Transcript Highlights:

• Um, so we are trying to collaborate with the City and County of Honolulu and establish a testing site
• By declaring a public health emergency and inviting cross-sector collaboration, we can create a more
• inviting public health emergency and inviting cross-<00:37:57.520> sector<00:37:58.200> collaboration
• ,<00:37:59.200> we<00:37:59.440> can cross- sector collaboration, we can cross- sector
• collaboration, we can create<00:37:59.839> a<00:38:00.000> more<00:38:00.240> coordinated

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint committees heard House Bill 643, House Draft 2, which would create short-term management initiatives and appropriate funds for the coconut rhinoceros beetle response program. Testimony was overwhelmingly supportive. Committee discussion focused on biocontrol efforts, including fungus and virus-based treatments, the need for a biosecure facility, and the timeline for testing and range studies. Department of Agriculture officials said initial testing is underway at the University of Hawaii, but full testing requires a higher-biosafety facility that is not yet available on island. Members also discussed funding levels, the possibility of a mobile facility, and whether the work could be accelerated. The committees later voted to pass HB 643 unamended. The committees also heard House Bill 736, House Draft 1, which would establish a three-year wastewater system and individual wastewater technology testing pilot program at the University of Hawaii Water Resources Research Center. Supporters said the bill could help certify new, lower-cost decentralized wastewater technologies and reduce the cost of cesspool upgrades while improving water quality. University of Hawaii witnesses explained that the center would test technologies, collect samples, analyze results, and provide reports to the Department of Health for certification. Members raised concerns about whether the program would help communities facing immediate wastewater issues, the length of the testing timeline, and whether technologies like the Genki ball could be included. The committee was told the pilot would likely test one technology at a time over about nine months each, though multiple tests could run in parallel later. The committees voted to pass HB 736 unamended. After those measures, the joint committee moved to an AEN-only agenda and began hearing STR 111 / SR 92, which declares a public health emergency relating to climate change and calls for statewide coordination on cross-sector solutions. Testimony in support came from the Department of Agriculture, Hawaii Public Health Institute, and others. Supporters said climate change affects public health through heat, wildfire risk, invasive mosquitoes, and other impacts, and argued that the response should involve agriculture, planning, transportation, and emergency management, not just the Department of Health.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the training will be developed in collaboration with the Sexual Assault Response Team advisory committee
• The training will be developed in collaboration with the Sexual Assault Response Team advisory committee
• 00:46:01.520> be<00:46:01.680> developed<00:46:02.079> in<00:46:02.280> collaboration
• <00:46:03.000> with will be developed in collaboration with will be developed in collaboration

Keywords: Discussion on SB 132 - 00:06 Vote on SB 132 - 04:41 Discussion on HB 219 - 43:49 Vote on HB 219 – 49:00 Discussion on HCR 20 – 50:08 Vote on HCR 20 – 51:28, 958, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 132, which would create conscience protections for health care professionals who object to participating in certain procedures or services on religious, moral, or ethical grounds. Senator Donald Douglas and several supporters argued the bill is a recruitment and retention tool for Kentucky’s health care workforce, emphasizing provider shortages, maldistribution, and the need to protect individual conscience rights. Supporters said the bill would not apply to emergency care, would not permit denial of care based on a patient’s identity, and would mainly protect professionals from being forced to perform procedures they believe are unethical. They also cited similar laws in six other states and said the bill would have a cause of action to give it enforcement teeth. Supportive testimony came from an emergency physician, a registered nurse, and others who described personal experiences or examples involving objections to abortion-related care, opioid prescribing, and pressure to participate in procedures that conflicted with conscience. They said conscience protections would help attract providers, preserve ethical integrity, and allow clinicians to make professional judgments without corporate or institutional coercion. In questioning, senators asked about practical examples, the scope of the bill, whether it would cover hypothetical cases involving patients of particular religions or identities, and which states have similar laws. The sponsor and supporters repeatedly said the bill is about procedures, not patients, and that it should not be read to allow discrimination against individuals. Opponents, including pediatricians and a registered nurse/minister, warned that the bill is overly broad and could allow refusals of care by not only physicians but also pharmacists, clerks, and ambulance drivers. They argued it could delay treatment, increase discrimination, and worsen access problems in rural areas, especially for contraception, Plan B, blood transfusions, and other services. Critics said existing professional ethics already require patient care and that the bill could undermine evidence-based medicine and worsen Kentucky’s provider shortage. The committee took testimony and questions; no final vote or disposition was announced in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is an opportunity where our medical group and providers work collaboratively with our pharmacy team
• It is an opportunity where our medical group and providers work collaboratively with our pharmacy team
• where our Medical Group and providers where our Medical Group and providers work<00:20:53.760> collaboratively
• <00:20:54.600> with<00:20:54.760> our<00:20:54.960> Pharmacy work collaboratively
• with our Pharmacy work collaboratively with our Pharmacy team<00:20:56.120> and<00:20:56.280>

