Transcript Highlights:

• . model. model.
• Navy's model.
• Navy's model.
• Navy's model.
• Navy's model.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Special Committee on Red Hill received an update from the Hawaii Department of Health and EPA Region 9 on regulatory oversight of the Red Hill facility, the Navy drinking water system, and ongoing environmental investigation and cleanup. The agencies reviewed the authorities governing the work, including DOH’s emergency orders, EPA’s 2023 administrative consent order, and the older 2015 agreement, and explained that the newer framework is being used for most current oversight because it includes closure, remediation, drinking water protections, and stronger community engagement requirements, even though some requirements overlap. EPA and DOH reported major milestones and current work. Defueling was completed in March 2024, with about 104 million gallons removed, and the agencies said this eliminated the risk of another catastrophic release. They described the current tank-closure phase, expected to finish in July 2029, along with site assessment, site investigation, remediation, and long-term monitoring that may continue through at least 2040. They also summarized drinking water actions: emergency response flushing and sampling after the 2021 spill, lifting of the public health advisory in 2022, completion of extended drinking water monitoring in 2025, and ongoing system improvements such as repairs, flushing plans, valve work, complaint-response protocols, and upgrades to storage tanks and pumps. Members asked several questions about monitoring results, the meaning of TPH, the status of the 2015 agreement, and the Navy’s groundwater model. EPA said its sampling and the Navy’s results were in alignment during extended monitoring, and that it plans to issue a summary report covering the full response period. On the groundwater model, EPA and DOH said they have not yet approved it for decision-making, are reviewing it iteratively with outside experts and University of Hawaii data, and may approve it for specific uses in the future. DOH said its latest comment letter states the model cannot yet be used for decision-making purposes, and noted that UH’s separate modeling work is contingent on funding and may not be completed until next spring. The agencies also said they continue community outreach through open houses, webinars, neighborhood boards, legislative hearings, and fuel tank advisory committee meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Oh, so predictable. Anyway, um, we'll talk a little bit about some of the reasons for that.
• It is really going to help answer some of those questions around what are the models that would be the
• <02:52:25.120> what<02:52:25.359> are<02:52:25.520> the<02:52:25.920> models
• questions around what are the models questions around what are the models that<02:52:26.720>
• This internal administrative support is funded through a cost recovery model already built into our structure

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Once a model is trained on data, it is built in the model, and the only way for it to not have what it
• model, To require developers of generative AI models to document the IP used to train their model and
• have developed their models on.
• But that will help the model...
• To train AI models.

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee and Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee held an informational hearing at Stanford on the intersection of artificial intelligence, copyright, transparency, and California’s creative economy. Chairs and members emphasized that the hearing was not on a specific bill and no vote would be taken. Opening remarks framed the issue as balancing protection for artists and other rights holders with the need to keep AI innovation and related economic activity thriving in California, while noting that federal action is unlikely and that state policy may influence national standards. The first panel featured Professor Pamela Samuelson and Stanford researcher Rishi Bommasani. Samuelson reviewed the current copyright litigation landscape, including dozens of lawsuits over AI training, and explained the fair use framework, the Google Books precedent, and the uncertainty around newer theories such as market dilution. She said states can likely regulate transparency, deepfakes, privacy, and safety, but warned that some proposals may be preempted by federal copyright law. Bommasani described widespread opacity around training data among major California AI companies, discussed AB 2013 and the EU AI Act as transparency models, and identified gaps in disclosure design, enforcement, and whether transparency alone can address copyright and IP concerns. Members asked about open-source models, opt-outs, machine unlearning, user data, and state options for protecting creators. The second panel included SAG-AFTRA board member Jason George, Animation Guild president Danny Lynn, and OpenAI copyright counsel Mark Gray. George and Lynn argued that AI training on performers’ and artists’ work without consent or compensation threatens jobs, bargaining power, and reputations, and they supported stronger transparency and licensing requirements so creators can identify when their work is used. Gray said AI is already being used as a productivity tool and highlighted partnerships between AI companies and publishers, record labels, and studios, while arguing that specific harmful uses such as deepfakes should be regulated directly rather than restricting general-purpose AI development. Committee members discussed labeling and watermarking of AI-generated content, transparency around model use, and whether state law should require more detailed disclosure of training data; no formal action was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Access models that we're considering here in this bill.
• The second model is direct to consumer.
• The membership fee is a different model.
• This is a different model, and I appreciate that.
• model.

