Transcript Highlights:

• <c> thesec><00:31:48.760><c> typesc><00:31:48.960><c> ofc> spreading third these types of spreading
• c><00:40:49.720><c> typec><00:40:49.920><c> ofc><00:40:50.079><c> ac><00:40:50.560><c> type
• c><00:40:50.720><c> ofc><00:40:50.839><c> ac> together in this type of a type of a together in this
• type of a type of a situation<00:40:51.680><c> wherec><00:40:52.240><c> youc><00:40:52.400><c> could
• ><c> typesc><01:04:05.960><c> acrossc> very diverse range of soil types across very diverse range

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• :56.480><c> onc><00:00:56.640><c> thec><00:00:56.800><c> frontc><00:00:56.960><c> endc> a little
• c><00:01:01.039><c> We'vec><00:01:01.359><c> gotc><00:01:01.600><c> dozensc><00:01:02.079><c>
• ><c> forc><00:01:08.080><c> costc><00:01:08.320><c> overrunsc><00:01:08.960><c> becausec><00:
• <c> yourc><00:01:37.280><c> namec><00:01:37.439><c> forc><00:01:37.600><c> thec> there.
• c><00:03:11.840><c> Uhc><00:03:12.080><c> myc><00:03:12.239><c> namec><00:03:12.319><c> isc

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 936, an author’s bill requiring cost-benefit analysis before agencies move forward with major rulemaking. Chair Nash moved the bill, the A2 author’s amendment was adopted, and the bill was then discussed as amended. The sponsor said the goal was not to eliminate rulemaking, but to require agencies to “show their work” by analyzing costs, benefits, and assumptions before rules are adopted. Supporters, including representatives from Americans for Prosperity and the Pacific Legal Foundation, argued the bill would improve transparency, uniformity, and accountability in rulemaking. They cited federal and other state models, especially Virginia, and said similar requirements already exist in several states. They also pointed to public support for requiring cost-benefit analysis and said the bill could help agencies avoid costly or poorly thought-out regulations, reduce litigation risk, and improve legislative oversight through notice to committees and publication of preliminary and final analyses. Several members raised concerns. Representative Luger Nikolai said cost-benefit analysis is already part of existing law through SONARs and that the legislature, not agencies, should be the first line of review; she also worried the bill would force dollar valuations on qualitative factors such as accessibility. Representative Craft said the bill could allow unelected officials to negate policy choices already made by the legislature if benefits do not exceed costs. Representative Fryberg said the bill appears to require full analysis even for minor housekeeping rules and may overemphasize dollar-based benefits. Chair Nash and supporters responded that the bill is meant to impose a uniform check on agencies and that many current rules already operate without sufficient legislative oversight. The discussion ended with members expressing both support and opposition, and a roll call was requested, though no final vote was included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• type care like dialysis and<00:15:42.639><c> thosec><00:15:42.800><c> typec><00:15:43.040><c> things
• :18.480><c> typesc><00:18:18.799><c> ofc><00:18:18.960><c> modeling,c> states that use other types
• ><00:19:41.679><c> uhc><00:19:41.840><c> thatc><00:19:42.160><c> QMBc><00:19:43.039><c> typec
• c> typec><00:19:46.160><c> coverage,c> were in that Kchip type coverage, were in that Kchip type
• 00:44.400><c> typec><01:00:44.720><c> ofc><01:00:45.200><c> cancerc> frequently occurring uh type