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:

• Um, we will be active participants, and we'll collaborate on the makeup of the work group.
• c><00:26:30.600> we'll be active participants and we'll be active participants and we'll collaborate
• 33.200> the<00:26:33.360> makeup<00:26:33.799> of<00:26:33.919> the collaborate
• on the um the makeup of the collaborate on the um the makeup of the work<00:26:34.399> group<
• We have been very grateful in the past year to collaborate with them and hear from them, their stories

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Education met on January 30 and heard testimony on several bills, beginning with an announcement asking testifiers and members to keep remarks brief because of weather. The vice chair also explained that HB 440, relating to immigration issues in schools and state hospitals, was removed from the agenda because the proposal would not create meaningful legal protections and immigration policy is governed by federal law. The committee then moved through a series of education-related measures, with testimony largely from the Department of Education, the School Facilities Authority, the Attorney General’s office, unions, advocacy groups, and individual testifiers. On HB 330, concerning school impact fees, the School Facilities Authority supported the bill as aligning policy with implementation, while the Tax Foundation of Hawaii said the fee accounts have accumulated large balances, including more than $20 million in impact fee funds and nearly $9 million from predecessor fair-share contributions, and urged that collected money be used rather than left idle. DOE said it would follow up on the balance and why it was not being used. On HB 1188, dealing with workforce housing, DOE and the Charter School Commission offered comments or support, the Attorney General suggested clarifying the phrase “within commuting distance” by using a mileage standard and adding repayment language, and HSTA, HGEA, and others supported the bill, with HSTA saying teachers need housing to be able to live and work in Hawaii. On HB 624 and HB 625, both related to school psychologists, DOE said it would participate in a work group on the pathway bill and supported the incentive program bill; school psychologists and related groups supported the measures, while one testifier said DOE should not lead the work group alone because school psychologists may work in many education settings beyond DOE schools. The committee also heard HB 1314 on youth mental health in schools. DOE described its student support process, universal screening tools, and behavioral health services, saying schools already identify and respond to concerns and that staff are trained to report issues, while the Attorney General warned the bill could expose schools to liability and recommended a broad liability waiver. Testimony was mixed, with several supporters and one opponent. On HB 616, concerning school safety and harassment protections for educational workers, the Attorney General sought clarifying amendments on harassment definitions, temporary restraining order costs, and paid leave, while HSTA, HGEA, and individual teachers strongly supported the bill, describing harassment incidents and arguing for a standardized statewide response. DOE said it already has reporting pathways, visitor codes of conduct, trespass notices, and an ethics hotline, but acknowledged implementation varies by school and that staff can escalate concerns if needed. The committee also began hearing HB 88 on a three-year pilot program for athletic travel, but the transcript cuts off before that bill’s testimony is completed or any votes are taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Where, in collaboration with the tribes and state, we jointly developed a multifaceted plan.
• what IHS is going to do in collaboration what IHS is going to do in collaboration with<02:41:49.040
• We did collaborate during that first cleanup with the Northern Arapaho Tribe, Eastern Shoshone Tribe,
• And then from that point moving forward, we began working collaboratively with the tribal leadership,
• <03:29:03.200> That's persons agency collaboration. That's persons agency collaboration.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Good morning, by the way, and I would like to first thank the committee for their great work in collaboration
• good morning, by the way, and I would like to first thank the committee for their great work in collaboration
• The Youth Law Center would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with the Legislature on such an approach
• He's very open and collaborative. For this committee, please engage with the Senator's office.
• He's very open and collaborative, and like Assembly Member Harabedian, I'll be looking at the final product

