Transcript Highlights:

• </c> because Under The Prompt payment because Under The Prompt payment statute<00:24:23.679><c> um</c
• We make weekly payments to general contractors, especially those who submit our payment applications,
• often averaging over 20 payments per week, including up to about $8 million per week in payments.
• the payment payment requirements the payment performance<00:35:51.119><c> bonds</c><00:35:52.119><c>
• in these payment receiv these payment in these payment inquiries<00:37:00.319><c> we</c><00:37:00.440

Bills: HF1234 , HF1956 , HF1025 , HF1172 , HF791

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• favoring greater incentivization of unconditional payments.
• It clarifies that a payment doesn't restart prescription. Simple as that.
• So, no, by accepting a payment, you're not relinquishing your right to file... ...accepting a payment
• any payments.
• And that tender is not just for the medical payment portion. ...treat.

Committee: House Insurance

Transcript Highlights:

• And in addition to the regular fee-for-service payments, we do make hospital access payments.
• Our UPL payment, or upper payment limit payment, is $473 million for state fiscal year 25.
• upper payment limit payments.
• That sets your upper payment limit.
• So the hospitals fund their upper payment limit payments.

Committee: All ALC-HOSPITAL, MEDICAID, & DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE

Summary: The subcommittee met to review Department of Human Services hospital payments in Arkansas Medicaid, with DHS Secretary Janet Mann and Deputy Secretary Misty Eubanks presenting first, followed by Arkansas Hospital Association Executive Vice President Jody Ann Tritt and a brief comment from Arkansas Children’s. DHS outlined the main hospital payment streams: fee-for-service per diem payments, upper payment limit (UPL) supplemental payments, cost settlements, and smaller payments such as graduate medical education and disproportionate share hospital funds. Members asked for plain-language explanations of cost settlements, why per diem rates vary by hospital type, and why UPL applies to private hospitals. DHS said cost settlements and UPL are mechanisms to help offset Medicaid underpayment, with SFY 2025 hospital payments totaling hundreds of millions of dollars and no general revenue used for supplemental payments beyond the state share funded through hospital assessments and related financing structures. Committee members focused heavily on whether Arkansas hospitals are adequately reimbursed and why rural hospitals struggle. Tritt explained that critical access hospitals, rural emergency hospitals, PPS hospitals, and specialty hospitals operate under different federal and state rules, and said lower per diem rates for some facilities help with cash flow and later cost settlement adjustments. She said Arkansas hospitals are under financial strain, citing a negative patient services margin statewide and noting that Medicaid, Medicare, and commercial payers all contribute to the problem. She also said the association had just authorized a statewide survey of hospital finances and costs, which she expected would take about a year to complete. A major theme was commercial insurance reimbursement. Tritt argued Arkansas hospitals are paid far less than hospitals in neighboring states even though premiums are similar, and said administrative burdens, prior authorizations, and denials add to the problem. She said hospitals receive about 52 to 53 cents on the dollar for Medicaid costs without UPL and about 78 cents with UPL, still below cost. Members also discussed Medicare wage index issues, Medicare Advantage, and whether hospitals could use technology or alternative arrangements to improve finances. No votes were taken on the hospital presentation. At the end of the meeting, DHS provided a brief update on Living Choices and assisted living reimbursement. Officials said one assisted living facility, Pillars of the Community in Crossett, had announced closure, with nine waiver clients being transitioned to other settings. DHS said the current cost reporting period was underway and that a new rate study could be ready for review before the end of the fiscal year if reports were submitted on time. Members also asked about the broader waiver plan, and DHS said the next waiver iteration would likely be brought back to the committee in the summer.

Transcript Highlights:

• In addition to the regular fee-for-service payments, we do make hospital access payments and cost settlements
• Our UPL payment, or upper payment limit payment, is $473 million for state fiscal year 25.
• upper payment limit payments.
• Medicare is considered the upper payment. So the difference is the total payment that can be paid.
• So the hospitals fund their upper payment limit payments.

Committee: All ALC-HOSPITAL, MEDICAID, & DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE

Transcript Highlights:

• BNPL is typically offered during a customer payment at the point of payment during a transaction and
• When a consumer chooses BNPL, they're required to set up an automatic payment, electronic payment option
• Again, there's an automatic payment schedule that's set up at the time of the transaction, so those payments
• So when you are at the point of payment, when you choose your payment option, and what I mean by that
• Payments are typically automatic.

