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:

• The disadvantages of the model we've heard.
• The big one, as we look at the funding models, and we are really seriously addressing funding models:
• At FSU, we would not prefer a uniform funding model.
• How would you devise a funding model?
• Carnegie just updated their classification model.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on higher education funding, focusing on how Florida’s university system should be financed and whether a new funding model is needed. University system financial officers and Chancellor Ray Rodriguez discussed major cost drivers, including wages and benefits, utilities, maintenance, financial aid, research, and the effects of geography, institutional mission, and student mix. UF highlighted the cost of research and graduate programs; UCF and FAU pointed to growth, location, and cost of living; FAMU emphasized recruiting top-tier talent while relying on other revenue sources; and UNF noted the challenges of growth and long-term planning. Members also discussed the role of internal controls and audits in addressing excessive spending and questioned whether out-of-state tuition should be adjusted to help offset costs. On revenue sources beyond state appropriations and tuition, the panel described auxiliaries, restricted funds, capital projects, and component units such as foundations and health systems. Several universities noted that some revenues are restricted to specific purposes and cannot be used for general operations. FAMU explained that a large share of its capital project funding reflected active campus construction, while UF said its component-unit revenue is largely tied to UF Health. The Chancellor emphasized that the system’s low tuition and strong state support are central to Florida’s national standing, but also noted that some auxiliary revenues are pledged to debt and must be managed carefully. When discussing the current funding process, witnesses praised Florida’s performance-based funding model for aligning incentives with student success, transparency, and accountability. They also raised concerns about non-recurring appropriations, rising employee benefit costs, unfunded mandates, deferred maintenance, and the difficulty of multi-year planning. Suggestions for improvement included more recurring funding, better coverage of mandated costs, greater flexibility in fee-setting, and possible weighting for mission, geography, and institutional type. The Chancellor said the Board of Governors is considering a “version 3.0” of performance-based funding that would benchmark institutions against peers and Carnegie classifications, but any changes would require legislative action. On out-of-state tuition, most universities said they would prefer local board flexibility, while the Chancellor cautioned that increasing out-of-state enrollment or fees could affect future state support and should be balanced carefully.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we were going to use that model any longer.
• That's the biggest advantage of the model, the transparency, That's the biggest advantage of the model
• And the big one as we look at the funding models and we are really seriously addressing funding models
• At FSU, we would not prefer a uniform funding model.
• How would you divide devise a funding model?

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• model laboratory school in Kentucky. model laboratory school in Kentucky.
• the superintendent at Model Lab School. the superintendent at Model Lab School.
• of innovation at Model Lab. of innovation at Model Lab.
• education's performance funding models. education's performance funding models.
• , a model that we can craft a a model, a model that we can craft a system<02:04:13.840> for<02

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The meeting focused on Kentucky school choice and innovation, with discussion of the state constitution’s “common schools” requirement and how that has been interpreted alongside newer education models. Chairman Tipton described model laboratory schools, Gatton and Craft Academies, magnet and virtual programs, and said these options show that Kentucky has long expanded opportunity through innovation. He then turned the discussion to Senate Bill 207, which he said was designed to support schools of innovation. Senator Steve West reviewed the history of Kentucky charter schools and explained that SB 207 was modeled on a South Carolina approach. He said the bill allows a local school board to contract with a third-party entity to manage an existing school, seek waivers from certain state rules, and receive SEEK funding while also allowing outside private investment. He emphasized that the district initiates the process, that the school remains public, and that the bill includes accountability through a time-limited contract that can be ended if the school is not performing. Members asked about the difference between SB 207 and the earlier charter school law, whether schools could cherry-pick students, and whether teachers would remain district employees. West and Tipton said the new model is tied to an existing school rather than a new charter, cannot cherry-pick students, and keeps teachers as district employees. Representative Brown raised concerns that charters and exceptions could leave some children out, especially lower-income students, while West responded that the proposal is intended to expand choice for families who may not otherwise have it and cited examples from other states where similar models improved low-performing schools. No vote or formal action was taken during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• based on only 40 members in the model. based on only 40 members in the model.
• and that seems to be the revenue model and that seems to be the predominant<00:47:51.440> model
• states I think have move to that model states I think have move to that model and<00:47:59.119><
• based off of if and when we could stabilize the distribution model, and the distribution model being
• But when that tax model, or when that supplemental payment model, blew up, the tax model to pay for it