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Health and Family Services met in person, approved the October 15 minutes, and began with a moment of silence following a Louisville UPS plane explosion that was described as a local tragedy affecting many families and first responders. The main presentation was an overview of Kentucky’s Medicaid non-emergency medical transportation (NMT) program from the Department for Medicaid Services and the Transportation Cabinet. Witnesses explained that NMT is a federally required Medicaid benefit, administered by the Transportation Cabinet under a risk-based capitated model, with eligibility limited to Medicaid members traveling to medically necessary, Medicaid-covered services and who lack access to other transportation. They also described exclusions, including certain KCHIP, QMB, and PACE members, and outlined the brokered regional structure, call center operations, scheduling rules, vehicle and driver oversight, complaint handling, and rider surveys. The presenters reported that NMT handled more than 3.1 million trips in state fiscal year 2024, with over 1.38 million trips already recorded in October, and said customer satisfaction surveys were high. They said the FY 2025-26 contract total is about $360.6 million, with monthly per-member capitation rates set by region through an actuarial process and approved by CMS. They emphasized that payments are tied to monthly Medicaid enrollment and that the state draws down federal funds for the exact amount paid, with no leftover balance. They also said most NMT use comes from adult day centers and rehabilitative care such as dialysis. Members questioned the witnesses about how quality metrics and contract standards are set, whether the state had explored alternatives such as Uber Health or other integrated models, and how utilization was calculated. The witnesses said contract requirements are developed collaboratively by Medicaid Services, the Transportation Cabinet, and other agencies, and that studies of other models generally found higher costs and lower approval ratings, with additional research on a hybrid model expected by the end of the year. They clarified that one figure reflected the share of Medicaid members with registered vehicles, while another reflected actual NMT users, and they defended the capitated structure as shifting financial risk to brokers rather than the state. Representative Fleming also raised concerns about oversight, reporting, and the apparent gap between budgeted and contracted amounts, asking whether any unused funds would return to general funds; the discussion ended before a final answer was given.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> umc><00:04:52.360><c> ac><00:04:52.520><c> datac> multi-type library systems um a data multi-type
• c><00:08:36.000><c> umc><00:08:36.640><c> ourc><00:08:36.839><c> artsc> multi-type Library systems
• c> multi-typec> next is our our multi-county multi-type next is our our multi-county multi-type systems
• c><00:26:41.760><c> ofc><00:26:42.000><c> whatc><00:26:42.200><c> typesc><00:26:42.440><c> of
• c><00:26:42.720><c> supportc> to inform them of what types of support to inform them of what types

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 00:15:24.399><c> accessc><00:15:24.720><c> thisc><00:15:24.959><c> typec><00:15:25.120><c> of
• 18:48.480><c> typesc><00:18:48.880><c> orc><00:18:50.080><c> umc><00:18:50.320><c> wec> just
• ><c> whatc><00:19:06.160><c> typesc><00:19:06.400><c> ofc> discerning, you know, what types of
• c><00:31:02.720><c> typesc> protections to many other product types protections to many other product
• c><00:44:28.400><c> Additionally,c> this type of guarantee.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• times with these<00:49:02.400><c> typec><00:49:02.559><c> ofc><00:49:02.720><c> positions,c><00
• ><c> typesc> information.
• c><01:26:53.520><c> andc><01:26:53.760><c> we'rec><01:26:53.920><c> goingc> those types of things
• :05:26.720><c> thesec><03:05:27.120><c> typec><03:05:27.279><c> ofc><03:05:27.439><c> bills?
• This is<03:08:24.880><c> thisc><03:08:25.120><c> isc><03:08:25.279><c> thec><03:08:25.520><c> type

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> servicesc><00:24:48.720><c> thosec><00:24:48.880><c> typec><00:24:49.039><c> ofc><00:24:
• /c><00:24:58.120><c> havec> the type of entity you're going to have the type of entity you're going
• c><00:25:05.320><c> onc><00:25:05.600><c> thec><00:25:05.760><c> typec><00:25:05.960><c> of
• c><00:25:06.120><c> debtc> um section on debt on the type of debt um section on debt on the type of
• 00:25:16.440><c> typec><00:25:16.600><c> ofc> you know water sewer those type of you know water sewer

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <c> butc><00:08:30.919><c> becausec> establish some type of level but because establish some type
• type of between the WMA and some other type of land<00:09:52.720><c> uhc><00:09:52.880><c> butc>
• /c><00:20:09.280><c> ofc><00:20:09.720><c> typesc> landscape it can help variety of types landscape
• ><c> finallyc><00:21:10.080><c> umc> types of land uses and then finally um types of land uses and
• :31:07.080><c> numberc><01:31:07.320><c> ofc> types of things um I have a number of types of things