Summary: The Consumer Protection and Business Committee held a work session on buy now, pay later (BNPL) transactions, focusing on how the products work, how they are used in Washington, and whether existing state law adequately protects consumers. Department of Financial Institutions staff described BNPL as short-term, usually no-interest installment financing offered at checkout, often with automatic payments, late fees, and varying credit-reporting practices. Members asked how BNPL compares with payday lending and earned wage access, whether it is effectively a loan or credit product, and whether Washington law already covers it. DFI explained that some BNPL structures may fall into a legal gray area under the Retail Installment Sales of Goods and Services Act because pay-in-four products may not meet the statute’s “more than four installments” language, while other structures may be covered; they also noted the Attorney General can enforce the act. DFI and committee members discussed consumer risks such as overextension, automatic debits, and lack of standardized disclosures, and DFI said it would follow up with additional data on defaults and related issues. Molly Gallagher of the Poverty Action Network and Nadine Chabrier of the Center for Responsible Lending argued that BNPL can help consumers but also poses significant risks, especially for lower-income consumers and consumers of color who already carry debt or use other alternative financial products. They said BNPL use has grown rapidly, often involves multiple simultaneous loans across providers, and can lead to overdrafts, late fees, and difficulty tracking obligations because payments are spread across different schedules. They emphasized concerns about weak disclosures, limited dispute protections, automatic payment structures, credit reporting inconsistencies, consumer overextension, and data privacy/dark-pattern marketing. They also described federal retrenchment, including the CFPB’s withdrawal of an interpretive rule that would have treated BNPL like a digital credit card, and pointed to state responses in places like New York, California, and Maryland. Committee members signaled interest in possible Washington legislation and stronger state oversight. Retail and business witnesses offered a more favorable view of BNPL as a cash-flow and sales tool. A Washington Retail Association representative described BNPL as an evolution of layaway and credit-card-style installment purchasing, noting that merchants receive payment up front minus fees while consumers get goods or services immediately and repay over time. A representative from a business using deferred-payment financing said the tool helps customers obtain equipment and helps the business manage inventory and cash flow, while NFIB said small businesses also use BNPL to bridge expenses and avoid higher-interest credit card debt. Members asked about merchant fees, consumer education, and whether BNPL is being used for impulse purchases or essential expenses like rent, car repairs, medical care, and travel. The chair concluded by saying the committee intends to pursue regulatory language and continue working with stakeholders, while also hearing from retailers to avoid eliminating legitimate financing tools.

Transcript Highlights:

• state-directed payment limits.
• ,</c> expansion enrollment, provider payments, expansion enrollment, provider payments, particularly<
• payments which are payments<00:09:20.720><c> to</c><00:09:21.040><c> providers</c><00:09:22.000><c>
• </c> Combined effects on provider payments Combined effects on provider payments are<00:13:51.440><c>
• </c> Medicaid state directed payment program. Medicaid state directed payment program.