Keywords: Medicaid - Room 216, 4 February, 2026; 2:00 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee heard presentations on several Medicaid-related topics. First, a pharmacy representative discussed nonopioid pain medications as a way to reduce opioid dependence and overdose risk, emphasizing that options such as acetaminophen, NSAIDs, and topical diclofenac can be useful for pain management. She cautioned that nonopioids can still have risks and said any policy should avoid requiring patients to step through opioids before accessing safer alternatives, while still allowing reasonable step therapy among nonopioid options. The presenter said the goal is to keep patients from being pushed toward opioids by cost or insurance design. The committee also heard emotional testimony from parents of a child with Prader-Willi syndrome, who described the condition as a rare genetic disorder that causes severe, lifelong hyperphagia and requires rigid supervision and ongoing treatment. They argued that alternative funding programs can disrupt access to medically necessary drugs such as human growth hormone, forcing families into costly and uncertain coverage gaps. They asked lawmakers to ensure insurance coverage remains stable for rare disease patients and thanked Senator Blackwell for prior support of rare disease legislation. Next, a Livanova representative urged the committee to support higher Medicaid reimbursement for vagus nerve stimulator surgery for drug-resistant epilepsy. He said inadequate hospital reimbursement has reduced access in Mississippi, causing patients to travel long distances or go without treatment, and argued that better reimbursement would improve outcomes and save money over time. He cited studies showing seizure reductions, lower ER use, and a projected $2.8 million in five-year savings for Medicaid based on 40 patients, and asked that hospitals be reimbursed at 100% of Medicare rates for the procedure codes. Finally, a Medicaid official gave a broad overview of hospital payment structure, including fee-for-service, managed care, MHAP, DSH, UPL, provider taxes, and related funding mechanisms. She explained that hospital payments are interrelated and have shifted over time, with major changes tied to managed care, MHAP/UPL increases, and provider taxes. At the end of the discussion, the committee was running short on time and asked her to skip ahead to the provider tax component; no votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Bills: SJR 39, SB 22, SB 30, SB 33, SB 34, SB 37, SB 75, SB 209, SB 310, SB 505, SB 552, SB 618, SB 626, SB 636, SB 732, SB 747, SB 762, SB 769, SB 819, SB 825, SB 870, SB 926, SB 964, SB 1030, SB 1080, SB 1099, SB 1124, SB 1177, SB 1208, SB 1233, SB 1314, SB 1325, SB 1333, SB 1405, SB 1455, SB 1506, SB 1524, SB 1541, SB 1577, SB 1579, SB 1596, SB 1646, SB 1667, SB 1727, SB 1750, SB 1758, SB 1760, SB 1791, SB 1804, SB 1806, SB 1869, SB 1923, SB 1927, SB 1951, SB 1960, SB 1962, SB 2023, SB 2024, SB 2056, SB 2078, SB 2122, SB 