entity</c> understand that the 340b covered entity understand that the 340b covered
• </c><00:37:57.560><c> that</c> covered entity and state law that covered entity and state law that includes
• c> 14</c> 340b covered entity Senate bill 14 340b covered entity Senate bill 14 expands<00:38:02.760>

Keywords: 00:00 Introductions 02:46 Roll Call 03:35 Discussion on SB 14 46:13 Vote on SB 14 48:07 Discussion on SB 17 50:38 Vote on SB 17, 958, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Health Services opened with the chair welcoming several new members and outlining session rules: hearings would start and end on time, the committee would limit the number of bills heard each meeting, prioritize bills heard during the interim, and generally avoid using the consent calendar except in extreme circumstances. The committee then briefly considered administrative regulations, which were treated as approved if members had no questions. The main item was Senate Bill 14, a measure addressing the 340B drug discount program. The chair said the bill had already passed the Senate in a prior session and had been heard in interim, so he did not present it again. He described the bill as prohibiting drug manufacturers from discriminating against 340B covered entities by refusing 340B pricing when the same drug is offered at that price in the state. He also said the committee would not debate the federal 340B program itself, but would hear testimony on the bill. Hospital leaders and Kentucky Hospital Association representatives testified in support, arguing that 340B savings are essential to rural hospitals, oncology services, transportation support, chronic care, addiction recovery, and new service lines such as chemotherapy and hepatitis treatment. They said the program helps keep care close to home and that manufacturer restrictions on contract pharmacies have reduced access and cost hospitals millions. Opponents from BIO Kentucky and the National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions argued the bill would expand federal law beyond Congress’s intent, create administrative burdens, and not lower patient out-of-pocket costs. The chair repeatedly pressed opponents to address why Kentucky should be denied the same 340B pricing available in other states. No vote on the bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this just ensures that this small pool of money received by the covered entities.
• On page three, after line 29 of the striking amendment, are not covered entities.
• entity for 340B drugs at a rate lower than paid to entities that are not covered, or providing a lower
• entity for 340B drugs at a rate lower than paid to entities that are not covered, or providing a lower
• They are covered entities.

Bills: HB2720, HB2073, HB2487, SB5816, SB5919, SB5831, SB6137, SB6244, SB6044, SB6132, SB5109, SB5877, SB6258, HB2720, HB2073, HB2487, SB5816, SB5919, SB5831, SB6137, SB6244, SB5420, SB5868, SB6044, SB6132, SJM8002

Keywords: behavioral health, emergency services, health insurance, provider access, mental health funding, premium assistance, funding, healthcare, subsidies, insurance tax, state regulation, insurers, taxation, budget impact, juice grapes, agriculture, commerce, market access, fire safety, insurance incentives

Transcript Highlights:

• entities use their own in-house pharmacies to distribute 340B drugs and allowing covered entities to
• entity or a pharmacy under contract with the covered entity unless prohibited by federal law, was not
• entity, a pharmacy under contract with a covered entity, or...
• entity, a pharmacy under contract with a covered entity, or any location authorized by the covered entity
• Providers by providing that revenue back to the covered entity helps these covered entities provide more

Summary: The Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee held a hearing on several bills. SB 5904 would prohibit non-human entities from using nursing titles; the sponsor and nursing groups said it is meant to increase transparency around AI and ensure patients know when they are interacting with a real nurse. SB 5915 would change Health Technology Assessment Program review criteria and timelines, with supporters arguing it would better account for Medicare coverage and national guidelines, especially for rare and life-threatening conditions. SB 6025 would update the definition of fetal death to allow gestational age to be determined by the best clinically accurate method rather than last menstrual period, and medical professionals and the sponsor said this would reduce emotional, financial, and legal burdens on grieving families. SB 5933 would require near real-time sharing of overdose data into ODMAP; public health, local government, and recovery advocates said it would improve overdose response, while one witness asked that poison center data be included and clarified separately. SB 5990 would allow APRNs and physician assistants to serve as local health officers in counties under 100,000 population; rural county officials supported the added flexibility, while public health groups and naturopathic physicians raised concerns about qualifications and asked that naturopathic doctors be included as well. SB 5981 would restrict drug manufacturers from limiting 340B drug access through contract pharmacies or requiring data as a condition of discounts; safety-net hospitals, community health centers, pharmacies, and patients said it protects access and reinvestment in care, while manufacturers, employer groups, and industry representatives argued it increases costs, lacks transparency, and may not ensure savings reach patients. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the transcript; each bill was heard and testimony was closed. Sign-in counts were reported for several bills, including strong pro support for SB 5904, SB 5915, SB 5933, and SB 5981, and mixed or substantial opposition on SB 6025 and SB 5990.