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• 27.960><c> it'llc><00:38:28.560><c> autopc> typing House labor labor it'll autop typing House labor
• :46.960><c> typec><01:42:47.159><c> ofc><01:42:47.440><c> informationc> don't include that type
• <02:05:38.480><c> participatec><02:05:39.000><c> inc> types of the ability to participate in types
• ><c> thec><04:40:00.560><c> typec><04:40:00.680><c> ofc> I'm just asking if that's the type of
• ><c> toc><05:07:32.680><c> helpc><05:07:33.080><c> thosec> types of payouts um to help those types

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> typesc><00:32:38.679><c> ofc><00:32:38.840><c> thingsc><00:32:39.120><c> fromc><00:32:39.360
• ><c> happeningc><00:32:40.200><c> andc> these types of things from happening and these types of things
• c> typesc><01:53:34.840><c> ofc> 2024 that has restricted the types of 2024 that has restricted the
• c><01:58:27.239><c> wantc> a litigious type of person I don't want a litigious type of person I don't
• c><01:58:34.199><c> aboutc><01:58:34.440><c> andc><01:58:34.599><c> thec><01:58:34.760><c> types

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Housing held a public hearing on January 31 and heard testimony on a series of housing and building-code bills. The first major item, HB 1 relating to building codes, drew sharply divided testimony. Supporters, including BIA Hawaii, Grassroot Institute, Dr. Horton, and several builders and trade groups, argued the current code-adoption process is slow, fragmented, and costly, and that reform would help housing production. Opponents, including Sierra Club Hawaii, AIA Hawaii, ICC, and labor representative Kiko Bosi, said the bill would weaken public safety, reduce statewide consistency, and could leave tenants and first responders at greater risk. No vote was taken during the hearing, and members asked questions about the effect of a governor’s emergency proclamation suspending the Building Code Council and about county authority over code amendments. The committee then heard HB 745 and HB 1321, both also relating to building codes. Grassroot Institute supported both measures, saying the system is broken and needs streamlining, while BIA Hawaii and others emphasized the cost burden of repeated code updates. Opponents, especially Bosi and ICC, argued that the bills would undermine the State Building Code Council’s role, create confusion, and prioritize cost over safety; Bosi also said labor should be included in any code discussions. Members questioned whether counties can remove state code provisions and whether the state code already supersedes county codes, and one member noted the need for clarity and consistent enforcement rather than a wholesale overhaul. Later, the committee heard HB 284 on housing, HB 761 on county permitting and inspection, and HB 738 on historic preservation. HB 284 drew support from several housing and real estate groups, while DLNR opposed it. On HB 761, HHFDC supported the bill, DLNR warned that the proposed changes could jeopardize Hawaii’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, DAGS said it would likely need to duplicate county permitting staff, and the Department of Planning and Permitting opposed it; Grassroot Institute and NAIOP supported it. For HB 738, HHFDC, DLNR, Grassroot Institute, Hawaii YIMBY, NAIOP, and others supported the measure, with Grassroot and NAIOP suggesting clarifications so expedited review would also cover mixed-use projects and better define the scope of work. The transcript does not show any final votes or committee action on these bills during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• :04:30.440><c> toc><00:04:30.840><c> thec><00:04:31.440><c> casec><00:04:31.840><c> typec><00
• ><c> casesc><00:09:58.519><c> thatc><00:09:58.680><c> won'tc><00:09:58.959><c> sayc> these types
• :54:12.160><c> somec><00:54:12.400><c> typec><00:54:12.559><c> ofc><00:54:12.640><c> Statewide<
• /c><00:55:44.240><c> andc><00:55:44.359><c> alsoc><00:55:45.160><c> whatc><00:55:45.440><c> types
• types of G's are to go uh and also what types of G's are we<00:55:46.599><c> talkingc><00:55:46.880