2129, SB 2180, SB 2183, SB 2185, SB 2207, SB 2252, SB 2361, SB 2365, SB 2368, SB 2405, SB 2411, SB 2420, SB 2425, SB 2569, SB 2717, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 39, SJR 63, SJR 68, SCR 12, SCR 39, SCR 38, SCR 37, SCR 42, SCR 29, SB 762, SB 1596, SB 62, SB 666, SB 847, SB 284, SB 854, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1539, SB 1505, SB 583, SB 957, SB 1502, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1349, SB 1433, SB 1434, SB 310, SB 505, SB 264, SB 1364, SB 1376, SB 1585, SB 1772, SB 2016, SB 1163, SB 619, SB 1122, SB 1877, SB 732, SB 731, SB 397, SB 508, SB 1333, SB 1436, SB 964, SB 287, SB 2143, SB 261, SB 1247, SB 1882, SB 618, SB 393, SB 2243, SB 2226, SB 1919, SB 1791, SB 22, SB 651, SB 1080, SB 826, SB 1079, SB 1243, SB 1504, SB 1851, SB 1879, SB 2237, SB 1257, SB 2034, SB 1522, SB 1151, SB 596, SB 1191, SB 226, SB 570, SB 870, SB 991, SB 60, SB 1401, SB 1728, SB 586, SB 529, SB 217, SB 209, SB 1923, SB 1839, SB 387, SB 1874, SB 1872, SB 1873, SB 1921, SB 1883, SB 1620, SB 1838, SB 2024, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 2166, SB 510, SB 33, SB 2420, SB 1860, SB 1541, SB 1314, SB 1398, SB 1869, SB 1750, SB 855, SB 1233, SB 2425, SB 2037, SB 1758, SB 1759, SB 2365, SB 1924, SB 1818, SB 1405, SB 1762, SB 1968, SB 1977, SB 2077, SB 2321, SB 1662, SB 1663, SB 2124, SB 2204, SB 1855, SB 863, SB 37, SB 819, SB 2078, SB 2252, SB 1962, SB 2253, SB 825, SB 1577, SB 1184, SB 2018, SB 2206, SB 1901, SB 1030, SB 2368, SB 1963, SB 1960, SB 1643, SB 1625, SB 1299, SB 841, SB 668, SB 584, SB 231, SB 2411, SB 1085, SB 2431, SB 2231, SB 1490, SB 530, SB 34, SB 1261, SB 552, SB 1099, SB 1646, SB 2180, SB 1804, SB 1937, SB 1936, SB 2569, SB 1372, SB 1208, SB 1124, SB 1506, SB 1806, SB 1868, SB 2361, SB 2314, SB 769, SB 1409, SB 2122, SB 434, SB 1214, SB 1951, SB 2183, SB 2046, SB 1667, SB 1870, SB 1727, SB 2405, SB 2127, SB 1975, SB 1760, SB 1734, SB 1335, SB 2066, SB 2129, SB 2246, SB 2439, SB 1624, SB 1244, SB 1468, SB 2717, SB 1612, SB 1262, SB 604, SB 2395, SB 2185, SB 1832, SB 1745, SB 1746, SB 2207, SB 2023, SB 1784, SB 1524, SB 626, SB 528, SB 437, SB 269, SB 1137, SB 968, SB 636, SB 747, SB 1325, SB 1789, SB 1455, SB 2056, SB 75, SB 1940, SB 2052, SB 1927, SB 2010, SB 1579, SB 2068, SB 3034, SB 844, SB 1920, SB 1177, SB 1558, SB 1236, SB 1044, SB 926, SB 884, SB 463, SB 331, SB 227, SB 240, SB 517, SB 1200, SB 1410, SB 1626, SB 1845, SB 1863, SB 2216, SB 2681, SB 1717, SB 2053, SB 546, SB 2141, SB 2949, SB 2323, SB 2200, SB 2332, SB 2199, SB 1642, SB 1150, SB 1757, SB 2050, SB 1138, SB 2051, SB 2626, SB 2458, SB 1864, SB 30, SB 2201, SB 1862, SB 1583, SB 1583, SB 1055, SB 2660, SB 1898, SB 2662, SB 2662, SB 2161, SB 2161, SB 2964, SB 2881, SB 1065, SB 1065, SB 801, SB 2743, SB 2533, SB 2533, SB 1413, SB 1413, SB 1, SB 34, SB 310, SB 819, SB 1030, SB 1124, SB 1208, SB 1233, SB 1333, SB 1405, SB 1541, SB 1750, SB 1758, SB 1869, SB 2078, SB 2365, SB 2411, SB 762, SB 33, SB 37, SB 505, SR 402, SR 409, SB 2695, SB 2695