Transcript Highlights:

• the agenda later, we only have one model the agenda later, we only have one model laboratory<00:
• c><00:03:31.120> they're what a model school does and they're what a model school does and they're
• earlier this year for a new model earlier this year for a new model laboratory<00:04:01.840>
• <00:35:06.400> Um the superintendent of Model Lab. Um the superintendent of Model Lab.
• of innovation at Model Lab. of innovation at Model Lab.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Interim Joint Budget Review Subcommittee on Education met with a quorum, approved the August 20, 2025 minutes, and then heard a discussion tied to Constitution Day and Kentucky’s constitutional duty to provide an efficient system of common schools. Chairman James Tipton reviewed the history of Kentucky’s model laboratory schools, postsecondary academy programs such as Gatton and Craft, magnet schools, virtual learning, and computer science opportunities, arguing that Kentucky has long expanded educational opportunity through different school models. He described model schools and academy programs as hybrid or innovative approaches that serve specialized student needs and noted that some of these programs receive state appropriations and, in some cases, tuition. Senator Steve West then gave a retrospective on school choice in Kentucky, beginning with the 2017 charter school law and explaining that Kentucky’s charter framework was designed as public-only to comply with the state constitution. He said charter schools have remained largely dormant in Kentucky and used that as context for Senate Bill 207, the School Innovation Act, which he said was modeled on a South Carolina approach. Under SB 207, a local school board can contract with a third-party entity to manage an existing school, receive SEEK funding, and seek waivers from certain state regulations in order to innovate, while retaining limits on items such as school safety and attendance rules. Members asked about how the new model differs from charter schools, whether schools could cherry-pick students, and whether teachers would remain district employees. West and Tipton said the bill is intended to keep the school within the public system, with the local district initiating the process and maintaining accountability through a time-limited contract that can be ended if the school fails to perform. They emphasized that the school would serve the existing student population rather than select students, and that teachers would remain district employees with their pensions and related contributions unchanged. Representative Brown raised concerns that exceptions and charters could leave lower-income children behind, while West responded that the bill is meant to expand choice for families who otherwise lack access and cited examples from other states where outside management and parental involvement helped turn around low-performing schools. No additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've seen models try to get kids to commit suicide, right?
• So models that want to create nuclear, chemical, biological, radiological weapons, models that make it
• These companies are typically deploying these massive models.
• So, first of all, people who use these large models, right, the models can be designed in different ways
• First of all, people who use these large models, right, the models can be designed in different ways

