Transcript Highlights:

• Members, there's a resource witness for the program.
• Again, we've had the benefit of seeing the success in this program in other states.
• It does not impact Texas' 13-week extended benefit program, which is a joint federally state-funded program
• And that's not because they're getting kicked off the program.
• I'm assigned to the service contract providers and administrators program.

Bills: HB 112 , HB199 , HB621 , HB1349 , HB2214 , HB3466 , HB3698 , HB3699 , HCR9 , HB112 , HB199 , HCR9

Committee: House Trade, Workforce & Economic Development

Keywords: science park district, economic development, technology innovation, higher education collaboration, infrastructure development, Texas Economic Development Office, workforce development, unemployment benefits, state average unemployment rate, benefit year, economic support, Texas Workforce Commission, property owners' association, free speech, assembly rights, government officials, political candidates, floodplain, landlord, tenant

Summary: The Committee on Trade, Workforce and Economic Development met with a quorum and moved quickly through a long agenda, hearing testimony and taking recorded votes on several bills. Early in the meeting, HB 2214 was laid out to exempt certain short-term residential leases and leaseback arrangements from flood-disclosure requirements; Texas Realtors supported the change, and the bill was left pending. The committee then voted out a series of pending measures, including HB 46, HB 186 (with a committee substitute), HB 431, HB 1147, HB 1154, HB 2468, HB 2488, HB 2788 (with a substitute), HB 2791 (with a substitute), HB 3260, and HCR 90, all reported favorably to the full House, with HB 1147 receiving two nays and the others passing unanimously or nearly so. A major portion of the hearing focused on HB 112, which would create a Texas Science Park district and commission to support advanced manufacturing and innovation sites. The bill’s author and supporters, including Samsung Austin Semiconductor, the Texas Association of Business, and the Governor’s economic development office, argued it would strengthen supply chains, attract investment, and support national security and workforce development. Testimony described interest from semiconductor and advanced manufacturing companies and referenced the model of foreign science parks such as Sinshu in Taiwan. HB 112 was left pending after testimony. The committee also heard HB 3698 and HB 3699, both related to unemployment insurance administration. HB 3698 would expand eligibility for the Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment program using federal funds, while HB 3699 would tighten the definition of “last work” to help the Texas Workforce Commission investigate UI fraud. Both bills were discussed with TWC resource witnesses and left pending after the committee withdrew the substitutes. HB 1349, which would extend HOA transparency and property-rights provisions to condominiums and refine HOA rules, and HB 621, which would require HOA meeting spaces to be available for residents to reserve for qualified political candidates or elected officials, were also heard and left pending. Finally, the committee heard HCR 9 to designate the first Saturday of each month as Small Business Saturday, HB 199 to index unemployment benefit duration to the state unemployment rate, and HB 3466 to exempt certain cancelable service contracts from Texas’s in-home sales cooling-off law; each drew supportive and opposing testimony and was left pending before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• , along with what the private sector is good at, which is long-term management and execution of a program

Bills: HB154 , HB153 , HB180 , SB70

Committee: House Military and Veterans Affairs

Keywords: veterans affairs, Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs, State Board of Veterans Affairs, commissioner, governor appointment, board advisory, veteran service organizations, veterans homes, veterans cemeteries, veteran service officers, district managers, state veterans home trust fund, veterans benefits, military veterans, disabled veterans, elderly veterans, active-duty service members, state agency reorganization, executive authority, governance reform

Transcript Highlights:

• Certain PIT rebates were created or expanded.
• The food and medical PIT rebates were reduced.
• In 1988, they repealed the individual food and medical PIT rebates, but they enacted a permanent rebate
• In 2021, more COVID relief tax rebates, the first of several tax rebates for taxpayers, a three-month
• to give it a proof of concept so that they can see if that tax program works or that grant program works