Keywords: constitutional amendment, veto override, legislature power, governor, Texas Constitution, Texas, moving image industry, incentive program, film production, grant funding, job creation, economic development, wildfire, wildfire mitigation, wildfire prevention, volunteer fire department, Texas A&M Forest Service, West Texas A&M University, prescribed burning, fuel loading

Bills: SJR39, SB22, SB30, SB33, SB34, SB37, SB75, SB209, SB310, SB505, SB552, SB618, SB626, SB636, SB732, SB747, SB762, SB769, SB819, SB825, SB870, SB926, SB964, SB1030, SB1080, SB1099, SB1124, SB1177, SB1208, SB1233, SB1314, SB1325, SB1333, SB1405, SB1455, SB1506, SB1524, SB1541, SB1577, SB1579, SB1596, SB1646, SB1667, SB1727, SB1750, SB1758, SB1760, SB1791, SB1804, SB1806, SB1869, SB1923, SB1927, SB1951, SB1960, SB1962, SB2023, SB2024, SB2056, SB2078, SB2122, SB2129, SB2180, SB2183, SB2185, SB2207, SB2252, SB2361, SB2365, SB2368, SB2405, SB2411, SB2420, SB2425, SB2569, SB2717, SJR36, SJR50, SJR39, SJR63, SJR68, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SCR42, SCR29, SB762, SB1596, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB1505, SB583, SB957, SB1502, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1433, SB1434, SB310, SB505, SB264, SB1364, SB1376, SB1585, SB1772, SB2016, SB1163, SB619, SB1122, SB1877, SB732, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1333, SB1436, SB964, SB287, SB2143, SB261, SB1247, SB1882, SB618, SB393, SB2243, SB2226, SB1919, SB1791, SB22, SB651, SB1080, SB826, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB1401, SB1728, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB510, SB33, SB2420, SB1860, SB1541, SB1314, SB1398, SB1869, SB1750, SB855, SB1233, SB2425, SB2037, SB1758, SB1759, SB2365, SB1924, SB1818, SB1405, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2321, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB37, SB819, SB2078, SB2252, SB1962, SB2253, SB825, SB1577, SB1184, SB2018, SB2206, SB1901, SB1030, SB2368, SB1963, SB1960, SB1643, SB1625, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB231, SB2411, SB1085, SB2431, SB2231, SB1490, SB530, SB34, SB1261, SB552, SB1099, SB1646, SB2180, SB1804, SB1937, SB1936, SB2569, SB1372, SB1208, SB1124, SB1506, SB1806, SB1868, SB2361, SB2314, SB769, SB1409, SB2122, SB434, SB1214, SB1951, SB2183, SB2046, SB1667, SB1870, SB1727, SB2405, SB2127, SB1975, SB1760, SB1734, SB1335, SB2066, SB2129, SB2246, SB2439, SB1624, SB1244, SB1468, SB2717, SB1612, SB1262, SB604, SB2395, SB2185, SB1832, SB1745, SB1746, SB2207, SB2023, SB1784, SB1524, SB626, SB528, SB437, SB269, SB1137, SB968, SB636, SB747, SB1325, SB1789, SB1455, SB2056, SB75, SB1940, SB2052, SB1927, SB2010, SB1579, SB2068, SB3034, SB844, SB1920, SB1177, SB1558, SB1236, SB1044, SB926, SB884, SB463, SB331, SB227, SB240, SB517, SB1200, SB1410, SB1626, SB1845, SB1863, SB2216, SB2681, SB1717, SB2053, SB546, SB2141, SB2949, SB2323, SB2200, SB2332, SB2199, SB1642, SB1150, SB1757, SB2050, SB1138, SB2051, SB2626, SB2458, SB1864, SB30, SB2201, SB1862, SB1583, SB1583, SB1055, SB2660, SB1898, SB2662, SB2662, SB2161, SB2161, SB2964, SB2881, SB1065, SB1065, SB801, SB2743, SB2533, SB2533, SB1413, SB1413, SB1, SB34, SB310, SB819, SB1030, SB1124, SB1208, SB1233, SB1333, SB1405, SB1541, SB1750, SB1758, SB1869, SB2078, SB2365, SB2411, SB762, SB33, SB37, SB505, SR402, SR409, SB2695, SB2695

Keywords: constitutional amendment, veto override, legislature power, governor, Texas Constitution, Texas, moving image industry, incentive program, film production, grant funding, job creation, economic development, wildfire, wildfire mitigation, wildfire prevention, volunteer fire department, Texas A&M Forest Service, West Texas A&M University, prescribed burning, fuel loading

Transcript Highlights:

• This is an intensity model that's modeled after other states that have... been successful with this,
• So could you speak to how the intensity-based model addresses some of the long... standing shortfalls
• The intensity model works because we're putting the money exactly where it's needed.
• Well that's the power behind the model and the changes inherent within the bill and just so thankful
• We've got a framework now with an intensity model and we know what areas we're looking at.