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee heard SB 53 by Senator Wiener after the bill was substantially amended on the floor and referred back under Assembly Rule 77.2. The author explained that the bill, focused on AI safety and frontier models, now applies its main requirements to models trained above 10^26 FLOPs, includes broader whistleblower protections, sets different disclosure obligations based on company revenue, removes Attorney General rulemaking authority in favor of an annual Department of Technology report, and keeps a $1 million-per-violation penalty. He also highlighted CalCompute, a proposed public cloud intended to expand access to compute and support innovation. Supporters, including Encode AI and Economic Security California Action, argued the bill would hold AI developers accountable to their public safety commitments, improve transparency, protect whistleblowers, and help democratize access to AI infrastructure. They said the measure reflects extensive negotiation with the administration and stakeholders and aligns with recommendations from the governor’s frontier-model working group. Opponents, including CalChamber, TechNet, CCIA, and Chamber of Progress, remained opposed unless amended, saying they appreciated the author’s work but still had concerns outlined in their letters. Committee members questioned whether the bill could stifle innovation, how it would address worst-case AI harms, and whether it could reach actors outside California. The author responded that the bill is intended as a light-touch transparency measure, that it applies to entities doing business in California, and that California can still lead in the absence of federal action. Members also emphasized the importance of whistleblower protections and CalCompute. The committee voted 12-1 to pass the bill, with DeMaio voting no and Patterson not voting, and the bill was sent back to the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• line is the model funding.
• In that way, the new model is not...
• [clears throat] And uh this transition from a funding model to a spending model just illustrates how
• At that time, our district was model.
• We had cobbled together funding model.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It is a defining feature of the rest home model.
• designed for group homes is not the right model for rest homes.
• And if not, the responsible person's model, any other administration models?
• MAP model too, which is completely not applicable, because most of the MAP model really applies to maybe
• There is no way all the items in the MAP model can be done in a rest home model too. All right.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Aging and Independence held a hearing on two assisted living bills, Senate 3057 and House 5376, which would create an Assisted Living Residence Trust Fund to support certification staffing, compliance reviews, complaint investigations, ombudsman services, public reporting, appeals, and oversight. Testimony from MassALA, AARP, and the Long-Term Care Ombudsman generally supported the bills and the dedicated funding stream, but MassALA urged amendments to expand career pathways for staff through certified medication aides and to add guardrails on the use of fines as a funding source. The Ombudsman supported the fund and emphasized the need for additional staffing to better serve the state’s assisted living residents. Committee members asked for draft amendment language, and the chairs indicated they were open to further discussion, especially on fines and CMA language. The committee then heard testimony on Senate 3056 and House 5243 regarding medication administration in rest homes. Providers, including the Massachusetts Association of Residential Care Homes, LeadingAge Massachusetts, and several rest home operators, opposed proposed Department of Public Health changes that would eliminate the long-standing “responsible person” model and move rest homes toward the Medication Administration Program (MAP). Witnesses said the current model has been used for decades, is tailored to rest homes, and is essential to affordability, staffing stability, and resident continuity of care; they warned that replacing it with MAP or nurse-only administration would raise costs, worsen workforce shortages, and could force closures or resident displacement. They asked the committee to support legislation preserving responsible persons’ authority to administer medications while improving training and oversight. Committee members asked questions about the history of the responsible person model, how medication administration works day to day, whether other states use similar systems, and whether data exist comparing medication error rates under MAP and the current model. The chairs said they were still reviewing building-code-related recommendations raised in the assisted living discussion and noted that some issues might be better addressed through a task force. The hearing concluded after testimony and questions, and the committee voted to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• model, that should not be...
• model, that should not be...
• officer model.
• Or the warrant service officer model, and really even the jail enforcement model.
• If you do the task force model, I'm sorry, even just the jail enforcement model.

Bills: HB1320, HB2012, HB2293, HB2655, HB3174, HB4108, HB4661, HB4799, HB5534, HB5580

Keywords: transportation, infrastructure, funding, state budget, public safety, child welfare, county boards, membership, local governance, public welfare, government service, social services, Texas Family Code, regulation, vendors, solicitors, roadside sales, county authority, Sweeny Hospital District, board of directors

Transcript Highlights:

• The start date's helpful, and we're looking at that in our model because in the Texas model, they would
• That's not a business model. That's a common-sense model. We can't do it.
• So the difference for the current biennium between this model and the current funding model is a $14
• compared to the current model.
• to the FTE enrollment model.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > funding<00:10:29.399> model<00:10:29.640> is product the performance funding model
• <00:10:39.639> in change to the to the uh to the model in change to the to the uh to the model
• , both impacting the four-year funding model and the two-year funding model.
• > funding funding model and the two-year funding funding model and the two-year funding model<
• um in the kctcs model um they um in the kctcs model um they uh<00:24:50.480> uh<00:24:51.000><

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 276, which would revise the membership of the performance-based funding work group for postsecondary education. Representative Tipton explained that the committee substitute changes the group so the CPE president chairs it as a nonvoting member, all nine university and KCTCS presidents serve as nonvoting advisory members, and the voting members are three House members, three Senate members, the state budget director, and one gubernatorial appointee. He said the goal was to reduce deadlock among institutions and allow legislators to deliberate before meetings. Some members raised concerns that the change shifts influence away from the universities and toward the legislature, but Tipton said he had not heard pushback from the presidents. The committee adopted the substitute and passed HB 276 with an expression of opinion that it should pass with the committee substitute attached; several members voted yes, while Representative Roarx voted no and Representative Stalker passed. The committee then considered House Bill 711, another bill sponsored by Representative Baker and presented by Representative Tipton. Tipton said the measure is a cleanup bill for postsecondary statutes, repealing outdated provisions for groups that have not met in years, including the Strategic Committee on Postsecondary Education, the STEM Initiative Task Force, and local P-16 councils, and removing obsolete language about one-time board appointments. It also strikes the statutory definition of remedial education because Kentucky public postsecondary institutions no longer offer remedial classes, instead using transitional courses with wraparound support that count for credit. A question was raised about whether Senate confirmation requirements for some appointees had been removed in the committee substitute, and Tipton confirmed they had. The committee then passed HB 711 with an expression of opinion that it should pass with the committee substitute attached. After the bills, the committee reviewed administrative regulations from the Council on Postsecondary Education. CPE Senior Vice President and General Counsel Travis Pahl explained that the regulations update the performance funding model for the Kentucky Community and Technical College System to reflect changes made by Senate Bill 191, including a Community Needs Index that reallocates part of an equity adjustment based on regional poverty, unemployment, and labor participation across the 16 colleges. Members were told the committee could ask questions, propose amendments, or find the regulations deficient, but no further action was taken. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The start date's helpful, and we're looking at that in our model because in the Texas model, they would
• That's not a business model. That's a common-sense model. We can't do it.
• So the difference for the current biennium between this model and the current funding model is a $14
• compared to the current model.
• to the FTE enrollment model.