Summary: The committee’s final day focused first on a historical overview of New Mexico tax packages by Pam Stokes of Legislative Council Services. She described how tax packages have alternated over the decades between tax relief, revenue raising, and tax reform, with examples ranging from the creation of the gross receipts tax in 1966 to major packages in 1981, 1986, 1991, 1994, 2005, 2019, 2022, 2024, and the vetoed 2025 package. Members discussed how tax policy often tracks revenue conditions, how packages can combine increases and decreases, and how local government gross receipts taxes and hold-harmless distributions have affected communities differently. Several members reflected on past packages, especially the 2004 food tax repeal and the 2013 film tax and manufacturing changes, and noted that tax policy can have major economic and political effects even when it is not “sexy” legislation. The committee then heard a proposal to expand the health care practitioner gross receipts tax deduction to include co-insurance, and to extend the sunset date. Sponsor Senator Figueroa said the bill was intended to help recruit and retain medical providers and build on prior deductions for co-pays and deductibles. Testimony explained that co-insurance is the patient’s share after the deductible, that providers currently absorb the gross receipts tax on those payments, and that the proposal would cost about $30 million to the state plus about $20 million to municipalities and counties, with the exact fiscal impact likely to be updated. Members raised concerns about the effect on local governments, whether insurers could be required to reimburse providers, whether the bill would actually attract doctors, and whether better evaluation measures and sunsets should be added. The sponsor said the bill was part of a broader set of efforts to address provider shortages and that the discussion would continue. Representative McQueen then presented a bill to update the Land Conservation Incentives Act. He and conservation partners said the program has protected more than 500,000 acres but has not kept pace with rising land values, especially for irrigated agricultural land in the Middle Rio Grande. The proposal would increase the percentage of conservation value eligible for the credit, raise the per-transaction cap from $250,000 to $2 million, and make the credit refundable rather than only transferable. Testimony emphasized that the program is voluntary, keeps land in private ownership and production, and helps land-rich, cash-poor landowners preserve farmland and water rights. Members asked about average credit amounts, how easements work, whether landowners could effectively buy land and then use the credit, and whether there should be inflation indexing or a statewide cap. The discussion also touched on water rights, fencing, and the role of conservation easements in protecting agricultural land and compact water deliveries. Finally, Senator Sharer previewed his 2% tax proposal with a historical presentation on New Mexico tax law, using props to illustrate the evolution from early territorial tax codes to the modern tax system. He argued that the state’s current tax structure is overly complex and that recent federal changes have disrupted the personal income tax base. The committee did not take any votes on the day’s presentations; the meeting was primarily informational, with members offering feedback and raising policy concerns for future sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• The 340B program is essential.
• The 340B program is a federal program, and let me be clear: the 340B program has been a great program
• This program is not shrinking.
• do not ask for an additional rebate through the Medicaid drug rebate program.
• Rebates that are received by PBMs are completely unrelated to 340B and do not benefit the program as

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Financial Services

Summary: The committee held a lengthy hearing on a large docket of pharmacy and drug-pricing bills, with most testimony focused on PBM reform, 340B drug discount program protections, specialty medication access, and medication adherence. Chair James Murphy and Senator Paul Feeney opened the hearing and took testimony from legislators, patient advocates, pharmacists, health center leaders, industry representatives, and policy groups. Several speakers described delays, denials, high out-of-pocket costs, and pharmacy closures tied to PBM practices, while others emphasized the importance of community health centers and independent pharmacies in serving patients. On the 340B program, supporters including Senator Eldridge, Senator Payano, Community Care Cooperative, Fenway Health, the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers, and several community health center leaders argued that bills such as H. 1107 and S. 819 would stop discriminatory PBM and manufacturer practices, preserve contract pharmacy access, and protect safety-net providers that say they reinvest savings into care, pharmacy expansion, interpreter services, behavioral health, and other services. Opponents including PhRMA, the Community Liver Alliance, and a public policy analyst argued the program lacks transparency and accountability, has grown beyond its original purpose, and may benefit large hospitals and for-profit entities more than low-income patients. They urged more reporting and oversight rather than expanding protections. On PBM reform, testimony supported bills including H. 1157, H. 1234, S. 724, S. 831, and related measures that would require rebate pass-through, ban spread pricing, limit steering to PBM-owned pharmacies, and improve reimbursement for community pharmacies. Independent pharmacists and patients said current PBM practices raise costs, create administrative burdens, and threaten access to local pharmacies. PCMA, representing PBMs, opposed the reforms, arguing PBMs lower costs, that plan sponsors choose to contract with them, and that the Health Policy Commission and CHIA should complete their ongoing study before new mandates are adopted. The committee also heard support for H. 1322 and S. 734 on specialty medications, and for H. 781 and H. 1305 on medication synchronization to improve adherence. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Open Enrollment Program indexing.
• Rebate of up to $300 or $600 for married joint filers.
• But what kind of rebate would they be getting here?
• The rebates are one-time, which is $870 million.
• But was that because we didn't give the amount of dollars to the program, or was that because the program