Bills: SJR 12, SJR 81, SCR 39, SB 22, SB 32, SB 241, SB 393, SB 414, SB 458, SB 464, SB 568, SB 583, SB 609, SB 660, SB 693, SB 731, SB 732, SB 746, SB 783, SB 785, SB 897, SB 993, SB 996, SB 1008, SB 1029, SB 1035, SB 1036, SB 1120, SB 1122, SB 1147, SB 1163, SB 1188, SB 1197, SB 1209, SB 1227, SB 1245, SB 1267, SB 1307, SB 1321, SB 1332, SB 1386, SB 1394, SB 1396, SB 1470, SB 1494, SB 1537, SB 1596, SB 1598, SB 1610, SB 1664, SB 1814, SB 1822, SB 1841, SB 1948, SB 2065, SB 2155, SB 2406, SB 2407, SJR 12, SJR 36, SJR 81, SJR 50, SJR 4, SCR 22, SCR 12, SCR 39, SB 765, SB 62, SB 666, SB 888, SB 687, SB 847, SB 1248, SB 504, SB 305, SB 296, SB 284, SB 241, SB 304, SB 1023, SB 204, SB 609, SB 670, SB 850, SB 854, SB 413, SB 1346, SB 1033, SB 1220, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1539, SB 447, SB 1119, SB 1505, SB 1215, SB 1302, SB 583, SB 673, SB 681, SB 1172, SB 955, SB 957, SB 1120, SB 541, SB 266, SB 1415, SB 53, SB 1352, SB 785, SB 1450, SB 1502, SB 1566, SB 414, SB 1062, SB 711, SB 746, SB 1404, SB 1448, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1349, SB 1355, SB 1433, SB 1434, SB 1596, SB 1403, SB 667, SB 1059, SB 1567, SB 310, SB 311, SB 505, SB 1209, SB 1210, SB 1470, SB 264, SB 1029, SB 1358, SB 1364, SB 1569, SB 1376, SB 1228, SB 519, SB 1350, SB 462, SB 827, SB 1585, SB 1396, SB 1484, SB 1273, SB 927, SB 1227, SB 1229, SB 1353, SB 1464, SB 1709, SB 1729, SB 1733, SB 1744, SB 1772, SB 1841, SB 1147, SB 1008, SB 2016, SB 1173, SB 1163, SB 996, SB 568, SB 1370, SB 1321, SB 1101, SB 860, SB 993, SB 693, SB 1610, SB 1537, SB 1332, SB 1307, SB 963, SB 493, SB 984, SB 619, SB 1122, SB 455, SB 522, SB 1057, SB 1239, SB 1254, SB 1255, SB 1259, SB 1341, SB 1664, SB 1877, SB 464, SB 1277, SB 32, SB 732, SB 660, SB 731, SB 921, SB 268, SB 1822, SB 1188, SB 1589, SB 397, SB 1058, SB 1036, SB 1267, SB 2112, SB 1930, SB 532, SB 1035, SB 2155, SB 508, SB 292, SB 291, SB 901, SB 1333, SB 1436, SB 1494, SB 964, SB 779, SB 1378, SB 2312, SB 1719, SB 1386, SB 287, SB 2143, SB 1245, SB 261, SB 1247, SB 1948, SB 2406, SB 2407, SB 1882, SB 1197, SB 1814, SB 618, SB 38, SB 393, SB 2065, SB 1371, SB 1394, SB 1365, SB 2243, SB 2226, SB 2039, SB 1919, SB 1895, SB 1598, SB 1493, SB 1810, SB 1791, SB 1706, SB 1644, SB 1238, SB 783, SB 458, SB 22, SB 651, SB 897, SB 1809, SB 1080, SB 745, SB 826, SB 989, SB 1320, SB 1437, SB 2320, SB 2289, SB 1171, SB 664, SB 1637, SB 2064, SB 868, SJR 40, SJR 27, SCR 38, SCR 37, SB 1079, SB 1243, SB 1504, SB 1851, SB 1879, SB 2237, SB 1257, SB 2034, SB 1522, SB 883, SB 249, SB 1318, SB 1151, SB 596, SB 1191, SB 226, SB 570, SB 870, SB 991, SB 60, SB 365, SB 1067, SB 1786, SB 326, SB 1401, SB 1592, SB 1728, SB 1265, SB 586, SB 529, SB 217, SB 209, SB 1923, SB 1559, SB 1839, SB 387, SB 1874, SB 1872, SB 1873, SB 1921, SB 1883, SB 1677, SB 95, SB 1620, SB 1838, SB 2024, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 2166, SB 871, SB 510, SB 33, SB 2420, SB 1860, SB 1541, SB 1316, SB 1314, SB 1313, SB 1426, SB 1398, SB 1869, SB 1750, SB 1871, SB 36, SB 855, SB 1233, SB 760, SB 2425, SB 2037, SB 1758, SB 1759, SB 2365, SB 1924, SB 762, SB 1271, SB 1818, SB 605, SB 1405, SB 1762, SB 1968, SB 1977, SB 2077, SB 2148, SB 2321, SB 1967, SB 1662, SB 1663, SB 2124, SB 2204

Keywords: parental rights, education, constitutional amendment, school choice, child education, tax exemption, ad valorem, tangible personal property, income production, border security, southern border, federal immigration policy, illegal immigration, cartels, transnational cartels, fentanyl, drug trafficking, human trafficking, Operation Lone Star, Texas border

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on educational reforms, particularly in special education funding. Notably, Senator Bettencourt laid out the transformative impacts of Senate Bill 568, which aims to lift a historical cap on special education funding that affected approximately 775,000 students. The discussions included plans for an intensity-based funding model that could ensure fair distribution of resources depending on individual needs, thereby enhancing educational support for diverse learning requirements. Senators acknowledged past failures in the special education framework, emphasizing the necessity of moving towards a system that is transparent and focused on delivering adequate services.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, so primarily that's all just salary for climate modelers.
• No consultants climate modelers.
• Um, and we need this really granular modeling that you folks are doing.
• Um, and we need this really granular modeling that you folks are doing.
• referenced, Kauaii has used the modeling referenced, Kauaii has used the modeling that<00:27:57.039