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to discuss the guardian ad litem system, including appointment qualifications, training, payment, and whether any changes are needed. Roll was called, the February 25, 2025 minutes were approved, and the chair emphasized that the meeting was informational only and no vote would be taken. Representatives from the Court of Justice, including Chief Justice Deborah Henry Lambert and several family and district judges, testified about how the system has evolved since concerns raised in 2019 about overappointment and fees. Court witnesses said the judiciary responded to earlier concerns by requiring open appointment lists of trained and qualified attorneys, improving training, and increasing oversight of fee orders. They reported that statewide GAL fees have fallen from a little over $14 million in 2019 to about $12 million, even as caseloads have grown, and said the average payment works out to about $650 per case, with the statutory cap for trial-level GAL fees still set at $500 since 1986. They argued that the current local appointment model works well, especially in rural areas, and warned that moving to a DPA-style regional model would create serious scheduling and conflict problems because of overlapping dockets and related criminal cases. Judges from rural districts described shortages of available attorneys, high burnout, travel burdens, and the difficulty of finding enough counsel in smaller counties. They also said the Court of Justice cannot seek certain federal Title IV-E reimbursements, but urged the legislature to encourage the Finance and Administration Cabinet and the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to pursue that funding through an MOU. One judge noted that some appointed attorneys are effectively underpaid relative to private rates and that better compensation would help attract and retain lawyers. The discussion also covered training standards adopted after the 2019 audit. Witnesses said Rule 37 now requires initial training and four hours of multidisciplinary continuing training every two years, with topics including child development, trauma-informed care, substance use, child welfare, forensics, ethics, and communication with clients. They said the Court of Justice has offered in-person regional trainings and remote options, and that the goal is to keep qualified attorneys on the appointment lists while improving representation for children and parents in dependency, neglect, abuse, and termination-of-parental-rights cases.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> andc><00:01:14.640><c> Ic><00:01:14.720><c> doc><00:01:14.960><c> havec><00:01:15.120><c
• :58.760><c> typec><00:35:59.000><c> ofc><00:35:59.200><c> flowersc><00:36:00.000><c> andc> planted
• the wrong type of flowers and planted the wrong type of flowers and got<00:36:00.320><c> fined.
• of bill would hopefully rein in some of that<00:41:41.360><c> uhc><00:41:41.600><c> typec><00:41
• :41:43.560><c> therec> that uh type of thing um because there that uh type of thing um because there

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 2614 was heard with a delete-everything amendment adopted at the outset. The bill, as explained by the authors, would prevent local governments from requiring amenities or common property that effectively force the creation of a homeowners association, while still allowing developers to create HOAs voluntarily when needed. The authors said the language was negotiated with stakeholders, including the League of Minnesota Cities, and was intended to be moved on to the Housing Committee for further discussion. Supportive testimony came from Housing First Minnesota and the Minnesota Homeownership Center. They argued that unnecessary HOA mandates can raise housing costs, reduce homebuyer choice, and shift public infrastructure costs onto homeowners through dues in addition to property taxes. Testifiers cited examples involving single-family developments, a Burnsville case involving a large roof assessment and disputed ACH withdrawal, and the Heritage Park development in Minneapolis, where an HOA was required but later became difficult to dissolve. They said the bill would preserve HOAs where they are genuinely needed, such as townhomes or shared-amenity developments. Members raised questions about the removal of county-specific language in the amendment, the meaning of the bill’s references to services and common property, and whether the bill would still allow neighborhood signs or other developer-requested features. A major point of concern was stormwater ponds and drainage infrastructure: one member argued that prohibiting cities from requiring HOA maintenance of such facilities could shift costs to taxpayers, while the authors responded that the bill was meant to stop cities from mandating discretionary amenities and that maintenance issues had been partly addressed in the amendment. The committee did not take a final vote in the portion provided, but the amendment was adopted and the bill was discussed for referral onward.

Transcript Highlights:

• c> hasc><00:11:37.560><c> thisc><00:11:37.839><c> typec><00:11:38.120><c> ofc> almost every case
• c><00:15:04.040><c> toc><00:15:05.000><c> thosec><00:15:05.400><c> typec> I can provide any updates
• /c><00:17:35.440><c> typec><00:17:35.679><c> andc> conditions including placement type and conditions
• c><00:32:32.160><c> isc><00:32:32.280><c> thatc><00:32:32.400><c> they'rec> these facility types
• c><00:33:04.679><c> typec><00:33:04.960><c> facility.