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• programs.
• It requires the Department of Transportation to establish a clean vehicle rebate program to provide rebates
• program to provide rebates for the purchase or lease of new and used zero-emission vehicles and plug-in
• program.
• The department does stand in support of the clean vehicle rebate program.

Bills: HB1986 , HB1694 , HB1695 , HB2030 , HB1673

Committee: House Energy & Environmental Protection

Summary: The committee on Energy and Environmental Protection heard testimony on three measures related to cleaner fuels. On HB 1986, which would require the Department of Transportation to adopt rules for a clean fuel standard by January 1, 2028 and include reporting and public informational sessions, testimony was largely supportive from state commissions, fuel companies, airlines, and other industry and advocacy groups. Supporters said the bill would create a long-term framework for reducing emissions and developing cleaner fuels in Hawaii. Opposition came from Energy Justice Network, which argued that so-called clean fuels are not carbon-free, would be costly, and could delay a needed transition to electrification. The department later said it was monitoring the bill and was concerned about costs. No vote or final action was taken in the hearing. The committee then heard HB 1694, a sustainable aviation fuel tax credit bill that would provide a per-gallon credit for SAF, cap annual credits at $20 million, require reporting, and sunset in 2035. The Department of Taxation testified on administration, while the Department of Transportation said it supported the measure as a short-term strategy to jump-start SAF until the clean fuel standard ramps up. Airlines, fuel companies, the Hawaii Food Industry Association, the Hawaii Renewable Fuels Coalition, and others supported the bill, saying it would send a market signal, help close the cost gap with conventional jet fuel, and encourage local production and investment. Opponents, including Energy Justice Network, Life of the Land, and Ted Metros, argued the bill would be expensive, could lock in a transitional fuel system, and would not produce enough fuel to meet demand. Committee members asked about the likely impact and the share of total fuel demand the credit could support; DOT said the supported gallons would be only a very small percentage of annual demand and that the credit was intended to work alongside the future clean fuel standard. Finally, the committee took up HB 1695 HD1 on renewable fuel, which expands the renewable fuels production tax credit. Testimony was again mixed but generally supportive from the Department of Transportation, Department of Taxation, Island Energy Services, airlines, the Tax Foundation, Pana Pacific, and the Hawaii Farm Bureau. Supporters said the measure would encourage local feedstock production, create agricultural opportunities, and help attract investment in renewable fuels. Pana Pacific requested an amendment to explicitly include camelina in the definition of renewable feedstocks. Opponents, including Energy Justice Network and Life of the Land, repeated concerns about cost, imported feedstocks, and the risk of undermining full electrification goals. The hearing transcript does not show any vote or final committee action on HB 1694 or HB 1695 HD1.

Transcript Highlights:

• Kavanaugh kind of structured his amendment, he said, hey, we can still keep a rebate program.
• It's all well and good to have a rebate program. He said, hey, we can still keep a rebate program.
• It's all well and good to have a rebate program, but you need your pharmaceutical partner to actually
• want to provide a rebate.
• It doesn't hurt any nonprofit payment premiums or any drug rebate programs or anything of that nature

Bills: SB1052 , SB1115 , SB1118 , SB1120 , SB1121 , SB1124 , SB1171 , SB1172 , SB1174 , SB1175 , SB1214 , SB1233 , SB1235 , SB1316 , SB1345 , SB1372 , SB1399 , SB1458 , SB1494 , SB1496 , SB1564 , SB1602 , SB1621 , SB1628 , SB1630 , SB1631 , SB1668 , SB1672 , SB1814 , SB1821

Committees: House Health & Human Services , House House Health & Human Services Committee of Reference

Keywords: assisted living, health care, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, physician orders, informed consent, AHCCCS, remote work, state agency, employment, public health, housing, zoning, middle housing, urban development, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, historic preservation, radiation protection

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm not currently implementing the MAT program for juveniles, the juvenile program.
• We collect rebates, but there's an additional aspect in the federal government: supplemental rebates
• our Medicaid program. has not collected supplemental rebates, being one of the very few states in the
• And what about the rebates? Have any of those rebates... Rebates been passed down to patients?
• suggestions of specific programs?