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Higher Education heard SB 657 SD1 HD1, which would appropriate funds for SOEST at UH Manoa to establish and operate a Center for Climate Resilient Development. Testimony was strongly in support from UH researchers, DLNR, and several other organizations. Supporters said the center’s modeling and data are already used by state and county agencies for sea level rise, shoreline setback, flood, and infrastructure planning, and that local funding is increasingly important because federal climate research funding is uncertain. Members discussed how the work might be framed to avoid federal political pushback, and witnesses said the research can be described in terms of infrastructure protection, public safety, and cost savings. They also confirmed the funding would primarily support salaries for climate modelers and would help backfill federal cuts. The committee recommended and adopted passage of the bill unamended. Members also discussed the practical value of the center’s work, including Kauai’s sea level rise constraint district, future rainfall and flooding modeling, and the need for more granular data than current FEMA maps provide. Additional support was noted from the State Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, the City and County of Honolulu Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency, the Ulu Pono Initiative, Surfrider Foundation, Hawaii Region Climate Protectors, Hawaii Coalition Earth, and the Climate Change and Health Working Group. The committee then voted to pass SB 657 SD1 HD1 as recommended. The committee later took up SB 1252 SD2, a bill requiring the Board of Regents to establish a specialized training program for health care providers on Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias and appropriating funds. The chair explained that the HD1 version incorporated suggestions from the John A. Burns School of Medicine, added a preamble recognizing existing programs and the need for coordination, and left a blank appropriation and FTE count in the bill while including the amounts in the committee report. With no discussion, the committee voted to pass SB 1252 SD2 with amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• You're out also on the collaborative care model.
• I'm also interested in the collaborative care model.
• The primary care physician is the lead of the collaborative care model because the model... is based
• As we're thinking about the community of care model, we're essentially taking the semi-model, if you
• What we now model is a model for other rural agencies, but we're not done; we still need all the support

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, fundamentally, Opus is a home care model.
• Valerie asked if this is in partnership with ASAPs or a privately contracted home care model, or a model
• So that's the model: a pure home care model. Thank you for answering that question.
• The second is to recommend a sequential model.
• , including a sequential model, including an interest model, that after a certain period you have to

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission meeting focused on continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), beginning with a presentation from Two Life Communities on its Opus Newton model, which is opening in the fall. Two Life described Opus as a middle-income, modern CCRC built around affordability, care coordination in residents’ apartments rather than separate care buildings, and resident-driven community life. Commissioners asked about financing, home care arrangements, affordability, Medicaid/MassHealth access, and the role of resident councils versus board representation. Two Life said it wants to remain within the CCRC framework, but expressed concern about proposals that would require multiple discrete care levels, impose deadlines on entrance-fee refunds, or require resident board seats. The commission then discussed possible recommendations. There was broad support for Senate Bill 478, which would require clearer disclosure of entrance-fee refund terms in a separate document for prospective residents. On refund timing, members were divided: some favored a one-year deadline or a deadline with waivers, while others opposed a fixed deadline because of financing risks and the potential impact on new development and current residents. Several members suggested keeping the status quo but adding better data collection and reporting on refund timing. On the CCRC definition and marketing, members debated whether the current statutory definition is too vague and whether the commission should recommend clearer standards or a certification-like process, while also noting resource limits for state oversight. Members also discussed the Age CCRC Consumer Guide, with general agreement that it should be updated and made more useful to consumers, possibly with clearer questions to ask and more information about facilities, though some cautioned against adding subjective financial-risk statements that would be hard to administer. On resident representation, several commissioners strongly supported requiring resident voting members on boards, while providers argued that strong resident associations and regular meetings with boards may be preferable and that communities should retain flexibility. The meeting ended with a request for written comments by July 11, draft recommendations to be circulated July 18, and a possible final meeting on July 21, with the commission aiming to finish by August 1.

Transcript Highlights:

• assess whether the existing model assess whether the existing model effectively<00:19:52.320>
• <00:20:04.960> in<00:20:05.280> which model and an alternative model in which model
• That just might be a better model than the model we're using today.
• model than the model we're using today. model than the model we're using today.
• If we change the model, these question.