Bills: SB2479, SB2557, SB2861, SB3204, SB3324, SB3325

Keywords: criminal procedure, family violence, dating violence, child abuse, evidence admissibility, reduced sentencing, homelessness, reporting requirements, statewide office, housing solutions, kauhale projects, public oversight, SB2861, Hawaii, Office of Wellness and Resilience, OWR, Department of Human Services, DHS, Kakou Pilot Program, Kakou

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures related to criminal procedure, homelessness, family resilience, Medicaid-funded services, and school Medicaid reimbursement. On SB 2479 SD2, the Judiciary testified in neutral opposition with concerns that the bill could require imprisonment even for probation-eligible defendants, expand sentence reconsideration in ways that could undermine finality for victims, conflict with existing sentencing statutes, and require additional judicial resources. The Office of the Public Defender supported the bill’s intent but asked for language changes so people serving sentences could raise the new evidence in Rule 40 petitions and so probation would remain available in appropriate felony cases. Written testimony also included opposition from several county prosecutors and police, and support from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The chair later deferred SB 2479 SD2, citing unintended consequences and problems with the bill. For SB 2557 SD1, which would require annual reporting by the State Office on Homelessness and Housing Solutions, the office said it supported the intent but noted it already produces annual and quarterly reports, that some requested data is already available, and that staffing and cost constraints could make the new reporting burdensome. The State Council on Mental Health supported the measure and suggested narrowing the reporting language to data on individuals with serious mental illness or co-occurring behavioral health conditions, to the extent practicable and in collaboration with relevant agencies. A committee member asked about the availability of point-in-time count data, and the office explained that some figures may not be available every year and may need to be generated through HMIS. Dr. Jack Lewin testified in support, saying the data would be useful for understanding health care costs. The committee passed SB 2557 SD1 with amendments, including a deferral of the effective date. The committee also heard SB 2861 SD2 and SB 3204 SD1, both family resilience pilot program measures. For SB 2861 SD2, the Office of Wellness and Resilience and DHS supported the bill but requested amendments to clarify that the office’s role is planning and advisory, that DHS is a key partner, and that federal compliance safeguards are included. The chair raised concerns about overlap with DHS’s existing Ka Ohana program and asked for language to avoid redundancy while allowing the bill to cover other at-risk children; decision-making was deferred to the next hearing. For SB 3204 SD1, which would create a peer-navigator-based family resilience pilot, the Office of Wellness and Resilience and DHS supported the measure, with the office requesting a two-year pilot period, and both agencies and several advocacy groups submitted support. The committee discussed funding, the proposed five peer navigators, and whether the pilot should be limited to one or two geographic areas; no final action was taken in the portion provided. The committee also heard and supported SB 3324 SD1 on Medicaid home and community-based services, with the Department of Health emphasizing caregiver shortages and the cost-effectiveness of community care, and SB 3325 SD1 HD1 on public school Medicaid reimbursement, where DOE and the Attorney General requested clarifying amendments to reporting language and position titles.

Transcript Highlights:

• c><00:02:11.360><c> justc><00:02:11.599><c> bringsc><00:02:11.920><c> thec><00:02:12.879><c>
• <00:14:33.040><c> onc><00:14:33.120><c> thec><00:14:33.360><c> typec> or various buses depending
• on the type or various buses depending on the type of<00:14:33.600><c> thec><00:14:33.760><c> bus.
• c><00:21:57.360><c> thosec><00:21:57.679><c> typesc><00:21:58.000><c> ofc> And so that funding
• for those types of And so that funding for those types of um<00:21:59.360><c> personnelc><00:21:59.919

Bills: HB0150

Keywords: Wyoming business council, economic development, task force, evaluation, policy reform, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> typec> this be a new anomaly then for this type this be a new anomaly then for this type of<01
• ><c> ofc><01:32:16.400><c> allc><01:32:16.639><c> typesc><01:32:16.840><c> ofc><01:32:17.040>
• <c> propertyc><01:32:17.480><c> inc> sellers of all types of property in sellers of all types of
• otherc><01:35:45.520><c> typesc><01:35:45.800><c> ofc> it would bring in uh other types of it
• ><c> somec><01:38:30.639><c> otherc><01:38:30.920><c> typec><01:38:31.119><c> ofc><01:38:31.320