Committee: House Legislative Health & Human Services Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• the program is a program 340B program would increase costs to employers and workers.
• the program is a program 340B program would increase costs to employers and workers.
• Rebates are a hidden entity. We don't even know what's going on. It's a bait-and-switch program.
• BIO supports the federal 340B program. It's a good program, but even good programs can be abused.
• programs in place that reduce the cost of drugs to our members, and that those rebates can be lost when

Summary: The Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee held a hearing on several bills. SB 5904 would prohibit non-human entities from using nursing titles; the sponsor and nursing groups said it is meant to increase transparency around AI and ensure patients know when they are interacting with a real nurse. SB 5915 would change Health Technology Assessment Program review criteria and timelines, with supporters arguing it would better account for Medicare coverage and national guidelines, especially for rare and life-threatening conditions. SB 6025 would update the definition of fetal death to allow gestational age to be determined by the best clinically accurate method rather than last menstrual period, and medical professionals and the sponsor said this would reduce emotional, financial, and legal burdens on grieving families. SB 5933 would require near real-time sharing of overdose data into ODMAP; public health, local government, and recovery advocates said it would improve overdose response, while one witness asked that poison center data be included and clarified separately. SB 5990 would allow APRNs and physician assistants to serve as local health officers in counties under 100,000 population; rural county officials supported the added flexibility, while public health groups and naturopathic physicians raised concerns about qualifications and asked that naturopathic doctors be included as well. SB 5981 would restrict drug manufacturers from limiting 340B drug access through contract pharmacies or requiring data as a condition of discounts; safety-net hospitals, community health centers, pharmacies, and patients said it protects access and reinvestment in care, while manufacturers, employer groups, and industry representatives argued it increases costs, lacks transparency, and may not ensure savings reach patients. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the transcript; each bill was heard and testimony was closed. Sign-in counts were reported for several bills, including strong pro support for SB 5904, SB 5915, SB 5933, and SB 5981, and mixed or substantial opposition on SB 6025 and SB 5990.

Transcript Highlights:

• The department administers one residential rebate program, two commercial and industrial rebate programs
• , and two competitive grant programs, as well as a newer program.
• As far as the language in House Bill 224, it removes the ability to fund rebate and grant programs, removes
• The department administers one residential rebate program, two commercial and industrial rebate programs
• As far as the language in House Bill 224, it removes the ability to fund rebate and grant programs, removes

