Transcript Highlights:

• service.
• And veteran service officers are the front door to services.
• elder services.
• We are very thankful for all of your service and the team's service.
• Thankful for all of your service and the team's service.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Ways and Means held an FY27 Health and Human Services budget hearing in Mattapan, hosted at the Boston Public Library branch. Chairs Lydia Edwards and Russell Holmes, along with Rep. Brandy Fluker-Reid, emphasized the significance of holding the first Ways and Means hearing ever in Mattapan and highlighted the importance of bringing state budget deliberations into a majority-Black neighborhood. Several legislators introduced themselves as they joined, and the committee noted that public testimony was not part of the format, though agencies were invited to discuss priorities and challenges. MassAbility opened the agency testimony. Leadership described the agency’s mission to support people with disabilities through employment, training, home and community life services, and disability determination. They said Governor Healey’s FY27 budget funds MassAbility at $93.3 million, a 1% reduction from FY26, and explained that the agency is responding to federal funding uncertainty and shifting program needs by redesigning services internally. Members questioned a proposed $1.3 million reduction to the Home Care Program, staffing changes, and whether services could be maintained with fewer resources. MassAbility said it was reviewing data on who uses the program, that it does not provide nursing or personal care, and that it is working with a transition plan and a working group. The agency also discussed federal uncertainty around vocational rehabilitation funding and said it had received delayed federal awards but remained in contact with national associations and federal partners. The testimony included a personal story from a participant, Joshua Corcoran, to illustrate the impact of services. The Massachusetts Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing testified next, requesting $11.27 million, about a 6% increase over FY26. The commission said it serves about 1.4 million residents and focuses on communication access in health care, courts, public safety, and other public systems. It highlighted interpreter and captioner workforce shortages, a mentorship program to expand the provider pool, and a modernized referral platform funded through capital contingency money. Members asked about interpreter availability, after-hours emergency coverage, ASL access for students and families, and training for police and emergency responders. The commission said staffing remains limited, especially for after-hours services, but that it is expanding training, school outreach, and partnerships with DCF and other agencies. The Massachusetts Commission for the Blind then presented its FY27 budget request of $30.8 million. The commissioner said the agency serves nearly 9,000 legally blind residents, provides training and peer support, and placed 190 consumers in competitive integrated employment this year. It also described services for older adults, vocational rehabilitation, and the Turning 22 program for young adults with additional disabilities. Members raised concerns about a 7% cut from the prior year and asked how the agency could maintain services; the commissioner said the agency had no waiting list, had trimmed overhead, and could manage the budget through internal efficiencies and strong partnerships. The Office for Refugees and Immigrants closed the session, describing expanded legal and support services for immigrants and refugees, including Know Your Rights trainings, the Massachusetts Access to Counsel Initiative, citizenship and financial literacy programs, and the Family Welcome Center in Mattapan. Members asked about federal funding losses and the structure of the new legal services program; ORI said FY26 funding is stable but FY27 federal cuts remain uncertain, and that the legal program uses a centralized intake system with priority for emergencies and first-come, first-served access.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. services.
• ; emergency services; surgical services provided by a doctor of dental medicine or dental surgery; services
• care coordination services would still be a part of the fee-for-service model?
• care coordination services would still be a part of the fee-for-service model?
• The FI for service, the coordination services that you talk about that would be available under the fee-for-service