Transcript Highlights:

• Florida Medicaid doesn't cover residential or institutional...
• They don't cover a lot of things.
• though it would have been covered by Medicaid?
• by Florida Medicaid. 30% to 40% of the services covered by Florida Medicaid are also covered by the
• Yes, they're still posted on our managing entity tab.

Summary: The subcommittee heard two Department of Children and Families implementation updates on measures passed in prior sessions. First, DCF reviewed House Bill 633, which increased oversight of behavioral health managing entities through biennial independent audits, standardized claims-based reporting, and new monthly outcome dashboards. The department said it had awarded the inaugural audit to Ernst & Young, found no significant waste, fraud, or abuse, but identified process risks involving financial controls, claims validation, data access, and system access controls. DCF also described its transition to standardized behavioral health coding and said the new public dashboard of 11 measures is posted on its website, though members asked for easier access and for hard copies of the audit report. Members asked about how the department distinguishes Medicaid-covered services from department-funded services, how duplicate payment risks are being addressed, and whether the new reporting and audit requirements would improve oversight without disrupting services. DCF said it is the payer of last resort for uninsured or underinsured individuals, that some overlap with Medicaid is expected because Medicaid does not cover all behavioral health services, and that new claims edits and cross-checks are being built into the system. The department also said it had not found significant negative feedback from providers and that the new requirements are intended to improve transparency and accountability. DCF then updated the committee on Senate Bill 7012, covering human trafficking data collection, domestic violence center certification, limited background-screening exemptions, expanded recruitment for child welfare staff, subcontractor liability protections, a four-year treatment foster care pilot, case management efficiency recommendations, and a statewide study of residential bed capacity for child victims of commercial sexual exploitation. The department said several items are already complete or underway, including limited exemptions in the screening clearinghouse, while others are in procurement or rulemaking. It identified Circuits 4 and 12 as the treatment foster care pilot sites and said the pilot will launch in January 2026. Members questioned recruitment metrics, pilot timing, and report deadlines; the department said final reports are expected by January and that some dates were flexible because of procurement and implementation timelines. The meeting ended after the presentations and questions, and the subcommittee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Would that covered entity still be responsible? That was, Mr.
• And is the covered entity still liable, even though they did the thing the law says they have to do?
• Chairman, Representative Skaug, to me it clearly states a covered entity shall notify a minor student
• The covered entity only has to notify the parents if the child is requesting the covered entity to facilitate
• . requests a covered entity to facilitate a transition, then they must notify.

Summary: The committee approved the minutes from March 5, 2026, then took up House Bill 681, which would remove the statute of limitations for aggravated lewd conduct with a child and for producing or making sexually exploitive material. The sponsor and the Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association said the bill would help prosecute serious child sexual abuse cases, including cases involving delayed reporting and AI-generated child sexual abuse material. A motion to send the bill to the floor with a due pass recommendation passed unanimously. The committee then heard extensive testimony on House Bill 822, a parental rights bill requiring schools and health care providers to notify parents when a minor requests assistance with social transition or related changes. Supporters argued it protects parental rights and prevents secret transitions; opponents said it could endanger vulnerable youth, create vague reporting duties, and expose providers and schools to excessive penalties. After debate, a motion to hold the bill in committee failed 12-4, and the original motion to send it to the floor with a due pass recommendation passed. Finally, the committee considered Senate Bill 1296, which updates Idaho’s criminal trespass law to create a specific offense for disrupting worship services at houses of worship and sets misdemeanor penalties for intentional interference. Supporters said it would protect churches from harassment and disruption while preserving lawful protest. After limited testimony, the committee voted unanimously to send the bill to the floor with a due pass recommendation.

Transcript Highlights:

• compliance obligation begins to attach to a covered entity.
• in the program is a covered entity as a fuel supplier or as a different category of covered entity.
• There are covered entities.
• It would require them to be covered entities under the law. ...bring them into the law as well.
• It would require them to be covered entities under the law as well.