Summary: The Higher Ed Funding Committee met to review how North Dakota might identify and address low-producing academic programs and to discuss draft funding formulas for the university system. Lisa Johnson of the NDUS explained that the State Board of Higher Education is already developing a system-wide policy, using models from other states such as Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Kentucky, Ohio, and Connecticut. She described how low-producing programs are typically flagged by multi-year enrollment or completion thresholds, then reviewed for workforce demand, mission fit, cost, accreditation, and regional need before any action is taken. Committee members asked about what counts as a program, how costs are analyzed, whether certificates are included, how exemptions work for mission-critical or high-demand fields, and whether the board or legislature should set the rules. Johnson said the board is the appropriate body to lead the process, but legislators could use funding leverage if they wanted to encourage action; the chair asked the board to bring a detailed proposal to the June meeting. The committee then heard a Legislative Council presentation on a draft formula for UND and NDSU. The proposal uses fall census FTE enrollment, with a placeholder undergraduate rate of $7,000 per FTE and a graduate/professional rate of $10,500, plus incentives for completions in in-demand fields and research productivity. Alex from Legislative Council walked through the projected funding effects, noting that the model would increase funding for NDSU and reduce it for UND in the current biennium, with different results in the next biennium as enrollment changes are recognized. Members questioned the use of the placeholder rates, the definition of in-demand programs, the treatment of research funding, and the exclusion of state-appropriated dollars from the external grants calculation. The chair emphasized that the numbers were illustrative and that appropriators would set the actual dollar amounts later. A second draft formula for the other nine institutions was also reviewed. That model uses fall census FTE without a weighted economic factor, applies a higher undergraduate rate, and adds completion incentives for in-demand credentials and all other completions. Members noted that the formula would benefit some institutions, such as Bismarck State College, while reducing funding for others, such as Mayville State, and discussed whether the nine institutions should be treated more uniformly or split into smaller groups because of their different missions and sizes. Committee members and staff repeatedly stressed that the formulas are still being refined and that some institutions would likely need hold-harmless adjustments or other transition measures. The meeting ended with the chair directing the committee to continue the discussion later and to expect further work on both the low-producing program policy and the funding formulas.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's also in CFSS, the agency model and the budget model.
• and the budget model.
• It's also in CFSS, the agency model and the budget model.
• and the budget model.
• It's also in CFSS, the agency model and the budget model.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So, this bill, what it does is establishes a commissioner for DCT instead of the executive board model
• ,<00:03:15.440> even Uh with the executive board model, even Uh with the executive board model
• The executive board model anywhere else in state government at this same scale.
• We don’t have the executive board model anywhere else in state government at this same scale.
• So, um, I've sort of taken that model.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 2037, which would replace the current executive board model for Direct Care and Treatment with a commissioner-led structure. Representative Frederick moved the DE1 amendment, which was adopted, to conform the bill with Senate language and place the CEO under the commissioner. Frederick said the change was intended to preserve some continuity while increasing accountability and insulating direct health care services from politics. Frederick argued that the existing executive board, which meets only a few times a year and hires the CEO, would leave the legislature and governor with limited ability to respond quickly to serious problems in a billion-dollar agency. He said the bill is about accountability to Minnesota taxpayers and creating a structure more like other state agencies. Public testimony was closed without any outside witnesses. Members discussed the tradeoffs between board governance and a commissioner model. Chair Schumacher noted Frederick would become chief author of the bill, and several members said they appreciated the effort to balance accountability, continuity of care, and operational expertise. Questions focused on the role of the advisory council; Frederick said it would remain in place so stakeholders could advise the commissioner and CEO, and that legislators are included among its members. The committee then laid over House File 2037, as amended, for possible inclusion in a later bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• closing the collaborative care model closing the collaborative care model represents<00:09:04.760
• overview of the collaborative care model overview of the collaborative care model an<00:09:41.640
• settings the collaborative care model settings the collaborative care model has<00:09:54.279>
• 133% the collaborative care model 133% the collaborative care model improves<00:10:29.200> the
• progress the collaborative care model progress the collaborative care model differs<00:10:48.519