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• toc><01:29:22.520><c> thec><01:29:23.440><c> typec><01:29:23.639><c> ofc><01:29:24.080><c> municipality
• > typec><01:32:34.119><c> questionsc><01:32:35.040><c> ifc><01:32:35.400><c> ifc><01:32:35.880
• ><c> differentc><01:36:09.400><c> typesc> different standards for different types different standards
• <02:41:02.160><c> typesc><02:41:02.439><c> ofc><02:41:02.680><c> incidentsc><02:41:03.600><c> can
• c><02:41:03.880><c> waitc> around which types of incidents can wait around which types of incidents

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• :59.520><c> usec><00:17:59.720><c> thec><00:17:59.919><c> typec><00:18:00.080><c> ofc><00:18:
• type of evidence that you<00:18:01.039><c> likec><00:18:01.440><c> asc><00:18:01.600><c> ac><00
• <00:18:08.360><c> causec><00:18:08.799><c> thatc><00:18:08.960><c> typec> there's there's probable
• cause that type there's there's probable cause that type of<00:18:09.240><c> evidencec><00:18:09.600
• 00:21:48.640><c> Rulesc> types of Rules of Evidence the The Rules types of Rules of Evidence the The

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:44 Introduction of Guests 01:21 HB 137 Discussion 02:11 HB 137 Roll Call Vote 25:35 HB 346 Discussion 26:15 HB 346 Roll Call Vote 27:24, 958, all

Summary: The Natural Resources Committee met with prayer and the Pledge, approved the prior minutes, and recognized visiting guests, including representatives from Nucor Steel and students from Eastern Kentucky University. The main business was House Bill 137, which would require air-pollution enforcement actions by the Energy and Environment Cabinet and Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District to rely on EPA-approved monitoring methods or scientifically defensible, quality-assured data. The sponsor and industry supporters argued the bill would ensure reliable evidence and protect manufacturers from enforcement based on questionable data. Opponents, including the Kentucky Resources Council, the West Jefferson County Community Task Force, and a former cabinet employee, argued the bill would conflict with the Clean Air Act’s allowance for “any credible evidence,” could exclude community air-monitoring data and citizen complaints, and might weaken enforcement by limiting the use of lower-cost sensors, photos, video, and other nontraditional evidence. Committee members questioned how credible evidence and the Daubert standard would apply, and supporters and opponents debated whether the bill would simply set evidentiary rules or improperly narrow enforcement authority. One member also raised concerns that the bill’s title and scope could be read as affecting the broader air program. House Bill 137 was ultimately approved favorably by roll call vote, with Senator Webb’s aye vote later clarified for the record. The committee then took up House Bill 346, as amended by a subcommittee. The bill was described as helping about 708 companies and carving out emergency generators used for safety purposes in distilleries, with support from the Kentucky Chamber. The subcommittee amendment was adopted, and the bill passed the committee favorably by roll call vote. The meeting ended with an attempted adjournment and a brief record correction on the vote for House Bill 137.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:21:02.720><c> account,c><00:21:03.440><c> typec><00:21:03.600><c> inc><00:21:03.840><c> a
• c><00:21:04.000><c> messagec><00:21:04.159><c> andc><00:21:04.400><c> itc> their account, type
• andc><00:47:54.400><c> thec><00:47:54.640><c> typesc><00:47:54.800><c> ofc><00:47:55.040><c>
• c> types of resources. types of resources.
• ><c> typesc><02:00:17.199><c> ofc> other types of measures, other types of other types of measures

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> typesc><00:23:17.120><c> ofc><00:23:17.280><c> plans,c><00:23:17.679><c> atc> >> And
• > typec><00:23:54.480><c> 1c><00:23:54.640><c> diabetes.
• c><03:22:20.640><c> movedc> type.
• c><03:23:21.200><c> usedc> with the type and brand of liquor used with the type and brand of liquor
• c><03:24:18.319><c> recipec><03:24:19.520><c> typec><03:24:20.160><c> cheatc><03:24:20.399><c