Keywords: Call to Order and Roll Call: 00:22 Office of Education Accountability Report: Early Childhood Regional Training Centers (RTCs): 01:22 Approval of July 14, 2025 Minutes 31:21 Office of Education Accountability: 2025 Study Agenda 32:35 Adjournment: 39:12, 958, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an Office of Education Accountability report on Kentucky’s early childhood regional training centers (RTCs). OEA said the centers provide valuable training, consultation, technical assistance, and materials for preschool personnel, especially for children with disabilities and at-risk students, and that the services align with state and federal requirements. However, the report found uneven student and teacher populations across regions, wide variation in per-student funding, some staffing data inaccuracies, and several fiscal oversight concerns, including inconsistent indirect cost rates, a building rental charge that may have been duplicative, and host districts recording RTC expenditures in a way that could blur them with district finances. OEA also said some documentation of progress toward goals was incomplete and that the technology lending library appeared underused. The report recommended stronger KDE oversight, uniform coding and accounting practices, review of budgets and expenditures, and an evaluation of whether the current five-center model remains the most efficient structure; OEA also suggested the General Assembly may wish to revisit KRS 157.318. Members asked about KDE’s response, whether the centers are required by federal law, how the centers operate, and whether changing the model would affect federal funding. OEA said KDE had only discussed the findings informally and had not issued a formal response, the centers are required by state law but not federal law, and changing the model would not jeopardize IDEA preschool funds. The committee accepted the report by motion. The subcommittee then approved the minutes from its July 14, 2025 meeting after initially delaying action because quorum was not yet present. After that, members turned to the Office of Education Accountability’s proposed 2026 study agenda. OEA said the three proposed topics are the annual district data profiles, facilities funding, and implementation of early literacy statutes. The district profiles would add an appendix showing the number and percentage of students moving to private school or homeschool by district and another appendix noting data-quality issues that affect comparability. OEA explained that district staffing data can undercount contract staff because those employees are not always entered into the system, and members expressed interest in tracking whether prior recommendations were implemented. One senator also raised a separate interest in reviewing whether KDE created and implemented regulations related to KFIX. The discussion remained informational, with no final vote on the study agenda shown in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• We allowed them to participate in the warrant service model and any other model, including the jail enforcement
• or task force model.
• I'm sorry, the warrant service officer model or jail enforcement model.
• You know, I know less about the tactical model because the tactical model had been in existence for a
• Therefore, I will tell you again, your advocacy for the models that you... ...took the safest models,

Bills: HCR158, HCR159, HCR160, HCR161, HCR162, HCR163, HCR164, HR174, HR427, HR790, HR810, HR857, HR866, HR882, HR883, HR962, HR966, HR1001, HR1045, HR1085, HR1097, HR1127, HR1138, HR1141, HR1150, HR1152, HR1292, HR1296, HR1304, HR1305, HR1306, HR1308, HR1309, HR1310, HR1311, HR1312, HR1313, HR1315, HR1317, HR1318, HR1320, HR1321, HR1322, HR1323, HR1324, HR1325, HR1327, HR1328, HR1329, HR1330, HR1331, HR1332, HR1333, HR1334, HR1335, HR1338, HR1340, HR1341, HR1342, HR1343, HR1344, HR1345, HR1346, HR1347, HR1348, HR1349, HR1352, HR1353, HR1354, HR1355, HR1358, HR1359, HR1360, HR1361, HR1362, HR1363, HR1364, HR1365, HR1366, HR1368, HR1369, HR1370, HR1380, HR1383, HR1384, HR1385, HR1386, HR1387, HR1388, HR1389, HR1390, HR1392, HR1393, HR1396, HR1397, HR1398, HR1399, HR1400, HR1402, HR1403, HR1404, HR1405, HR1406, HR1407, HR1408, HR1409, HR1410, HR1411, HR1412, HR1413, HR1414, HR1415, HR1417, HR1418, HR1419, HR1420, HR1421, HR1422, HR1424, HR1425, HR1426, HR1427, HR1428, HR1429, HR1430, HR1431, HR1432, HR1433, HR1434, HR1435, HR1436, HR1437, HR1438, HR1440, HR1441, HR1442, HR1443, HR1444, HR1445, HR1447, HR1448, HR1449, HR1450, HR1452, HR1453, HR1454, HR1455, HR1456, HR1458, HR1459, HR1460, HR1461, HR1462, HR1463, HR1464, HR1465, HR1466, HR1467, HR1469, HR1470, HR1471, HR1472, HR1473, HR1475, HR1477, HCR132, HCR154, HR17, HR49, HR170, HR275, HR355, HR356, HR364, HR369, HR672, HR690, HR755, HR756, HR759, HR762, HR763, HR781, HR785, HR848, HR1240, HR1265, HR1303, HR1307, HR1314, HR1316, HR1319, HR1326, HR1336, HR1337, HR1350, HR1351, HR1367, HR1371, HR1372, HR1373, HR1374, HR1375, HR1376, HR1377, HR1378, HR1379, HR1382, HR1391, HR1395, HR1451, HR1457, HR1468, HR1474, HR1476, SB1637, SB2878, HB2885, HB2017, HB5246, SB8, SB2308, SB1405, HB 119, SB3059, SB15, SB568, SB2900, HB3642, HB3909, SB268, HB493, SB2217, HB2516, SB650, HB2963, SB1610, HB705, SB2972, SB1540, HB40, SB2753, SB1660, SB2024, HB1545, HB46