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board met on July 30, 2025, approved the June 25 minutes, and received a presentation from Katherine Castanza of the National Conference of State Legislatures on Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1. The presentation outlined more than 20 Medicaid-related provisions, emphasizing that the largest federal savings come from work/community engagement requirements, changes to provider taxes, limits on state-directed payments, more frequent eligibility redeterminations for expansion populations, and related eligibility/enrollment changes. She said the fiscal effects are backloaded, with most reductions occurring in the later years of the 10-year window, and noted potential significant impacts on hospital payments and state financing. She also described new funding opportunities, including a $50 billion rural health transformation fund and a new home and community-based services waiver with associated grants. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on Kentucky’s pending community engagement 1115 waiver and how it would interact with the new federal requirements. Board members asked whether the waiver had been approved, what the cabinet’s contingency plan would be if CMS does not approve it, and what the timeline is for compliance. Cabinet representatives said the waiver has not yet been approved by CMS, remains under public comment, and that the state will wait for CMS guidance before moving forward; if needed, the state would amend the waiver or submit a new one. They said the work requirement must be in place by January 1, 2027, with a possible extension to 2028. Castanza also explained that expansion adults with incomes between 100% and 138% of the federal poverty level would face new cost-sharing requirements beginning October 1, 2028, and that eligibility redeterminations would move from annual to every six months starting January 1, 2027. She then walked through provider tax changes, including a moratorium on new provider taxes beginning October 1, 2026, and a phased reduction in the hold-harmless threshold for existing taxes beginning January 1, 2028, with exemptions for nursing facilities and ICF/IID providers. Board members questioned the timing and likely impact on Kentucky, and Castanza responded that the effect would depend on each tax’s current rate and would phase in over time.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:03:09.040><c> And</c> service for non-payment in 2025. And service for non-payment in 2025.
• ,</c> or natural gas service for non-payment, or natural gas service for non-payment, um<00:04:03.519
• </c> typically um set up a payment typically um set up a payment arrangement<00:04:20.639><c> of</c><
• Reconnection fees for non-payment.
• </c> Reconnection fees for non-payment. Reconnection fees for non-payment.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is a state-specific rate of payment operations.
• The payment system works the exact same way.
• or other participants in the payment system.
• And that's all because of electronic payments.
• All of that is enabled by electronic payments.

Summary: The Special Commission on the future of payments and sales transactions by credit card heard extensive testimony from credit union, banking, retail, restaurant, and payments-industry representatives about proposals to limit interchange fees, especially on the tax and tip portions of transactions. Several witnesses opposed state-level restrictions, arguing they would create a patchwork of rules, burden state-chartered institutions, raise compliance complexity, and ultimately reduce resources for fraud prevention, cybersecurity, rewards, and access to credit. Others, including retail and merchant advocates, said swipe fees are a significant and growing cost for small businesses and that states should consider reforms such as limiting fees on taxes and tips, allowing surcharging, improving transparency in merchant contracts, and studying collection costs more closely. Witnesses also discussed recent legal and regulatory developments, including Illinois’s interchange-fee law, OCC and NCUA interim rules, and the ongoing Visa/Mastercard antitrust settlement. Industry representatives said the Illinois law has been delayed and is likely preempted for most transactions, while merchant advocates argued the state efforts and court rulings show that networks and banks do not set fees competitively. The proposed antitrust settlement was described by some as a meaningful but limited merchant victory, with temporary fee reductions and expanded surcharge/steering rights, while others said it still falls short of structural reform. The commission members pressed witnesses on the practical effects of fees, the cost of cash, whether merchants can pass costs through, and whether small businesses are actually seeing benefits from the current system. Members repeatedly emphasized the need for a fair middle ground that protects both small businesses and the payment system. No substantive votes or policy actions were taken beyond accepting testimony, and the meeting ended with adjournment after all scheduled witnesses had spoken.

Transcript Highlights:

• is really capping the amount state directed payments at 100 to 210% of Medicare as the upper payment
• But about 9 billion and supplemental payments associated with these 5 state directed payments.
• is payments under Medicaid.
• Every 3 years we have a payment.
• Supplemental payment is at 213%.

Transcript Highlights:

• They said the next payment we'll send you will deduct $5 million.
• , whatever it happens to be, you can be making a payment for a travel voucher, you can be making a payment
• Now, we have to make a payment by date certain.
• Now we have to make a payment by date certain.
• eligibility prior to each payment.