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a May Revision hearing covering several health-related budget proposals and broader concerns about the state’s budget structure. The Chair opened by praising some May Revision changes, such as added health IT funding, county administration support tied to Medi-Cal changes, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some lawfully present immigrants, and additional support for Covered California subsidies, while criticizing proposed increases in Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other reductions affecting counties, mobile crisis units, workforce incentives, and physician shortages. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state’s budget condition remains weak despite progress on the structural deficit, and the Department of Finance said the May Revision uses a mix of reductions, reforms, revenue proposals, and fund shifts to cut out-year deficits. The committee first heard Department of State Hospitals proposals, including adjustments to county bed billing authority, contract exemption language for online clinical/pharmacy subscriptions, reversion of unspent funds, a revised Metro Central Utility Plant replacement project, electronic health record implementation, and workforce development funded partly through Behavioral Health Services Act resources. DSH also described savings and realignments in incompetent-to-stand-trial and conditional release programs, including extending the independent placement panel program and shifting funds to support additional bed capacity and a mental health rehab center. Members asked about the use of BHSA funds for workforce programs, and the department said the proposal would replace General Fund support with BHSA reimbursements. The Emergency Medical Services Authority proposed funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for enterprise system development, and the Department of Managed Health Care proposed modernization of its complaint system and claims-settlement data system to improve oversight and comply with AB 3275. The largest discussion centered on the administration’s BHSA spending plan under Proposition 1, including state-directed prevention, workforce, and other uses, plus General Fund offsets for existing programs. The LAO questioned whether some proposed offsets fit Proposition 1’s non-supplant and eligible-use requirements, while the administration argued the uses were consistent with the measure and that the state-directed share can be adjusted annually. The Commission for Behavioral Health’s proposals drew the most public and member concern. The administration proposed cutting the commission’s Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and reducing the Community Advocacy Program by $6.7 million, while redirecting BHSA dollars to other state purposes and direct services. Commissioners, advocates, and several members argued the cuts would weaken community voice, reduce support for underserved populations, and disrupt grants already in process; they also objected to using BHSA funds to backfill General Fund commitments. Public commenters, including youth, disability, behavioral health, LGBTQ, tribal, veteran, immigrant, and community-based organization representatives, overwhelmingly opposed the cuts and urged preservation of prevention, advocacy, mobile crisis, and innovation funding. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the Bureau Chief of the Community Services Bureau, which includes services that are in-home service
• , or Home Health Services.
• PCCA services do not replace PDN services.
• PCCA services do not replace PDN services.
• And we ultimately published the regulations for this service in July. comparable services.

Summary: The House Health Care and Wellness Committee met at policy cutoff and first took up executive session on four bills. It considered a proposed substitute for HB 1589 on health carrier contracting practices, which would require carriers to provide providers advance notice and clean copies of contract changes and payment methodologies, and would also add notice requirements for significant payer contract modifications. The committee also considered HB 2402 on phthalates in IV solution containers and tubing, with a substitute delaying implementation dates and creating shortage and FDA-related exemptions. HB 2555, concerning Medicaid coverage of traditional health care practices, and HB 2685, concerning tribal data and disease reporting to tribal health jurisdictions, were also before the committee. HB 2599 was deferred. The committee reported HB 1589, HB 2402, HB 2555, and HB 2685 out of committee with do pass recommendations, with recorded votes showing some members voting no or no without recommendation on the more contested bills. The committee then held a work session on private duty nursing in the Medically Intensive Children’s Program. Health Care Authority and DSHS staff described how the program serves children with complex medical needs through managed care and fee-for-service pathways, the role of prior authorization and medical necessity review, and the ongoing shortage of nursing staff. They said many approved hours are not filled, especially in rural areas, and that family members often provide unpaid care to fill gaps. Committee members asked about the structure of the children’s and adult PDN programs and about how many authorized hours are actually being served. The committee also heard testimony from a home care agency representative and a parent caregiver, both of whom described severe staffing shortages and the burden on families when nursing shifts go unfilled. They supported models that would allow trusted family caregivers to be paid for some of the skilled care they already provide. The committee then heard examples from Montana and Massachusetts of similar family caregiver or complex care assistant programs. Montana described its pediatric complex care assistant model as a gap-filling service with prior authorization and a set hourly rate, while Massachusetts outlined its complex care assistant program, including training, supervision, wage pass-through requirements, and early growth in participation. The meeting concluded after the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• When we talk about long-term services and supports, I just want to – When we talk about long-term services
• Some of the services provided through the CBAS centers include professional nursing services, personal
• care services, social services, physical, occupational, and speech therapies, mental health, hot meals
• , the Department of Social Services, and the Department of Developmental Services as our partners on
• services.