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• by the member from Essex, addresses, uh, you know, it requires the Green Mountain Care Board in collaboration
• by the member from Essex, addresses, uh, you know, it requires the Green Mountain Care Board in collaboration
• by the member from Essex, addresses, uh, you know, it requires the Green Mountain Care Board in collaboration
• by the member from Essex, addresses, uh, you know, it requires the Green Mountain Care Board in collaboration
• by the member from Essex, addresses, uh, you know, it requires the Green Mountain Care Board in collaboration

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House took up S. 190, a health care cost-containment bill relating to the Green Mountain Care Board, reference-based pricing, and a study of a public employee health benefit authority. The House first suspended rules to take the bill from the notice calendar, then heard committee reports from Health Care, Ways and Means, and Appropriations. The Health Care committee chair described the bill as a strike-all amendment intended to carry out Act 68’s hospital reference-based pricing timeline, saying it would let the Green Mountain Care Board begin implementation for fiscal year 2027, expand reference-based pricing to qualified health plans and the Vermont Education Health Insurance program, and address hospital pricing transparency, outsourcing, and critical access hospital Medicare outpatient cost-sharing issues. Supporters argued the bill would lower insurance costs, help reduce property taxes, and improve hospital sustainability by reducing the need for hospitals to limit access as they approach revenue caps. The Ways and Means committee said the bill could reduce education spending by lowering health care costs for school employees and reported the bill favorably on a 7-4 vote. The Appropriations committee said it reviewed the bill and an amendment, and noted that much of the detailed language would be changed by the appropriations amendment; it also discussed a possible state innovation waiver under the Affordable Care Act. The Health Care committee reported its strike-all amendment favorably on a 10-0 vote. The bill’s provisions were described in detail, including requiring hospitals and insurers to express rates as a percentage of Medicare, setting a path toward national median hospital prices by 2030, limiting certain reimbursements for QHP and VHI plans, requiring a report on hospital outsourcing and provider tax impacts, and creating a public health system performance tool if funding is available. The speaker also noted that the bill would not affect critical access hospitals or Vermont’s Medicare-dependent hospital in the reimbursement cap provisions, and that critical access hospitals were already working with the Green Mountain Care Board on solutions to Medicare outpatient cost-sharing concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are looking for collaboration.
• The door is open for collaboration.
• We need collaboration. We need to be.
• We need collaboration. We need to have those conversations.
• I want to thank the committee staff, as always, for their work in collaboration.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The role that we play on this committee and the collaboration as we move through the session.
• We collaborate regularly. We coordinate, cooperate, and de-conflict in our efforts.
• We also collaborate extensively with our partners here with MAUFU and with OIG, certainly with HHS.
• We are also highly collaborative with the Department of Justice.
• And then on slide eight, an important component of our collaboration involves data sharing.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Health and Human Services convened to discuss interim charges regarding fraud, waste, and abuse in Texas human services, particularly focusing on Medicaid and childcare programs. The meeting highlighted the importance of preventing misuse of taxpayer funds, with testimony from various stakeholders emphasizing the need for increased oversight and accountability in these programs. Key points included the alarming rise in healthcare fraud in other states, the necessity for Texas to enhance its fraud prevention measures, and the potential financial repercussions of failing to meet federal compliance standards. Several committee members expressed concerns about the impact of fraud on vulnerable populations, particularly those relying on Medicaid services. Testimonies from experts underscored the effectiveness of Texas's Office of Inspector General (OIG) in combating fraud, yet pointed out existing vulnerabilities, such as inconsistent enforcement and the need for better data sharing among agencies. The discussion also touched on the challenges faced by hospice care providers, with a significant increase in the number of hospices in Texas raising concerns about quality and oversight. The committee heard from various witnesses, including representatives from health plans and advocacy organizations, who provided insights into the complexities of managing Medicaid and the importance of maintaining program integrity. The meeting concluded with a commitment to further explore legislative solutions to enhance oversight and ensure that resources are directed to those in genuine need.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, I also want to let you know that the Strauss Foundation in collaboration with the Maryland Commission
• Now, I also want to let you know that the Strauss Foundation in collaboration with the Maryland Commission
• The Strauss Foundation in collaboration with the Maryland Commission for Women has also given grants
• <00:45:09.480> Care<00:45:09.720> Model, Insurance Collaborative Care Model, Insurance
• Collaborative Care Model, Cost-Sharing<00:45:10.960> Prohibition<00:45:11.600> and<00:

Keywords: House streaming session for Wednesday, March 18, 2026, 957, house, all

Summary: The House convened with a quorum and then moved through messages from the Senate, introducing several Senate bills and referring them to committees. It then took up multiple third-reading calendars and considered a large number of bills across public health, criminal law, education, estates and trusts, social services, and state government. Most bills passed with broad margins, including measures on fiduciary attorney-client privilege, food labeling and prohibited ingredients, human trafficking awareness training, pharmacy prescriber-pharmacist agreements, provisional social work licensure, structural racism training funding sources, youth delinquency prevention funding, menstrual hygiene product labeling, school resource officer sexual activity prohibitions, nurse licensure enforcement, physician delegation changes, child support income definitions, AI-related child sexual abuse material, trauma-informed care resources, restrictive housing for people with developmental or intellectual disabilities, open movie captioning, autism and dementia police training, gift card fraud, scholarship eligibility, retention proceeds, graduate scholarship eligibility, intercepted communications penalties, benefits for children in custody, juvenile supervision petitions, institutional debt reporting, contraception access reporting, surgical smoke evacuation systems, tax foreclosure notice requirements, special police officer study, child advocacy center standards, victim notification at charging, human trafficking reporting, drug dispensing cost surveys, school board nominating commission changes, the Henrietta Lacks Commission, ID card photograph requirements, and several others. A few bills drew substantive floor discussion. House Bill 963 on appointment of personal representatives was supported as a way to help families and heirs access assets, including in cross-border situations. House Bill 877 on institutional debt reporting prompted debate over whether the bill was useful and whether it would burden colleges; supporters said it would create needed aggregate data and a data dictionary to better understand debt incurred directly from institutions. House Bill 1076 on over-the-counter contraception access and reporting was clarified as a reporting measure that harmonizes prior reporting requirements and does not use taxpayer funds to purchase contraception, though grants had supported vending machine installation. House Bill 288 on extending a state of emergency for schools was explained as applying to natural disasters, civil disasters, public health emergencies, or specific security threats, with one member expressing concern about state involvement and learning loss from prolonged closures. House Bill 746 on the Medicaid/health insurance collaborative care model was briefly delayed by a computer issue, then passed after a short pause. Several members announced vote changes after the roll calls, including corrections on House Bills 65, 771, 769, 900, 1058, 1076, 1490, 1540, and 1554. Final actions on the floor were overwhelmingly favorable to the bills considered, with only a handful of measures drawing notable negative votes, including House Bills 410, 963, 1042, 1058, 1076, 1152, 1540, and 1554. The House also passed a number of local and policy bills with strong bipartisan support, and no amendments or motions to postpone were recorded in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is the product of careful, monthslong collaboration.
• This bill is the product of careful, monthslong collaboration.
• c><00:31:31.360> monthslong product of careful monthslong product of careful monthslong collaboration
• It was developed through collaboration.
• This IRP has to be developed in collaboration with the student's parent or guardian, and it has to be