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Pre-K - 12 Education

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Committee on Pre-K-12 Education met for its first meeting of the 2025 session to hear the Auditor General’s operational audit on 2024-25 school funding accountability challenges, focused largely on the Family Empowerment Scholarship and its interaction with the FEFP. Deputy Auditor General Matthew Tracy described rapid growth in scholarship enrollment, timing mismatches between scholarship payments and public-school funding calculations, delayed membership survey processing, weak cross-check and recoupment procedures, inconsistent handling of parent survey responses, and limited documentation for withholding and returning funds. The audit said these issues contributed to funding inequities, duplicate-payment risks, and an unexpected draw on state education funds, and it recommended separating scholarship funding from the FEFP, aligning application windows with budget timing, strengthening controls and staffing, and creating clearer, documented recoupment and balance-limit processes. Committee members questioned whether current law gives the department and scholarship funding organizations enough authority and whether the system is effectively a pay-and-chase model. Several senators expressed concern about the lack of timely reconciliation, the size of the funds involved, and the absence of clear records showing how money was recovered or withheld. Adam Emerson, executive director of the Office of School Choice, said the department is working more closely with school districts and scholarship funding organizations, including pausing payments when districts identify students still enrolled in public schools, and said the office wants to improve the process. President Gates then previewed legislation he said would address the audit’s findings by funding Family Empowerment Scholarships as a separate FEFP categorical, expanding the Education Stabilization Fund, setting clearer application and acceptance deadlines, moving to monthly payments with eligibility verification before each payment, assigning student IDs for scholarship assistance, lowering SFO management fees, requiring annual audits, and requiring prompt return of audit-related funds. Public comment included a private-school attorney describing losses from unpaid scholarship amounts. Members generally supported the need for reform, with several senators saying the program should be preserved but better structured and more accountable. The committee adjourned after the discussion, with no vote taken on the legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:04:21.720><c> program</c> compensation support payment program compensation support payment program
• payment payment um<00:07:49.440><c> I</c><00:07:49.560><c> can</c><00:07:49.759><c> give</c><00:07:49.919
• payment payment if<00:08:00.720><c> the</c><00:08:00.960><c> provider</c><00:08:01.759><c> is</c><00
• </c><00:47:39.400><c> if</c> can withhold or end CCAP payments if can withhold or end CCAP payments if
• <00:49:03.200><c> in</c> payments in payments in 2024<00:49:04.960><c> and</c><00:49:05.119><c> there

Committee: House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• It is a state-specific rate of payment operations.
• The payment system works the exact same way.
• or other participants in the payment system.
• And that's all because of electronic payments.
• All of that is enabled by electronic payments.

Summary: The Special Commission on the future of credit card payments and their impacts on small businesses heard testimony from credit union, retail, banking, and payments industry representatives. Much of the discussion focused on proposals to exclude sales tax and tips from interchange fees, the Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act and related litigation, and whether similar state action in Massachusetts would help small businesses or instead create a patchwork that burdens state-chartered institutions. Witnesses from defense and community credit unions argued interchange helps fund fraud prevention, cybersecurity, member services, and low-fee products, while retail and NRF representatives said merchants are paying significant swipe fees and that state laws like Illinois’s are aimed at reducing costs that are not being passed on to consumers. Several witnesses emphasized that the current payment system provides security, fraud protection, rewards, and access to credit, and that many of the costs merchants complain about are actually bundled processor or acquirer fees rather than interchange itself. Others countered that small businesses are struggling with rising overall costs and that Massachusetts should consider reforms such as allowing surcharging, improving transparency in merchant contracts, and studying collection costs. There was also discussion of the recent Visa/Mastercard antitrust settlement, with industry witnesses describing it as meaningful relief for merchants and opponents saying it is temporary and incomplete. No formal votes were taken on legislation. The commission accepted oral testimony, noted that written testimony would be accepted through July 31, and concluded the meeting by unanimously voting to adjourn. The chair and members said they would continue gathering testimony and work toward recommendations, with the chair stressing the need to find a fair middle ground that supports both small businesses and the broader payments ecosystem.

Transcript Highlights:

• We recognize the policy arguments favoring greater incentivization of unconditional payment.
• Arguments favoring greater incentivization of unconditional payments.
• It clarifies that a payment doesn't restart prescription. Simple as that.
• Basically, if I receive a partial payment, it. I'm sorry, say that again.
• any payments.