Summary: The joint Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing focused first on long-term services and supports for older adults, especially the “forgotten/overlooked middle” who earn too much for Medi-Cal but cannot afford private long-term care. Administration witnesses from DHCS, the Department of Aging, and Social Services described Medicare’s limited long-term care coverage, Medi-Cal’s role, the elimination of the Medi-Cal asset test, and ongoing state studies and listening sessions on financing options. Testimony from advocates and researchers emphasized rising homelessness among older adults, the need for better navigation and coordination across health, aging, housing, and social service systems, and short-term policy steps such as share-of-cost reform, housing stability supports, and protecting home- and community-based services. Members highlighted the need for a coordinated, no-wrong-door approach and asked for the most impactful budget investments to address affordability and homelessness risk. The second major topic was the Community-Based Adult Services (CBAS) program. CDA reported that CBAS helps participants remain in the community, that 304 centers operate statewide serving about 42,000 people, and that demand is stable but access gaps remain in some regions. DHCS explained that a 2024 rate increase authorized by SB 159 became inoperative after Proposition 35, and that a separate 10% rate change on the fee schedule was the result of a DHCS system error; the department said it would not require recoupment, though managed care plans may act under their contracts. CBAS providers and advocates warned that reimbursement rates have not kept pace with costs, that several centers have closed, and that clawbacks could trigger more closures. They requested $74.8 million ongoing General Fund to close part of the rate gap and preserve the program, while members expressed concern about closures and the cost savings of keeping people out of more expensive institutional care. The hearing then moved to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) and statewide collective bargaining. CDSS reviewed provider recruitment and retention efforts, including electronic timesheets, direct deposit, and the now-completed IHSS Career Pathways program, which trained more than 59,000 providers. CDSS also summarized its AB 102 workgroup report on statewide versus regional bargaining, saying the final report would be sent to the Legislature soon and that statewide bargaining appeared more viable than regional bargaining, though it would require clear statutory scope and major fiscal changes. The department estimated that each $1 per hour statewide wage increase would cost at least $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion annually. Labor advocates argued that IHSS wages, benefits, and training are too inconsistent across counties and called for statewide bargaining, consumer participation, and ongoing state funding. County representatives supported stronger wages but cautioned that counties need protection from new costs and administrative burdens, and consumer advocates warned that moving bargaining to the state could weaken local consumer control and the program’s consumer-driven structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• They help confirm that services are delivered as intended and that financial services meet the standards
• It allows us to do apples-to-apples comparisons between Medicaid services and department-funded services
• providers who provide services. ...administer those network service providers who provide services as
• coded those services.
• Well, it might not be exactly the same service because maybe a service in Tallahassee looks a little

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:

• Services.
• medical services.
• This immigration legal services funding is million dollars for these services.
• services, foster care services, and adoptions.
• Services.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, with no votes taken. The first major topic was child care and early education, where the Department of Social Services and Department of Finance outlined proposed changes to absorb federal Child Care and Development Fund and Proposition 64 revenue reductions, shift some funding between child care programs, end funding for prospective pay implementation now that the federal requirement has been rescinded, adjust the alternative payment administration structure, and fund child care infrastructure grants and a Low-Income Investment Fund contract closeout. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the budget makes progress on the structural deficit but recommended maintaining the administration’s solution level, making reserve deposits, and avoiding new ongoing commitments; it also raised concerns about shifting reductions to the California Alternative Payment Program and about the proposed administrative-rate change. Committee members strongly criticized the proposed loss of child care slots and said they would oppose eliminating those slots, while also expressing support for child care as essential infrastructure. The committee then reviewed California State Preschool Program proposals. Finance and CDE described reductions to the preschool COLA from 2.41% to 2.01%, removal of prospective pay funding, and increases for the QRIS block grant, audit support, and rate reform implementation. Trailer bill language would codify age-based rate categories, inclusion-rate documentation, family fee collection rules, portability, and excused absences. CDE supported the QRIS increase and some attendance and family-fee changes, but warned that aligning three- and four-year-old rates could reduce support for three-year-olds and that the budget does not fully cover enrollment growth. Members also questioned whether the preschool and child care slot reductions should be reallocated rather than terminated, and the administration said the reductions were intended to reflect current utilization and avoid harm to currently enrolled families. The hearing then moved to CalFresh and nutrition programs. CDSS said the May Revision includes a one-time CalFood augmentation, funding to cover federal SNAP administrative cost-share pressures, and additional staffing and technical assistance to implement HR 1 changes, including the able-bodied adults without dependents time limit and new non-citizen eligibility rules. The department estimated HR 1 could cut CalFresh funding by $2.3 billion to $3.7 billion annually and affect about 500,000 people, with roughly 806,000 adults potentially subject to the time limit and about 34,000 non-citizens expected to lose eligibility once fully implemented. Members pressed for stronger harm mitigation, including a $98 million backfill to protect families from losing food benefits, and raised concerns about county workload and the “chilling effect” on immigrant participation. The final portion of the transcript began the IHSS presentation, noting a revised budget of $33.7 billion total funds and $12.8 billion General Fund, with proposed reductions tied to Medi-Cal asset-limit changes and other federal conformity items.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> service model to provide services service model to provide services okay<00:29:29.519><c> um</c>
• c> are day Services day services are are day Services day services are services<00:34:17.320><c> that
• </c> Services so this is an important service Services so this is an important service for<00:34:37.079
• when</c><00:52:48.160><c> a</c> Services service lines where when a Services service lines where when
• </c><01:04:12.039><c> that</c><01:04:12.200><c> we</c> service so CSI this is a service that we service