Bills: HB2090, HB2215, HB2245, HB2272

Keywords: nuclear energy, renewable energy, energy strategy, sustainable development, state energy policy, climate change, fuel regulations, compliance obligations, sustainability, environmental policy, consumer-owned utilities, clean energy, port districts, market customers, energy transformation, ski areas, winter sports, terminology update, recreation, regulatory changes

Transcript Highlights:

• The covered entities are not required to demonstrate how 340B savings are used.
• However, states can insist upon transparency and accountability from the covered entities to make sure
• It is the only source that allows covered entities to stretch scarce federal resources.
• effectively shielding covered entities from scrutiny while ignoring their responsibility to reinvest
• a covered entity can pocket the 340B discount.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a lengthy hearing on a large docket of pharmacy and drug-pricing bills, with most testimony focused on PBM reform, 340B drug discount program protections, specialty medication access, and medication adherence. Chair James Murphy and Senator Paul Feeney opened the hearing and took testimony from legislators, patient advocates, pharmacists, health center leaders, industry representatives, and policy groups. Several speakers described delays, denials, high out-of-pocket costs, and pharmacy closures tied to PBM practices, while others emphasized the importance of community health centers and independent pharmacies in serving patients. On the 340B program, supporters including Senator Eldridge, Senator Payano, Community Care Cooperative, Fenway Health, the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers, and several community health center leaders argued that bills such as H. 1107 and S. 819 would stop discriminatory PBM and manufacturer practices, preserve contract pharmacy access, and protect safety-net providers that say they reinvest savings into care, pharmacy expansion, interpreter services, behavioral health, and other services. Opponents including PhRMA, the Community Liver Alliance, and a public policy analyst argued the program lacks transparency and accountability, has grown beyond its original purpose, and may benefit large hospitals and for-profit entities more than low-income patients. They urged more reporting and oversight rather than expanding protections. On PBM reform, testimony supported bills including H. 1157, H. 1234, S. 724, S. 831, and related measures that would require rebate pass-through, ban spread pricing, limit steering to PBM-owned pharmacies, and improve reimbursement for community pharmacies. Independent pharmacists and patients said current PBM practices raise costs, create administrative burdens, and threaten access to local pharmacies. PCMA, representing PBMs, opposed the reforms, arguing PBMs lower costs, that plan sponsors choose to contract with them, and that the Health Policy Commission and CHIA should complete their ongoing study before new mandates are adopted. The committee also heard support for H. 1322 and S. 734 on specialty medications, and for H. 781 and H. 1305 on medication synchronization to improve adherence. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• compliance obligation begins to attach to a covered entity.
• in the program is a covered entity as a fuel supplier or as a different category of covered entity.
• There are covered entities.
• It would require them to be covered entities under the law. ...bring them into the law as well.
• It would require them to be covered entities under the law as well.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills. House Bill 2272 would update state park inspection language for ski lifts and related equipment to better match current equipment and federal standards; the sponsor and State Parks said it was a simple modernization bill, and there was no opposition. House Bill 2245 would expand Clean Energy Transformation Act coverage to port districts that distribute electricity, utilities with a single customer, and certain affected market customers such as data centers; supporters said it closes loopholes and applies clean-energy rules more fairly, while ports, business groups, and some utilities warned of unintended consequences, added reporting burdens, and impacts on cogeneration and rural economic development. Ecology and Commerce supported the goal but raised concerns about allowance allocation, fiscal impacts, and possible double counting, and WAPUDA asked that existing single-customer PUDs be grandfathered. House Bill 2215 would lower Climate Commitment Act thresholds for gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, and propane suppliers and extend coverage to some purchasers; supporters said it would prevent entities from gaming the system and cover significant emissions now below the threshold, while Ecology, fuel distributors, propane suppliers, grocers, and business groups warned of compliance costs, supply-chain impacts, possible linkage issues, and the need to preserve existing reporting authority for natural gas. Ecology estimated about 50 additional covered entities could be brought in, and several opponents argued the bill would sweep in small family-owned businesses not intended to be regulated. House Bill 2090 would direct Commerce to develop a nuclear strategic framework for inclusion in the state energy strategy, contingent on outside funding. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill is only a planning measure to ensure Washington considers advanced nuclear as a firm, low-carbon, small-footprint resource amid rising demand, grid constraints, and land-use concerns; supporters included Energy Northwest, local governments, labor/environmental Democrats, and pro-nuclear groups. Opponents, including the Sierra Club, Columbia Riverkeeper, tribal representatives from the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and several environmental advocates, said the bill gives nuclear special treatment, relies on private funding that could bias the study, and risks advancing projects at Hanford without early, meaningful tribal consultation. Tribes requested explicit consultation, independent and publicly funded analysis, and attention to treaty rights and historic nuclear impacts. Testimony also sharply divided over cost, waste, and land use, with supporters emphasizing reliability and footprint and opponents citing high costs, unresolved waste disposal, and the immaturity of small modular reactors. No votes or final actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• It can be very difficult for a potential claimant to know whether or not an entity is covered by the
• It can be very difficult for a potential claimant to know whether or not an entity is covered by the
• is covered by the not an entity is covered by the Mississippi<00:18:05.360><c> Tour</c><00:18:05.679
• that are covered under the Tort Claims Act. and for entity any entity that is and for entity any entity
• that are covered dealing with entities that are covered under<00:27:57.440><c> the</c><00:27:57.520>