Bills: HF958, HF688, HF702

Keywords: mental health, behavioral health, psychiatric care, collaborative care model, healthcare funding, service dog, service animal, service dog in training, assistance dog, guide dog, disability rights, housing accommodations, fair housing, landlord, rental housing, homeowners association, HOA, Minnesota human services, accessible housing, reasonable accommodation

Transcript Highlights:

• reimbursement models have Current reimbursement models have perverse<00:11:28.800> incentives.
• and partial risk models are realistic. and partial risk models are realistic.
• So I think it's a good model.
• managed care model does not do that. managed care model does not do that.
• c> model for testing this new model for us model for testing this new model for us also<00:48:41.440>

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight Advisory Board met with a quorum, approved the November 12 minutes by voice vote, and then heard a presentation from former Governor Ernie Fletcher and Dave Johnson on Medicaid reimbursement for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. Fletcher argued that addiction should be treated as a chronic disease requiring a longer continuum of care, not just short residential stays, and said recovery should combine clinical treatment with social supports such as housing, transportation, employment, peer coaching, and recovery housing. He cited data on overdose trends, low treatment rates, and high costs for people with SUD, and said current reimbursement models create poor incentives and do not adequately support long-term recovery or measure outcomes well. Fletcher proposed a “carve through” model administered at the MCO level with standardized metrics, data sharing, and an independent recovery coordinator that would assess patients, coordinate care, and connect them to clinical and social recovery services. He suggested using bundled payments, shared savings, and partial risk arrangements, with recovery housing reimbursed on a PMPM or weekly basis and funded in part through existing Medicaid spending and other sources such as opioid abatement funds. He also emphasized peer support, telemedicine, criminal justice coordination, workforce and education supports, and the use of technology, including text messaging and possibly AI, to maintain long-term follow-up and identify relapse risk. Members questioned how the model would work in practice, especially the education and staffing requirements for recovery coordinators, reimbursement levels, and how many patients each coordinator or peer would serve. Fletcher said peers could be certified and would need additional training in assessments such as ASAM and recovery residence standards, but he did not give a precise salary figure, saying the market and bundled rates would determine that. He also said follow-up should continue for years, noting relapse risk over the first 18 to 24 months and that meaningful employment and ongoing peer contact help sustain recovery. No formal vote or action was taken on the substance use presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• . models. models.
• feasibility study to study the model feasibility study to study the model that<00:20:49.840>
• So we do have a model in mind.
• for it and this model does that. for it and this model does that.
• particular model. particular model.

Keywords: 26RS SB 38 Testimony 00:28 26RS SB 38 Roll Call Vote 06:54 26RS SCR 9 Testimony 11:06 26RS SCR 9 Roll Call Vote 32:00 Adjournment 32:49, 958, all

Summary: The committee first considered Senate Bill 38, sponsored by Sen. Richardson, which would require Medicaid to reimburse pharmacists for services already within their legal scope of practice. Richardson and Taylor Williams of the Kentucky Pharmacists Association argued the bill would improve access to care, especially in rural areas, reduce emergency room use, and lower Medicaid costs by using pharmacists as lower-cost providers. Members asked whether the bill’s language simply aligned Medicaid with an earlier commercial parity law, and Richardson confirmed that it did. He also cited prior study work, research articles, and examples such as strep/flu testing and medication therapy management as covered services. The bill passed unanimously, and several members commented in support, including concerns about pharmacy access and the need for pharmacists to remain available to patients. The committee then took up a concurrent resolution sponsored by Sen. Meredith calling for a feasibility study of a proposed new Medicaid delivery model. Meredith argued that Kentucky’s Medicaid spending is growing unsustainably and that current managed care arrangements are not improving outcomes enough. He proposed an accountable community health care organization, described as a locally owned, not-for-profit public-private partnership combining elements of accountable care models, with the goal of reducing bureaucracy, improving outcomes, and lowering costs. He said the study would examine a five-year program and ultimately test the model in five regions, with initial focus on the Lincoln Trail, Green River, and Barren River area development districts. Members asked about the study timeline, vendor costs, rural versus urban impacts, and provider recruitment; Meredith said the resolution would be studied by November and that no fiscal note had been prepared. The resolution passed unanimously.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:03.200> I the evidence evidence-based model. I the evidence evidence-based model.
• the evidence-based model.
• I'll pause between the two models.
• EB model or the evidence-based<00:08:48.959> model.
• funding models for the past 50 years. funding models for the past 50 years.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And now, what have these model developers done?
• models are using the data.
• So the models themselves were producing as evidence.
• So the models themselves were producing as evidence.
• , delete data without deleting the entire model, which then would mean retraining the whole model with