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• , mobile crisis services, contingency management services, also known as recovery incentives, and more
• So we have Lake County Behavioral Health Services, behavioral health services from the County of San
• these life-saving services.
• Nearly 60% of people served through these crisis services receive a behavioral health service within
• ...do not call out any services specifically, or very few are calling out specific services.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• at the Department of Human Services.
• at the Department of Human Services.
• at the Department of Human Services.
• For existing provider agencies providing services, consultation services are a new service in Minnesota
• in these services?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Human Services.
• the Committee on Human Services.
• for the Department of Human Services.
• for the Committee on Human Services.
• services.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , mobile crisis services, contingency management services, also known as recovery incentives, and more
• these life-saving services.
• Nearly 60% of people served through these crisis services receive a behavioral health service within
• Nearly 60% of people serve through these crisis services receive a behavioral health service within 30
• ...not call out any services specifically, or very few are calling out specific services.

Summary: The subcommittee heard presentations from the Department of State Hospitals (DSH), the Commission for Behavioral Health, and the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) on budget proposals and implementation updates. DSH outlined its proposed 2026-27 budget, including funding for patient operating expenses, IST solutions savings, conditional release program costs, LPS bed allocation changes, electrical infrastructure projects at Napa and Patton, SB 380 transitional housing feasibility work, and expanded dental services at Metropolitan and Patton. DSH also reported that it has met court-ordered IST treatment benchmarks in the Stiavedi v. Clinton case, with average time to initiate treatment down to about five days and pending placements reduced to roughly 250, while noting that Proposition 36 could increase referrals and SB 1323 may divert some individuals earlier into community-based treatment. Members asked about rising outside hospitalization costs, Medicare enrollment, the timing and structure of capital projects, and whether IST solution funds are being fully used; DSH said the savings reflect slower-than-expected ramp-up of community programs and that the Central California FACT replacement program is still on track for January 2027 activation. The Commission for Behavioral Health described its role under the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), including data, evaluation, grantmaking, technical assistance, and transparency work. It highlighted the new statewide Innovation Partnership Fund, a five-year, $20 million-per-year program with small and large grant categories; the first RFA drew strong interest, with more than 400 questions and over 1,000 bidders’ conference participants. The Commission also discussed a proposed extension to spend down about $4.1 million remaining for the Alcove Youth Drop-in Center grants so sites can finish implementation and Stanford can complete the final evaluation. Members asked about grant duration, whether projects can be renewed, what qualifies as innovation, and whether the fund could support service delivery rather than awareness campaigns or training; the Commission said awards are expected to be three-year contracts and that proposals must be new or meaningfully expanded approaches that support BHSA priority populations. DHCS reviewed major behavioral health changes under CalAIM and BH Connect, including peer support, mobile crisis, contingency management, traditional health care practices for tribal members, updated specialty mental health access criteria, and new substance use treatment standards based on ASAM’s fourth edition. DHCS reported strong contingency management results, with more than 13,000 members served and 95% testing negative for stimulant use during treatment, and said 21 Indian health care providers have been approved to offer traditional health care practices. It also described BH Connect initiatives such as the $1.9 billion access reform and outcomes incentive program, workforce investments, evidence-based practice expansion, IMD participation by four counties, and transitional rent services. On BHSA implementation, DHCS said it is not tracking individual county contract cuts but is monitoring county plans and statewide outcomes, while stakeholders raised concerns about local prevention and service gaps. DHCS also outlined its H.R. 1 implementation strategy, including outreach, streamlined renewals, exemptions for disabled, substance use, and medically frail individuals, and proposed clinic navigator and outreach funding; it said it has not yet produced a focused estimate of H.R. 1 impacts on behavioral health populations. The discussion ended with DHCS noting that B-CHIP bond funding has supported 437 infrastructure projects, creating 546 new or expanded facilities and more than 9,500 residential beds across the state.

Transcript Highlights:

• Health and social services.
• Marlis Perez with the Department of Health Care Services.
• Marlis Perez with the Department of Healthcare Services.
• For those, that would be a year past the date of service for any services provided in July, but they
• similar services in the U.K.