Committee: House Insurance

Summary: The House Insurance Committee met on April 14 with a quorum present and first deferred Senate Bill 241 to the following week. The committee then took up House Bill 1117, which would clarify that an insurer’s payment on a first-party claim does not restart the two-year prescriptive period for filing suit. The sponsor said the bill responds to a Louisiana Supreme Court decision and is intended to restore a fixed deadline from the date of loss. Testimony from the Department of Insurance and industry representatives was generally supportive, and members discussed whether policyholders could be confused by partial payments and whether insurers have any duty to warn them about prescription. Representative Glorioso moved the bill favorably, and it was reported favorable without objection. The committee next considered House Bill 943, which creates a process for insurers to check for delinquent child support before issuing certain settlement payments and to withhold and remit arrears to DCFS. The committee adopted a substitute bill and then a committee amendment narrowing the scope by removing annuities and life insurance beneficiaries from the definition of covered recipients. The sponsor described the measure as a tool to help children receive overdue support, and DCFS said Louisiana currently lacks a legal mechanism to capture some settlement payouts owed by noncustodial parents. Members discussed how the bill differs from existing child support liens and whether it would close gaps in current enforcement. The transcript cuts off during that discussion, before any final vote on House Bill 943 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• of care, and what happens when there's a payment dispute?
• It fixes glitches in the payment dispute...
• , more efficient, and create additional payment options.
• to U.S. dollars processing them like any other payment method.
• I was given a couple different options for making payments.

Bills: S0158 , S0314 , S0618 , S0684 , S0838 , S0990 , S1000 , S1082 , S1452 , S1494 , S1500 , S1568 , S1706

Committee: Senate Banking and Insurance

Summary: The Banking and Insurance Committee heard and advanced a wide range of insurance, financial services, and probate bills. Early in the meeting, SB 1000 on trust fund interest for attorney trust accounts was explained as setting a floor and ceiling tied to the Wall Street Journal prime rate and was reported favorably. The committee then took up CS/SB 1082 on a statewide provider and health plan claim dispute resolution program for emergency out-of-network claims. After extensive discussion about the relationship between the state and federal No Surprises Act processes, an amendment was withdrawn due to concerns about clarity and scope, but the bill itself was supported by providers and insurers and was reported favorably. The committee also approved SB 684 on electronic signatures for total loss vehicles and vessels, CS/SB 158 on pet insurance consumer disclosures and agent education, SB 1494 expanding breast cancer screening coverage, CS/SB 314 on digital assets and stablecoin issuers, and CS/SB 1500 on uncontested probate procedures and small-estate administration. SB 618 on workers’ compensation insurance was amended to raise the consent-to-rate cap for workers’ compensation policies from 10% to 20% and then reported favorably, with supporters saying it would help keep higher-risk employers in the voluntary market. CS/SB 1568 creating a Florida Stablecoin Pilot Program was amended to remove authority for a Florida coin and limit the program to existing stablecoins, then passed. Later, the committee approved CS/SB 838 on electronic payment convenience fees for retail installment contracts, with the sponsor emphasizing that a fee-free payment option must still be offered. SB 1452, the Department of Financial Services agency bill, was amended and reported favorably; it covered My Safe Florida Home administration, insurance and licensing changes, unclaimed property updates, and other DFS-related provisions. The committee also passed SB 1706 on the My Safe Florida Condominium Pilot Program, targeting owner-occupied condominiums at or below 80% of area median income, and SB 990 on protected cell captive insurance companies, which supporters said would modernize Florida’s captive insurance laws and encourage more competition. The meeting ended with all listed bills reported favorably and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The payment system works the same way. The payment system works the exact same way.
• , with B-to-B settlements, and other payments.
• or other participants in the payment system.
• or other participants in the payment system.
• All of that enabled by electronic payments.

Summary: The Special Commission on the future of credit card payments and their impacts on small businesses heard extensive testimony from credit unions, retailers, payment industry groups, and a credit card issuer. Much of the discussion focused on proposed state laws that would limit interchange fees on the tax and tip portions of transactions, especially Illinois’s Interchange Fee Prohibition Act and similar efforts in other states. Witnesses opposing the proposals argued that interchange helps fund fraud protection, cybersecurity, rewards, and access to credit, and warned that state-by-state rules would create a patchwork that could harm state-chartered banks and credit unions, raise compliance costs, and reduce consumer access to credit. Supporters of reform argued that swipe fees are a significant burden on merchants, especially small businesses, and that current pricing is opaque and often bundled with other processor charges. Several witnesses emphasized that the current payment system provides major benefits to merchants and consumers, including security, convenience, faster settlement, online commerce, and broader access to credit. One witness from Capital One said the industry’s losses from fraud and default are substantial and that interchange helps offset those risks; he also noted that merchants already have some tools, such as surcharging where allowed and negotiating clearer processor contracts. Retail representatives and the National Retail Federation countered that small businesses are under pressure from many costs and that interchange and related fees remain a real pain point, with some urging the commission to consider reforms that would return more money to businesses without disrupting the system. There was also discussion of the recent Visa/Mastercard antitrust settlement, with industry witnesses describing it as a significant merchant win that includes temporary rate reductions, more surcharge flexibility, and the ability to decline certain card tiers. No votes were taken. The meeting concluded after all scheduled testimony was heard, with the commission chair saying the session had been productive and that the committee would continue gathering testimony and written comments before making recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• , by the banks that issue cards, and by the banks and other payment service providers that process payments
• The merchant is fully protected from non-payment.
• We are a national trade association for the payment card industry.
• Our members include payment card networks, transaction processors, and some large-scale payment card
• Our members include payment card networks, transaction processors, and some large-scale payment card