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee met with a new membership roster and adopted its committee rules after quorum was established. The hearing then began with AB 412, the AI Copyright Transparency Act, which would require generative AI developers to provide copyright holders notice when registered copyrighted works are used in training data. The author and supporters, including SAG-AFTRA, the Transparency Coalition, voice actors, writers, labor groups, and other creators, argued the bill would give artists a practical way to learn whether their works were used and to vindicate their rights. Opponents, including EFF, CalChamber, RIAA, CCIA, Chamber of Progress, Bay Area Council, BSA, and TechNet, said the proposal was technically unworkable, could burden startups, conflict with existing law and pending litigation, and raise federal preemption concerns. Members discussed the bill’s amendments, including a fingerprinting approach and narrowing the bill to model developers, and the committee voted 8-2 to pass AB 412 as amended to the Judiciary Committee. The committee then heard AB 446, which would prohibit “surveillance pricing,” or the use of personal data to charge different prices for the same product or service. The author and supporters, including Consumer Watchdog, UFCW, labor organizations, and consumer/privacy groups, described examples of differential pricing tied to device type, location, shopping behavior, and digital price tags, and argued the bill would protect consumers from discriminatory and predatory pricing. Business and industry opponents, including CalChamber, grocers, retailers, travel, broadband, and other associations, said the bill could conflict with the CCPA, interfere with loyalty and rewards programs, and create confusion about personalized discounts and dynamic pricing. The discussion focused on how the bill would treat loyalty programs, whether existing privacy law already covers the issue, and whether the proposal would unintentionally affect legitimate discounts and promotions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some risk pools follow a different model; some other risk pools follow another model.
• I'm not familiar with that model because that model actually is recently been described.
• c><00:41:07.200> that<00:41:07.599> model with that model because that model with that
• model because that model actually<00:41:08.560> is<00:41:09.280> recently<00:41:09.920>
• . model. model.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up SB 297 and a new amendment, 2462, which combined the original Senate bill with the Carson amendment and added a proposed alternative regulatory system, RSA 420R. The chair and members discussed that the amendment was intended to give the Senate what it had asked for while also creating a dual system for public entity risk pools. Members asked whether the new structure would affect ownership or governance of health trusts, and the chair explained that 420R would be a separate regulatory statute while existing 420J-style arrangements could remain in place. The committee also noted that a paragraph had been accidentally deleted from the amendment and that another amendment would be prepared to correct it, with the subcommittee recessed while that was done. Public testimony focused on School Care, represented by Executive Director Lisa Ducette, who opposed the shift to Department of Insurance oversight under 420R. She argued that public entity risk pools are not insurance companies, that they are accountable to member entities and taxpayers, and that the proposed dual regulation would add unnecessary costs through examinations, higher reserves, and additional accounting requirements. She said the change could threaten tax-exempt status and create an uneven playing field, and she urged the committee to support SB 297 with the Carson amendment instead of moving to 420R. Committee members questioned whether the amendment would actually affect pools that stayed under the Secretary of State model, and one member cited support from the New Hampshire Municipal Association for the dual system. The discussion then shifted to amendment 245 on ambulance reimbursement and contracting timelines. Members reviewed a provision giving insurers 45 days and ambulance providers 60 days in the contracting process, and one member suggested making both periods 60 days. The chair and others said the current language was intentional and part of a broader compromise aimed at ending balance billing and forcing insurers to establish reimbursement rates. Members noted that the measure was unusual and that its effects would be reviewed over the next two years, with one member saying the bill would likely be difficult to roll back later. No final vote was taken in the portion provided.