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In Minnesota, a collaboration of community and family foundations, Foundations for Home, stepped forward
• In<00:36:34.880> Minnesota,<00:36:35.520> a<00:36:35.760> collaboration<00:36:36.320
• > of In Minnesota, a collaboration of In Minnesota, a collaboration of community<00:36:37.040>
• Beacon is a nonprofit provider and a collaborative of congregations with 24 buildings serving over 1,200
• Beacon is a nonprofit provider and a collaborative of congregations with 24 buildings serving over 1,200

Bills: HF3425, HF3424, HF1385

Keywords: supportive housing, grants, housing assistance, funding, Minnesota Statutes, eviction, rent, nonpayment of rent, landlord-tenant, residential tenant, notice to quit, unlawful detainer, housing, lease violation, late fees, rental assistance, legal aid, tenant rights, Minnesota Statutes 504B.321, pre-eviction notice

Transcript Highlights:

• We developed relationships and collaborated with other small business agencies, including the SBA, D-BAT
• > with<00:04:41.760> other<00:04:42.080> small<00:04:42.440> business collaborated
• with other small business collaborated with other small business agencies,<00:04:44.080> including
• >> We also are collaborating with other agencies like DEBITS doing their small business fair in February
• We also are collaborating with business?

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Government Operations held an informational briefing with the State Procurement Office on its small business procurement program. SPO staff described the program’s purpose as expanding access to state contracting for small businesses, including veteran-, Native Hawaiian-, and women-owned firms, and said they are seeking to make the current five-year initiative permanent before it ends in June 2027. They reported outreach efforts, a new website and newsletter, statewide surveys, draft administrative rules, and a 38% increase in small business registrations in the HANS database. They also explained that the program is intended to support outreach, education, certification, compliance, and a statewide database to connect agencies with qualified small businesses. Committee members focused heavily on whether the program is producing measurable contract awards, not just registrations. The chair and senators questioned the definition of “small business,” noting that SPO currently relies on SBA standards in HANS and is considering a Hawaii-specific definition based on employees, revenue, and Hawaii residency. Members raised concerns that the data showed only a small number of registered businesses receiving awards and that the database does not yet track awards well enough to evaluate performance. SPO responded that the database has had funding gaps, that the position was only filled in February 2025, and that the agency is still building the system and rules needed to track outcomes accurately. A major theme was how to make the program more effective for very small or “micro” businesses and how to reduce the complexity of state procurement. Members discussed the difference between set-asides and bid preferences, with SPO explaining that set-asides are generally tied to RFPs and preferences to IFBs. The committee suggested that future rules should make participation easier, provide more training and hand-holding, and possibly create pathways for micro businesses or groups of small businesses to bid together. No votes or formal actions were taken; the briefing ended with the committee asking SPO to provide more performance data and clearer information on outreach results and database contents.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we're going to negotiate, you know, decide that and collaborate and see if we need to keep it separate
• 32:40.080> and negotiate, you know, decide that and negotiate, you know, decide that and collaborate
• and see if we need to keep collaborate and see if we need to keep it<00:32:42.480> separate<00
• We collaborate<01:20:53.520> with<01:20:53.760> a<01:20:54.000> broad<01:20:54.320
• > community<01:20:54.640> of collaborate with a broad community of collaborate with a broad

Keywords: Discussion of BR 25 (2026 RS) 04:15 Presentation on voting systems by ES&S 48:14 Presentation on voting systems by Hart InterCivic and Harp Enterprises 01:13:07, 958, all