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the future of credit card payments and their impacts on small businesses held what was described as its last public hearing. Chair Paul Feeney opened by noting the commission’s mandate under Chapter 238 of the Acts of 2024 and explained that members would continue working on a final report after the hearing. The meeting featured testimony from banks, payment industry groups, restaurant advocates, convenience store representatives, and others, with repeated discussion of interchange fees, surcharging, fraud, and federal preemption issues. Banking and card-industry witnesses, including the Massachusetts Bankers Association, the Card Coalition, and the Electronic Payments Coalition, argued that state-level interchange restrictions would disrupt a global payment system, create compliance problems, and likely apply only to a small share of transactions because of federal preemption. They emphasized consumer and merchant benefits of cards, the role of banks in absorbing fraud losses, and recent federal and state developments, including Illinois litigation, OCC and NCUA actions, and a settlement that they said would give merchants more flexibility. Several witnesses also suggested alternatives such as vendor compensation for tax collection and modernizing Massachusetts’ surcharge ban. Restaurant and convenience-store advocates took the opposite view, saying swipe fees are a major burden on thin-margin businesses and that merchants should not pay interchange on sales tax or gratuities that are not their revenue. Mass Restaurants United and individual restaurant owners described severe financial strain, rising costs, and the need for transparency and relief. NACS supported swipe fee reform and argued that current fees are excessive and inflationary. A few members questioned witnesses about whether industry should share more of the burden and about the feasibility of changing the current system. No votes or formal policy actions were taken. The chair said the commission would meet again to discuss a draft framework and final report, and members of the public were invited to submit additional written testimony before the commission concludes its work.

Transcript Highlights:

• , by the banks that issue cards, and by the banks and other payment service providers that process payments
• The merchant is fully protected from non-payment.
• We are a national trade association for the payment card industry.
• Our members include payment card networks, transaction processors, and some large-scale payment card
• Our members include payment card networks, transaction processors, and some large-scale payment card