Keywords: World War II, V-J Day, Victory over Japan Day, Japan surrender, atomic bomb, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, USS Missouri, Douglas MacArthur, Harry S. Truman, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, Potsdam Conference, Pacific Theater, Greatest Generation, veterans, military history, commemoration, concurrent resolution, Texas Legislature

Transcript Highlights:

• Why the apprenticeship model?
• Why the apprenticeship model?
• <00:13:55.079> there's to be competitive in this model there's to be competitive in this model
• commercially viable as a Statewide model commercially viable as a Statewide model we<00:14:16.519
• Mano they said it's a great model Mano they said it's a great model because<01:03:18.039> they

Bills: HF846, HF1538, HF1959

Keywords: education, special education, apprenticeship, funding, grants, intermediate school districts, teacher apprenticeship, registered apprenticeship, teacher licensure, teacher shortage, workforce development, education finance, K-12 education, higher education, Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board, PELSB, Tier 3 license, teacher preparation, mentor teacher, school district

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:14.440> or so what is Pace um pace is a model or so what is Pace um pace is a model
• things that are attractive to the model things that are attractive to the model and<00:18:22.080
• enrolled in that dual integrated model enrolled in that dual integrated model here<00:19:39.559>
• But that is the very best model.
• But that is the very best model.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• These models are not subject to review nor accessible to the public.
• users of the model.
• Wildfire farm models can be critical to building a safer community.
• model contemplated by this bill will help expose if and when private catastrophe models are overstating
• At present, all wildfire catastrophe models are proprietary, closed to public scrutiny.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee met to hear several bills related to insurance coverage, wildfire risk, workers’ compensation, and paid family leave. SB 8 by Senator Ashby would extend workers’ compensation and disability protections to Sacramento County park rangers, with testimony emphasizing that they perform law-enforcement-like duties and should receive the same protections as comparable officers. SB 429 by Senator Cortese would create a public wildfire catastrophe model and related wildfire safety program, with support from the Department of Insurance and consumer advocates who said public access to modeling data would improve transparency and help evaluate private insurance risk models. The committee also heard SB 525 by Senator Jones, which would require the FAIR Plan to offer coverage options for manufactured and mobile home owners, including replacement cost coverage. Supporters said the bill would help lower-income residents obtain meaningful insurance protection, while no opposition testified. SB 495 by Senator Allen, as amended, would require insurers to provide a larger contents-coverage advance after a total loss during a declared emergency without requiring an immediate itemized inventory, extend proof-of-loss deadlines, and require insurers to provide catastrophe modeling and reinsurance data to the Department of Insurance. Several insurers withdrew opposition after amendments, and the Department of Insurance and United Policyholders supported the measure. SB 590 by Senator Durazo would expand paid family leave to cover care for designated persons or chosen family members, with strong support from AARP, labor, civil rights, caregiving, and health organizations, and testimony from a parent describing the need to care for a non-legal family member during surgery recovery. The committee also took up consent items SB 230 and SB 854. After roll calls, SB 8, SB 429, SB 495, SB 525, and SB 590 all received do-pass votes, with SB 429 sent to the Committee on Emergency Management, SB 495 to Judiciary, and SB 525 and SB 590 to Appropriations. The consent calendar bills were also approved, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• THESE ARE GREAT PARTNERSHIPS AND THAT'S NOT A CRITIQUE BUT IT WAS A MODEL THAT WORKED UP TO A CERTAIN
• GOING TO THE UNIFIED MODEL HELPED US DO A COUPLE THINGS.
• WE DID CONTEMPLATE ONE ON DEVICES WHEN THE LEGISLATION WAS CREATED AND IT WAS HOW DO WE DESIGN A MODEL
• THE INSTRUCTION MODEL ITSELF IS IN PERSON AND ONLINE AND BLENDED LEARNING.
• I WILL JUMP FORWARD TO WHAT THE ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL IS APPROVED BY THE STATE MODEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY

Keywords: 999, senate, all