Summary: The committee met to approve the October 21 minutes and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal relating to prohibited uses of tax dollars and public resources. The sponsors said the bill is intended to strengthen existing law by adding civil and criminal penalties for taxpayer-funded advocacy on ballot questions, especially in light of controversies during the 2024 election over school officials and districts using public resources to oppose a constitutional amendment. They also described related concerns about school districts hiring third-party lobbyists and public relations firms, particularly in Fayette County, and said the proposal was meant to keep tax dollars focused on public services rather than political persuasion. Committee members raised several concerns about scope and drafting. Some asked whether the bill should specifically mention schools, school boards, and school employees, and the sponsors said they would add that language. Others questioned whether the measure would also affect local government lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, and the sponsors said they intended to focus narrowly on schools while exempting certain advocacy organizations and internal government lobbyists. Members also asked whether public employees could still speak as private individuals, and the sponsors said yes. Several members suggested splitting the lobbying and ballot-advocacy issues into separate bills, and the sponsors said they would consider that. Members also pressed for clarification on how the bill would apply in practice, including whether it would cover legal challenges to petition drives or only advocacy after a question is on the ballot. Counsel for the sponsors said the bill would not cover some petition-related litigation as drafted, though they believed it should. The sponsors and supporters argued the proposal was needed to give the existing prohibition real enforcement, while some members warned that the language could unintentionally limit legitimate public representation or be too broad if not carefully drafted. No final vote was taken during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• physical recovery funds to help Simmons College on certain initiatives and to help healthcare collaborative
• <00:54:09.599> and<00:54:09.839> create healthc care collaborative and create healthc
• care collaborative and create healthc<00:54:10.480> care<00:54:10.720> opportunities<00
• And so what Futurity is, was initially a collaboration between KDE, CPE, and KY Stats to meet a need
• A few years ago, Representative Miles had legislation to form a collaborative in the Owensboro area.

Keywords: The livestream event for this meeting failed before the meeting was finished. This copy was pulled from backups and is reposted in it's entirety., 958, all

Summary: The committee met to review KHEAA’s student aid programs ahead of the upcoming biennial budget. KHEAA officials outlined the agency’s role administering state grants and scholarships, emphasizing that net lottery proceeds are statutorily dedicated to student financial aid after a literacy appropriation. They focused on the College Access Program (CAP), Kentucky Tuition Grant (KTG), and KEES, and explained that the FAFSA simplification changes significantly expanded eligibility for Pell and CAP recipients. KHEAA said the General Assembly’s additional funding this biennium allowed CAP to be fully funded, and that FY25 spending for CAP reached about $232 million for roughly 72,000 students, up from about 55,000 recipients the prior year. Officials said they are watching current-year application trends closely and expect a clearer funding picture by late fall as awards are actually disbursed and enrollment data comes in. Members asked about how CAP eligibility works, the difference between applicants and recipients, and whether KTG is tied to Pell eligibility. KHEAA explained that CAP is essentially aligned with Pell eligibility, while KTG uses a different need formula and is limited to private colleges in Kentucky. They also noted that schools verify final eligibility after KHEAA’s initial review of application data. Questions about the FAFSA simplification act and federal changes led KHEAA to say they do not expect major effects on state grant and scholarship programs, though federal student loan changes may affect students, especially at the graduate level. The committee also discussed KEES, which KHEAA said has been fully funded since its creation, and dual credit/work-ready scholarships. KHEAA reported that dual credit participation continues to grow and that FY25 spending for dual credit and Work Ready Kentucky totaled about $26.4 million, compared with a $13.1 million appropriation, with transfers from Work Ready used to keep dual credit fully funded. Officials said they will seek growth funding for dual credit in the next budget because the program has expanded and now includes the work-ready component under one statute. Members asked about transferability of dual credit courses and whether students actually use the credits toward degrees; KHEAA said it does not have hard data on every credit’s transfer, but it is seeing positive trends in bachelor’s completion and more high school graduates earning associate degrees. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the July 15, 2025 meeting minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we're really excited to collaborate and see those in both positions.
• Um, so I want to thank the legislature for your bipartisan collaboration on that provision.
• :46:22.400> really<00:46:22.720> excited<00:46:23.040> to<00:46:23.359> collaborate
• So, we're really excited to collaborate So, we're really excited to collaborate and<00:46:24.079
• <00:48:23.839> on<00:48:24.160> that bipartisan collaboration on that bipartisan collaboration