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission studying the future of credit card payments and their impacts on small businesses held what leaders described as its last public hearing, though they said the commission would continue meeting to develop a report and recommendations. Chair Paul Feeney and other members noted the issue is complex and that they had sought testimony from a wide range of stakeholders before moving into a more deliberative phase. The commission adjourned after hearing from several in-person and virtual witnesses. Banking and card-industry witnesses, including the Massachusetts Bankers Association, the Card Coalition, the Electronic Payments Coalition, and others, argued that payment cards provide major benefits to consumers and merchants, including convenience, fraud protection, fast settlement, and broad access to electronic commerce. They warned that state-level changes to interchange rules could create a patchwork of conflicting requirements, disrupt global payment systems, and especially affect state-chartered community banks and small businesses. Several also said recent federal actions and litigation, including OCC and NCUA preemption rules and the Illinois interchange-fee litigation, have limited the practical reach of state laws. Restaurant, retail, and convenience-store witnesses pushed for relief from swipe fees, saying independent businesses operate on thin margins and pay fees on amounts that are not really their revenue, such as sales tax and gratuities. They urged transparency, the ability to surcharge, vendor compensation for tax collection, and limits on interchange or related fees. Some witnesses said merchants bear significant fraud and chargeback costs and that banks and card networks have not offered enough direct relief. Commissioners asked questions about surcharging, fee regulation, fraud, and whether industry should share more of the burden. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond adjourning the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• of care, and what happens when there's a payment dispute?
• , more efficient, and create additional payment options.
• to U.S. dollars, processing them like any other payment method.
• to U.S. dollars processing them like any other payment method.
• I was given a couple different options on making payments.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Banking and Insurance met with a quorum present and heard a full agenda of bills, most of which were reported favorably. Early in the meeting, SB 1000 on trust fund interest for attorney trust accounts was explained as setting a floor and ceiling tied to the Wall Street Journal prime rate and passed without objection after supportive testimony from banking and credit union groups. The committee then took up CS/SB 1082 on a statewide provider and health plan claim dispute resolution program; the sponsor described it as a way to move emergency out-of-network payment disputes away from costly litigation and into an independent dispute resolution process modeled on the federal No Surprises Act. A proposed amendment drew significant questions from senators and concerns from the Florida Insurance Council about confusion over state versus federal eligibility and possible effects on contracted rates, and the sponsor ultimately withdrew the amendment. The underlying bill was then supported by health care and insurance stakeholders and reported favorably. SB 684 on electronic signatures for total loss vehicles and vessels also passed, with Progressive Insurance waiving in support. The committee next approved CS/SB 158 on pet insurance, which requires continuing education for agents, clearer consumer disclosures, and annual reporting to OIR; the amendment was technical and adopted. SB 1494 on breast cancer screening coverage was presented as expanding required coverage for mammograms and supplemental screenings for certain insurance products, and it passed with support from cancer and radiology groups. CS/SB 314 on digital asset issuers was amended to create a Florida framework for payment stablecoin issuers consistent with the federal GENIUS Act, allowing state-level regulation as an alternative to federal supervision, and was reported favorably. SB 1500 on uncontested probate proceedings, including higher small-estate thresholds and clearer authority for personal representatives, also passed after a banking-related amendment requiring letters of administration for safe deposit box access was adopted. Later, the committee approved CS/SB 618 on workers’ compensation insurance, which raises the consent-to-rate cap for workers’ comp policies from 10% to 20% and adjusts the Florida Workers’ Compensation Guarantee Association board membership; a carrier representative testified that the change would help keep more high-risk accounts in the voluntary market. CS/SB 1568 on a Florida Stable Coin Pilot Program was amended to remove authority for DFS to create a Florida coin, limit the pilot to existing stablecoins with at least $1 billion market capitalization, and require qualified public deposit handling; it then passed. CS/SB 838 on electronic payments for retail installment contracts clarified that convenience fees for electronic payments are permissible while preserving a fee-free option, and it was reported favorably after questions about consumer access to free payment methods. SB 1452, the Department of Financial Services agency bill, made a wide range of administrative changes affecting My Safe Florida Home, unclaimed property, licensing, bail bonds, and other DFS functions; a late-filed amendment on title insurer appointments was adopted, and the bill passed. The committee also approved SB 1706 on the My Safe Florida Condominium Pilot Program, targeting condo hardening assistance to owner-occupied units meeting income and occupancy criteria, and SB 990 on protected cell captive insurance companies, which the sponsor and industry witnesses said would modernize Florida law and promote insurance competition and economic activity. The meeting ended with all bills on the agenda reported favorably and the committee adjourning without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• THE FIRST FINDING HAD TO DO WITH UNTIMELY TUITION AND TRANSPORTATION PAYMENTS.
• PAYMENTS.
• TO TEST THE TIMELINESS WE THE 27 FCC SCHOLARSHIP PAYMENTS AND 11 FSPO PAYMENTS.
• AND WE FOUND THREE OF THE FTC TUITION PAYMENTS WERE PROCESSED FROM 15 TO 35 DAYS AFTER RECEIVING PAYMENT
• HAVE EVERYTHING SQUARED OFF BEFORE ANY PAYMENT GOES OUT THE DOOR.

Transcript Highlights:

• So when I didn't make my payment in March intentionally as a part of the program, when I made my payment
• the deferred payments to be incorporated into the back of the loan rather than a balloon payment, and
• payments to be incorporated into the back of the loan rather than a balloon payment, and protect the
• Forbearance is not payment forgiveness. It is a payment deferral.
• and explain how missed payments can be addressed through resolution options, including a payment deferral

Committee: House Banking and Finance