Summary: The hearing opened with remarks from the chair and members about recent federal cuts to public health, mental health, family planning, and Title X funding, with strong concern about the impact on California programs and providers. The committee then turned to the Department of State Hospitals, which presented its 2025-26 budget proposal of $3.4 billion, including new positions, capital improvements, and funding tied to increased patient costs and incompetent-to-stand-trial services. DSH reported major progress in reducing the IST waitlist and wait times, said it had met the court’s 28-day treatment benchmark for those without extenuating circumstances, and described workforce recruitment and retention efforts such as residency programs, fellowships, outreach, and hiring streamlining. Members asked about future IST referral trends, SB 1323’s effect on diversion and community treatment, and workforce lessons in high-cost regions; public comment urged reconsideration of county IST growth cap methodology in light of new criminal justice initiatives. The committee next received an informational overview of Proposition 1 and its changes to behavioral health funding and governance. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that Prop. 1 restructured county MHSA funding buckets, expanded the Commission for Behavioral Health, shifted prevention and early intervention responsibilities, and authorized a $6.4 billion bond, including $4.4 billion for behavioral health facilities through BHCIP. DHCS said it had released guidance for county integrated plans and was receiving extensive public comment. Members focused on BHCIP application requirements, especially letters of support and tribal projects, and raised concerns about whether DHCS’s implementation matched statutory intent. DHCS said it had authority to set application requirements and that tribal entities were treated differently because of sovereignty and funding structure. DHCS then updated the committee on BHCIP, the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program, and related bond implementation. The department said BHCIP had awarded about $1.7 billion across five rounds, with more than 130 projects and 223 distinct facilities funded, and that it was preparing to award the new bond funds after receiving nearly $8 billion in applications. The LAO’s assessment found that more than half of awards served at least 80% Medi-Cal enrollees, but also raised concerns that the regional allocation model could reinforce inequities, that the program had not sufficiently addressed the highest-need regions such as the southern San Joaquin Valley, and that smaller counties and less launch-ready applicants faced barriers. For bridge housing, DHCS said more than $1.1 billion had been awarded, serving over 5,000 people and supporting more than 2,000 operational beds, but the Governor’s budget proposes to eliminate Round 4 funding as the administration weighs other statewide investments and Proposition 1 implementation workload. Public commenters and members urged more accountability, better regional equity, stronger labor and community involvement, and caution about funding for for-profit psychiatric facilities. Finally, the committee heard on the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative. CalHHS and DHCS described CYBHI as a broad prevention- and equity-focused effort with more than 1,300 organizations funded, over $2.1 billion awarded, and multiple work streams spanning schools, community programs, workforce, and digital supports. DHCS highlighted school-based services, the fee schedule rollout, and digital platforms BrightLife Kids and Soluna, which it said are reaching users statewide and providing low-barrier access to coaching and support. Members and public commenters raised concerns about delays in school fee schedule implementation, the large share of funding going to digital tools, the need for more in-person services, and whether the initiative is sufficiently tracking outcomes and equity impacts. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• and preventive care services, behavioral health services, and substance use disorder treatment services
• We provide primary care services, dental services, and behavioral health services.
• :56:19.560><c> Clinical</c> support services are not Clinical support services are not Clinical Services
• members</c><02:16:04.440><c> are</c> Services services that their members are Services services that
• not clinical services.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Services.
• Services, Department of Developmental Services, I think, are the big cost drivers in human services.
• This immigration legal services funding is million dollars for these services.
• services, foster care services, and adoptions.
• Services.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> these services. these services.
• </c> human services system. human services system.
• </c> fee-for-service program. fee-for-service program.
• </c> service packages. service packages.
• services.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Advertising services are digital and non-digital services related to— Advertising services are digital
• Does that make accounting services or architectural services or legal services now a retail sale?
• It can also be used on services so long as the service continues to meet those two prongs: the service
• or service is received.
• or service is received.