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I continue to be open to working with the opposition and would invite their collaboration so that we
• Every decision has required careful collaboration with my gastroenterologist who understands the full
• So, you know, I think these changes appreciate the thoughtfulness and collaboration of the committee.
• We advise and promote the collaborative work of policymakers, industry leaders, and patient-centered
• Moving forward, I am committed to collaborating with... ...this measure.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee met on April 22 and took up a special order of bills focused largely on prior authorization and utilization management in health care. The chair framed the discussion as part of a broader legislative effort to reduce delays and barriers to care, especially in behavioral health, chronic disease management, cancer treatment, and rehabilitation services. AB 384 by Assembly Member Connolly would prohibit prior authorization for inpatient mental health or substance use emergency admissions and related physician care; supporters said it would prevent dangerous delays in crisis care, while insurers and health plans warned about fraud, abuse, and ambiguity around residential treatment facilities. The bill was moved on a due pass as amended motion and passed the committee on a party-line style vote, with Republicans largely absent or not voting. The committee then heard AB 510 by Assembly Member Addis, which would require health plans, upon request, to provide a peer reviewer of the same or similar specialty when a treating provider appeals a prior authorization denial or modification. Supporters argued that specialty-matched review would make appeals fairer and more clinically informed; opponents said the requirement was too rigid and that timelines and electronic submission rules needed changes. After discussion about the need for timely, specialty-specific review, the bill was approved on a due pass as amended motion and placed on call. AB 539 by Assembly Member Schiavo would extend prior authorization approvals to one year or the duration of the physician’s prescribed treatment for chronic conditions; supporters cited repeated denials and treatment interruptions, while opponents raised concerns about overbreadth, fraud, and the need for shorter validity periods. The bill was also passed as amended and placed on call. The committee next considered AB 669 by Assembly Member Haney, which would bar concurrent and retrospective review for the first 28 days of medically necessary substance use disorder treatment and limit prior authorization for related outpatient medications. The bill was presented with a powerful personal story from Ryan Matlock’s mother about her son’s death after an insurer cut off treatment early; supporters said the measure would keep patients in care long enough to stabilize, while opponents argued it would reduce oversight and could allow lower-quality or non-evidence-based care. The bill was moved on a due pass as amended motion and placed on call. Finally, AB 512 by Assembly Member Harabedian would shorten prior authorization response times to 24 hours for urgent requests and 48 hours for non-urgent requests; supporters said delays can worsen outcomes, while opponents warned the timelines were unrealistic and could increase administrative burdens and safety issues. The bill was approved as amended and placed on call. AB 574 by Assembly Member Mark Gonzalez was then heard; it would allow up to 12 medically necessary physical therapy sessions for a new episode of care without prior authorization, with supporters emphasizing stroke and neurological recovery and opponents warning of reduced oversight and unnecessary care. The transcript ends during testimony on AB 574, before final action is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• that I can also emulate that openness to learning new things and I just really appreciate your collaboration
• So thank you and I will collaboration.
• that it's really perfect that a bill about restorative practices was handled in a restorative, collaborative
• <01:39:41.720> restorative, was handled in a restorative, was handled in a restorative, collaborative
• So, um I thank you collaborative way.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Um so, about over nearly a decade ago the Department of Human Services, in collaboration with the federal
• government, in collaboration with this legislature, did reform in this area of law, and we called it
• <01:42:54.600> with<01:42:54.720> the<01:42:54.800> federal collaboration with the
• federal collaboration with the federal government,<01:42:55.720> in<01:42:55.840> collaboration
• , in collaboration with this legislature<01:42:58.120> um<01:42:58.360> did<01:42:58.800

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• When employees are engaged, productive, collaborative, they're offering the kinds of innovation and efficiencies
• <00:05:22.440> they're uh productive collaborative they're uh productive collaborative they're
• The goal of the office is to bolster interagency collaboration on big topics that impact the health of
• the office is to bolster inter goal of the office is to bolster inter agency<00:25:42.679> collaboration
• on big topics that agency collaboration on big topics that impact<00:25:45.279> the<00:25:45.399

Bills: HF10

Keywords: undocumented immigrants, state funding, MinnesotaCare, scholarship ineligibility, state assistance, 1183, house