Keywords: Judiciary, Division A - Room 216, 29 January, 2026; 3:00 PM, 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• How do you engage with the managing entity sooner?
• But for the most part, under EPSDT, Medicaid is able to cover that.
• as they become required for us to cover and recommended to cover, and oftentimes while they're also
• And so those contracts really didn't even cover their costs.
• Then there are counties who contract with the managing entity.

Summary: The Health Care Budget Subcommittee held a panel discussion on Florida’s mental health and substance abuse system, with representatives from DCF, AHCA, two managing entities, and two providers describing how the state’s behavioral health network is funded and operated. Members focused on the implementation of prior legislative investments, especially the $50 million in recurring funding from Representative Maney’s bill and the earlier $126 million community behavioral health appropriation. Witnesses said the newer funds were used mainly for crisis beds, discharge planning, outpatient services, regional collaboratives, and a USF Marchman Act report, while the larger behavioral health appropriation supported CAT, FACT, FIT, forensic teams, residential and outpatient services, and crisis care, with most dollars going directly to services and only a small share to administration. A major theme was access to crisis care and the role of mobile response teams, 988, and central receiving facilities in diverting people from Baker Act admissions and reducing readmissions. DCF and providers said mobile response teams have expanded, are being used to de-escalate crises and connect people to care, and have shown strong diversion results and reductions in Baker Acts in some regions. Members also asked about waitlists, children in crisis, and how to handle people without housing or support; providers said discharge planning is individualized but often constrained by homelessness, transportation, and a lack of safe placements, and several witnesses identified housing as one of the biggest barriers to recovery and stability. The committee also examined provider sustainability, reimbursement, and funding gaps. Witnesses described delays caused by contract timing, cost allocation rules, and Medicaid reimbursement rates that do not always keep pace with labor and operating costs, especially for smaller providers and rural networks. DCF and AHCA said managing entities can provide advances, retroactive rate adjustments, and technical assistance, and that Medicaid managed care plans have network standards and complaint/dispute processes. Members raised concerns about a reported $7 million loss in federal non-sustainable funds, provider closures, and whether there is a formal ombudsman process for disputes; DCF said the federal reductions were known and tied to one-time funds, and that the department generally handles provider issues informally while working with managing entities to preserve continuity of care.

Transcript Highlights:

• The person or commercial entity covered by this chapter that performs the age verification, or any third
• It goes on and says in subpart three, any person or commercial entity covered by this chapter that performs
• Any person or commercial entity covered by this chapter that performs the age verification, or any third
• If they're a covered entity or individual, then they would just be covered. Okay. Thank you.
• If they're a covered entity or individual, then they would just be covered. Okay. Thank you.