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up an insurance-related chronic pain bill and an amendment modeled on language from Massachusetts and Maine. The sponsor explained the amendment was developed after stakeholder meetings because the original bill would have created an unaffordable insurance mandate in New Hampshire. The amendment was intended to improve access to non-opioid therapies by limiting prior authorization and step-therapy barriers so they are not more restrictive than for other treatments, including opioid therapies. After questions, the committee took a straw vote and advanced the amendment. The next item was a department-sponsored bill involving the state’s all-payer claims database. Insurance Department officials explained that the bill would encourage self-funded employer plans to opt in voluntarily by giving them aggregated, deidentified claims information in return. They said self-funded plans cannot be required to report data because of federal law, but the bill would provide an incentive while protecting employee privacy. Members asked detailed questions about who would see the data, whether individual employees could be identified, and how privacy would be enforced; the department said access would be aggregated and deidentified, and employer privacy issues would be governed by ERISA and the U.S. Department of Labor. The committee also discussed a glucose-monitoring bill. Members debated whether the bill was aimed at type 1 diabetes coverage or broader access to continuous glucose monitors, and whether it would amount to an unnecessary insurance mandate that could raise premiums. Department testimony estimated the equipment cost and said the annual impact per member would be modest, but also noted that non-insulin therapies have not consistently shown clinically significant A1C reductions. The chair and some members emphasized that the bill should be considered on its own terms as a CGM coverage issue, not as a general diabetes mandate. The committee discussed the bill’s cost implications and asked the department for any prior cost analysis.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> mightc><00:42:18.640><c> bec><00:42:18.800><c> thec><00:42:19.040><c> typec><00:42:19.280
• c><01:16:20.000><c> thesec><01:16:20.320><c> typesc><01:16:20.560><c> ofc><01:16:20.880><c> AL
• :46:47.600><c> thec><01:46:47.840><c> otherc><01:46:48.080><c> typesc><01:46:48.320><c> ofc><
• :09.119><c> toc><02:09:09.280><c> havec><02:09:09.440><c> twoc><02:09:09.679><c> typesc> that
• type properties which<02:09:15.599><c> wec><02:09:15.760><c> havec><02:09:15.840><c> ac><02:09

Bills: HB2611, HB2102, HB1710, HB1868, HB1920, HB1812, HB1733, HB1715, HB1723, HB1724, HB1727, HB1711

Keywords: HB2611, Hawaii antitrust, rental housing, rent price-fixing, algorithmic pricing, algorithmic rent-setting, property management software, pricing algorithms, rent coordination, price-fixing, collusion, cartel, multifamily housing, landlord software, occupancy levels, lease terms, Attorney General, public education program, consumer protection, housing affordability

Summary: The committee first took up HB 2611, which would prohibit algorithmic price-setting in Hawaii’s rental market, require public education by the Attorney General, and establish fines and penalties. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill, saying its language was too unclear and could expose landlords and agents to criminal and civil liability for ordinary rent-setting practices based on public information or assistance from property professionals. Members asked about antitrust standards, tacit agreement, and whether using county-published affordable-rent schedules would be unlawful; the AG said that would not be unlawful if based on public information and without collusion. Testimony was mixed, with the chair noting support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Hawaii Realtors with comments, 50501 Hawaii and General Strike Hawaii, Haloha Project, 13 individuals, and one opponent. The committee then heard HB 2102, which clarifies that residential projects involving ground disturbance in high-risk areas remain subject to state historic preservation review and removes an exemption for lands presumed nominally sensitive. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and the Department of Planning and Permitting supported the measure, saying it would improve clarity and ensure review focuses on projects most likely to affect historic properties or iwi kupuna, while also urging language refinements to better define sensitive sandy-soil areas and balance preservation with housing timelines. NAP Hawaii opposed the bill, arguing it would undo progress made last session and that the current process already includes protections for inadvertent discoveries and efficiency for lower-risk areas. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs strongly supported HB 2102, explaining it was responding to beneficiary complaints about late-added language in last year’s law and saying the nominally sensitive-area language should be removed because it was adopted without sufficient stakeholder input and could be harmful to iwi kupuna protections. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation and several individuals also supported the bill. Committee discussion focused on how “nominally sensitive” areas are determined, whether project proponents could self-certify areas as exempt, and how high-density residential projects should be treated; SHPD said it uses survey and monitoring data to map sensitivity, that highly sensitive areas like Kīauea are not nominally sensitive, and that some high-density projects should remain exempt if they do not involve new ground disturbance. The hearing included no final vote in the portion provided, but the chair noted 48 individuals in support and continued questioning on the bill’s definitions and implementation.