Summary: The committee first received a presentation from Dr. Reich on the Economic and Revenue Forecast Council (ERFC), including how the council’s joint executive-legislative forecasting process works, the main state revenue sources, and recent economic conditions. He said Washington’s economy is slowing, with weak employment growth, softer taxable sales, and uncertainty from tariffs, federal spending, and the federal shutdown. He also noted that the September forecast was reduced, mainly because of lower sales tax and real estate excise tax collections, and that the state still expects modest growth rather than a recession. Members asked about whether Washington tends to lag national downturns and how forecast information should affect budgeting; Dr. Reich said the forecast is a revenue tool, not a budgeting decision, and that spending choices remain with elected officials. The Department of Revenue then presented on Washington’s sales and use tax structure and the implementation of Senate Bill 5814, which expands retail sales tax to several services effective October 1, 2025. Steve Ewing explained how sales and use tax are sourced, how reseller permits and the multiple points of use exemption work, and how the new law applies to live presentations, temporary staffing, investigations and security services, IT services, custom website development, advertising services, and custom software. He said DOR held listening sessions, issued interim guidance, and set up a centralized landing page and outreach efforts to help taxpayers understand the changes. He also described a six-month grace period for certain pre-existing contracts through March 31, 2026, but said penalties and interest still apply under the statute. Committee members raised concerns about how businesses and individuals will know when a service is taxable, who is responsible for collecting and remitting tax, and how sourcing will work for services delivered across multiple locations or online. DOR staff walked through examples involving accounting services, live lectures, virtual events, advertising campaigns, and search engine marketing, including the use of reasonable allocation and pool codes when exact sourcing data is unavailable. Members also questioned the administrative burden on small businesses and professionals newly subject to tax, and whether additional legislative fixes or relief from penalties and interest may be needed. No votes or formal actions were taken in the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Services in this program.
• services.
• setting or service type.
• setting or service type.
• services.

Summary: The hearing began with opening remarks on the Governor’s May Revision for child care and human services, with committee members and advocates stressing that the budget should not be balanced on the backs of low-income families, children, and providers. Legislative members and public witnesses strongly opposed the proposed suspension of the child care COLA, reductions to the Emergency Child Care Bridge Program, and the lack of codified rate reform tied to the alternative methodology. Several speakers also urged more support for providers affected by the Eaton fire and other disasters, and called for child care to be funded at the true cost of care and for additional slots to be restored. Administration, LAO, and Department of Education staff described the child care proposal as maintaining existing funding levels while adding administrative resources to prepare for federally required prospective payment changes and single-rate reform. The administration said the May Revision would suspend the 2025–26 COLA and reduce Bridge Program funding to align with utilization, while the LAO raised questions about the size and purpose of the proposed rate-reform and prospective-payment funding and recommended rejecting a Department of Technology exemption. CDE supported continued early education investments but said it would need additional resources if prospective pay were extended to state preschool, and it objected to a proposed reallocation of preschool funds for inclusive education grants. The committee then moved to the IHSS portion of the May Revision. DSS outlined five major proposals: capping provider work hours at 50 per week, eliminating IHSS for undocumented adults age 19 and older, shifting certain Community First Choice reassessment penalties to counties, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test as a conforming IHSS reduction, and automating the termination of IHSS when Medi-Cal eligibility ends. DSS also discussed funding to implement a federal HCBS access rule and a separate reassessment of IHSS administrative methodology that found counties would need additional administrative funding. Finance said the proposals were intended to slow program growth and improve sustainability, while the LAO said it was still analyzing the package and raised concerns about implementation, county workload, and the potential loss of services. Committee members and public commenters criticized the IHSS cuts, especially the overtime cap and the elimination of services for undocumented adults and people affected by the asset test. Advocates argued that IHSS workers and recipients depend on these services, that county administration is already underfunded, and that the proposals could destabilize vulnerable consumers. The chair closed by saying the committee would continue to fight for child care and would not pause on child care, and the meeting recessed before moving on to the remaining May Revision items.

Transcript Highlights:

• service commission green list. The service commission green list.
• . services. services.
• based services. It is number seven on based services.
• </c> services um so the demand for services services um so the demand for services is<00:34:08.320><c
• prevention services.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Government Contracts Committee first approved the minutes from its July 8 meeting and then moved through a large agenda of contracts and deferred items. The committee deferred a Kentucky Education Television contract because the vendor was still not registered with the Secretary of State, and also deferred a University of Louisville contract to the September meeting at the university’s request. Both motions passed by roll call. The committee then took up a contract with the Department for Behavioral Health, Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities for Seven Counties Services. Committee members questioned why the state continues funding the provider despite its ongoing bankruptcy tied to unpaid retirement contributions, how the funding split is determined, whether the state had explored other providers or direct state delivery, and whether all services in the contract are truly required by statute. Agency officials said Seven Counties is the statutorily designated community mental health center for the region, serves about 24,500 people, and provides core safety-net services that would be difficult to replace; they also said the bankruptcy dispute is still ongoing and the contested amount is about $20 million. The committee ultimately deferred the contract to the next meeting and requested additional information on the scope of services and potential offsets or recovery of unfunded liabilities. The final deferred item was a Department for Community Based Services contract with Youth Villages for the Intercept program. DCBS explained that the program is used because it is an approved evidence-based service under the Family First Prevention Services Act, that Youth Villages has Kentucky staff and offices even though it is headquartered in Tennessee, and that the contract is intended to support intensive in-home services, foster care stabilization, and family reunification. Members asked why the services could not be provided in-house, whether Medicaid should cover more of the cost, and whether the state requires the provider to bill Medicaid as a payer of last resort. DCBS said it would verify billing and funding details and provide them back to the committee. The committee then voted to defer the contract to the next meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• , meaning that those services be covered.
• to be covered, alongside acute treatment services and clinical stabilization services.
• vocational services and housing-related services.
• The services are based on National Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services The services are based
• One is that these services work.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on a large group of behavioral health and insurance-related bills. Topics included expanding access to mental health services by allowing physician assistants to authorize Section 12 emergency holds and be recognized as licensed mental health professionals (H. 1131/S. 773); improving coverage for community behavioral health centers so commercial insurance matches MassHealth’s bundled outpatient and crisis services (H. 1276/S. 703); eliminating cost sharing for certain behavioral health services (S. 718); extending detox and clinical stabilization coverage from 14 to 30 days and adding transitional support services (H. 1319/S. 772); requiring coverage for dual-diagnosis treatment in psychiatric facilities (H. 1277/S. 771); and preserving access to treatment for serious mental illness through coverage of coordinated specialty care and assertive community treatment (H. 1135/S. 709). The committee also heard bills on preventive behavioral health services for children (H. 1228/S. 802) and post-pregnancy mental health care, including postpartum depression and pregnancy loss-related care (H. 1314/S. 823).

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm always reminded of their service.
• Thank you for your service, Bob. Thank the Representative for his service. Oh, sorry.
• Thank you for your service.
• We have these services for free.
• There is a service that is free, and another service, same service, cost money.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs held its second public hearing of the 2025–26 session, with opening remarks from Chairs John Velis and Joe McGonagle outlining testimony on 20 House bills and 18 Senate bills. The hearing covered a wide range of veterans issues, including municipal veterans assistance funds, pension equity, expanding the Office of the Veterans Advocate, veterans service officer staffing, disability benefits eligibility, service dogs, POW tax relief, courtesy parking spaces, women veterans and motherhood, and workforce-related licensing and employment measures. Chairs emphasized the hybrid format, three-minute testimony limit, and written testimony process. Several bills drew support focused on expanding services and access. Representative Arena-DeRosa spoke for bills to broaden municipal veterans assistance funds to cover housing and legal expenses and to study enhanced pension equity for veterans, citing burn pit exposure and shorter life expectancy among veterans. Senator Fattman, Representative Peas, and Veterans Advocate Bob Notch supported bills expanding the Office of the Veterans Advocate to include active-duty service members and their families, arguing it would improve transition support, coordination with state agencies, and retention of military talent in Massachusetts. Representative Arriaga backed a bill to incentivize municipalities to provide full-time or regional veterans service officers and another to study the impact of combat on women veterans and motherhood. Representative Moulton/another sponsor also sought to exempt veterans’ disability payments from income calculations for other state benefits, and Representative Hong and Senator Scanlan supported a state service dog program, POW income tax relief, and courtesy retail parking spaces for veterans. Testimony also focused on workforce and claims-assistance issues. The Military Officers Association of America and James Keene urged passage of bills waiving duplicative education requirements so qualified veterans and military medics can become licensed practical nurses, arguing it would help address health care shortages and recognize military training. Brave Veterans Inc. called for a Veterans Research Trust Fund to protect data and program evaluation work during budget cuts. On claims assistance, one witness supported criminal penalties for unaccredited agents who charge veterans for VA claims help, while a private consulting firm opposed the bill, arguing it would restrict lawful speech and veterans’ choice and that existing federal and HERO Act safeguards already address abuses. The VFW strongly opposed paid claims consulting, said its accredited service officers provide free help statewide, and urged more public awareness of existing free services. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the hearing.