Summary: The Committee on Children and Families heard public testimony on House Bills 1839, 2921, and 3015, all aimed at requiring age verification for access to online pornography. The sponsors argued the bills are needed to protect children from early exposure, exploitation, sextortion, and related harms, and said the measures mirror laws in other states and recent Texas litigation. Supporters, including the Missouri Children’s Trust Fund, pediatric sexual assault nurse examiners, child advocacy groups, the Missouri Catholic Conference, and the Attorney General’s office, testified that pornography contributes to child sexual abuse risk, addiction, and unhealthy sexual development. Committee members asked about privacy protections, enforcement, penalties, and whether third-party verification or website-based verification would be used; the Attorney General’s office said identifying information should not be retained and that enforcement would occur through court action. No one testified in opposition, and the hearing concluded with the bills remaining under consideration, with a committee substitute to follow for one portion of the legislation. The committee then heard House Bill 2610, which would use the state legal expense fund to cover claims and judgments involving foster care, case management, and residential service providers under contract with the state. Representative Murphy and supporters said the private insurance market for these providers has become unstable and unaffordable, with some agencies facing large premium increases, repeated denials, or inability to find coverage at all. Testimony from the Missouri Coalition for Children, Missouri Alliance for Children and Families, Family Forward, and the Attorney General’s office described the issue as a market failure that could force providers to close and disrupt services for foster children. The Attorney General’s office explained how legal expense fund coverage would work, noted that it can cover negligence and intentional acts for covered entities, and said the bill would shift risk to the state in the absence of adequate private insurance. No opposition was offered. Finally, Representative Terry briefly presented House Bill 24, describing it as the same as Representative Dolan’s grandparents’ bill and emphasizing that grandparents should have first consideration for custody if a child’s parents are unable to care for them. No testimony was offered on the bill. The committee then moved into executive session and voted do pass on House Committee Substitute for House Bill 1696, House Committee Substitute for House Bills 2505 and 24, and House Bill 1772, each by unanimous 14-0 votes. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Page 2, line 7: “Covered entity shall notify a student's parent, you know, within 72 hours of receiving
• Would that covered entity still be responsible? That was, Mr.
• And is the covered entity still liable, even though they did the thing the law says they have to do?
• And I understand what you believe the intent is, but on line six page two, it reads, a covered entity
• The covered entity only has to notify the parents if the child is requesting the covered entity's assistance

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from March 5, 2026, and introduced a substitute member. It then heard House Bill 681, which would remove the statute of limitations for aggravated lewd conduct with a child and for producing sexually exploitative material. Representative Stone and prosecutors said the bill would allow prosecution of serious child sexual abuse cases without time limits, including cases involving child pornography production. A question was raised about whether AI-generated child sexual abuse material would be covered, and the sponsor said that was the intent. The committee voted unanimously to send HB 681 to the floor with a due pass recommendation. The committee then took up House Bill 822, a parental-rights bill on pediatric social transition. Sponsor Bruce Skaug said the bill would require schools and health care providers to notify parents if a minor requests help with a sex transition or social transition, and would allow civil action and damages for violations. Supporters argued it protects parental rights and prevents schools from concealing information; opponents said it could endanger vulnerable youth, interfere with professional confidentiality, and create vague or excessive penalties. Members questioned the bill’s definitions, whether it covered appearance or dress, whether it should refer to legal guardians as well as parents, and whether the $100,000 damages provision was excessive. After a failed motion to hold the bill in committee, the committee voted 12-4 against that motion and then passed HB 822 to the floor with a due pass recommendation. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 1296, which updates Idaho’s criminal trespass law to address disruptions at houses of worship. Representative Razor said it would create a specific trespass offense for unauthorized entry intended to intimidate, harass, or disrupt worship, with misdemeanor penalties. Supporters said the bill would help protect churches and worshippers from targeted disruptions while preserving lawful protest rights. Testimony was overwhelmingly supportive, though one witness suggested the penalty should be stronger. The committee unanimously sent SB 1296 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:19:19.520><c> federal</c> covered entities or alter the federal covered entities or alter the
• > you</c> Minnesota covered entities to have, you Minnesota covered entities to have, you know,<01:26
• should</c><01:26:46.080><c> go</c> the covered entities that it should go the covered entities that
• a</c><01:46:43.600><c> different</c> covered entity report paints a different covered entity report
• c> net</c> covered entities, those safety net covered entities, those safety net hospitals<01:48:01.840

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, uh, the question I have is, who is covered entity on the 340B program?
• The covered entity is, is a HRSA definition. It can be dish hospitals.
• Is that the no, the covered entity is getting the, the 340B covered entity gets the lower price.
• We still give 340B pricing to covered entities when they order it.
• The only change is if they want that product delivered to an entity that is not a covered entity, that

Transcript Highlights:

• And we've tax reporting of entities.
• and use of about selection of entities and use of entities<00:08:54.240><c> for</c><00:08:54.720><c>
• That we now use Wyoming entities for virtually all of the incidental or ancillary holding entities or
• </c> that. that we now use Wyoming entities that. that we now use Wyoming entities for<00:10:38.720><
• </c> would have to cover our risk with this. would have to cover our risk with this.

Bills: HB0086

Keywords: county officials, election code, misconduct, removal, government accountability, 916, all