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 224, which would redirect most money from New Hampshire’s renewable energy fund back to electric ratepayers. The bill sponsor argued the measure would lower energy costs, noting recent utility rate increases and estimating annual savings of roughly $2.5 million to $7.3 million for ratepayers. Supporters said the fund has accumulated money that should be returned to customers rather than used for subsidies, and they emphasized that the state has already rebated similar funds from RGGI for years. Opponents, including Rep. Kat McGee, argued the renewable energy fund is a successful, nonlapsing dedicated fund that supports local clean-energy projects, energy resilience, emissions reductions, and private investment. McGee said the fiscal note overstated the benefit of rebates and understated the loss of investment, claiming the average annual rebate would amount to less than $10 per customer while the program has helped leverage significant private dollars and nearly 10,000 projects. She urged the committee to reject the bill as a poor deal for the state and ratepayers. Committee members questioned the fiscal note, the size of the rebate, whether the bill would set a precedent for other dedicated funds, and whether the program’s incentives amount to picking winners and losers. The Department of Energy testified neutrally, explaining how the renewable energy fund works, including renewable energy credits, alternative compliance payments, and the fund’s use for renewable energy initiatives. No vote was taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Program overlap can occur when a third-party program is offered by multiple PAs or a program offering
• That means programs that actually claim savings, and that's their primary objective, like rebate programs
• We need these programs.
• , meaning programs that are rebate-based and really for affluent or moderate-income constituents.
• So it's not program by program, but it's across that portfolio.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on how California Public Utilities Commission energy efficiency programs are budgeted, evaluated, and measured for cost-effectiveness. The chair framed the issue as not whether energy efficiency works, but how to ensure ratepayer-funded programs continue to deliver value as the portfolio has shifted from simple measures like lighting to more complex retrofits, electrification, workforce, and equity programs. CPUC staff outlined the statutory framework, the four-year budget cycle, recent spending of about $795 million in 2025, and the use of total system benefit (TSB) and the total resource cost (TRC) test, noting that some programs are exempt from cost-effectiveness requirements at the individual program level but not at the resource acquisition portfolio level. Utility, regional network, implementer, and advocacy witnesses offered differing views on the current metrics. PG&E described its portfolio as cost-effective overall and argued that cost-effectiveness should remain at the portfolio level to allow innovation and multi-year program flexibility. SoCalREN and the Energy Coalition emphasized the value of local government delivery, equity-focused programs, and the need to credit programs for broader benefits such as workforce development, market transformation, and electrification. The Public Advocates Office argued that ratepayer-funded programs should produce benefits greater than costs and raised concerns about the growing share of budgets going to programs that have not met cost-effectiveness thresholds. Several witnesses said the current math is too complicated and that different program types may need different metrics. Committee members repeatedly pressed witnesses on the complexity of the TRC and TSB calculations, the treatment of participant costs, and whether the state should use a simpler or more transparent framework. CPUC staff said the relevant issues are already being addressed in two open proceedings, with one budget application proceeding expected to conclude in roughly the second or third quarter of next year and a broader policy rulemaking ongoing. No votes were taken and no formal action was reported; the hearing functioned as an informational discussion and policy review.

Transcript Highlights:

• But the brand might be paying a very hefty rebate.
• That's where the rebates are really generated from.
• It's agnostic of the rebate.
• Rebates are going away. This committee has passed bills that end rebates.
• So we would have... ...maximize our program on page.

Bills: HB591 , HB765 , HB826 , HB870 , HB938 , HB1151 , HB1162 , HB1176 , HB1196 , HB1236 , HB1241

Committee: Senate Insurance

Keywords: liability insurance, coverage defenses, direct action, judgment enforcement, legal procedures, insurance referrals, compensation, non-licensed agents, consumer protection, insurance products, HB 870, Act 907, Louisiana insurance, health insurance, prescription drugs, generic drugs, biosimilars, formulary placement, drug formulary, cost-sharing

Transcript Highlights:

• So with that said, I can say this is a rebate program, just like we do with the Hyundais and the BASFs
• , establish a rebate eligibility period, and tie the rebate cost to the federal per diem rate so it would
• And when we have small storms, recovery, it’s not a grant program. It’s a revolving loan program.
• So this loan program, the revolving loan program, will essentially be small town wants to do an HB2 project
• They go to the loan program. Okay.

Summary: The committee first took up HB 1088, which would authorize state and local sales and use tax rebates for certain items used in aerospace facilities and activities. Chairman Bacala, LED Secretary Susan Bouchois, and governor’s office representative Julie Emerson argued the bill would help Louisiana compete with states like Texas and Florida for aerospace and defense investment, build on Michoud’s history, and attract high-paying jobs. Members asked about job growth, the scope of aerospace versus defense, and whether downstream activities like jet fuel production could qualify. The bill was reported favorably without objection. The committee then approved HB 1179, which extends the ad valorem tax exemption for certain manufacturing establishments to aerospace manufacturing establishments, also reporting it favorably without objection. HB 1122, a placeholder bill tied to a future path toward reducing the state income tax rate, was voluntarily deferred by its sponsor after brief explanation. The committee then heard HB 515, which would let political subdivisions sell certain adjudicated properties directly to buyers at appraised value if the property is under $50,000. The sponsor and supporters said the bill was intended to help parishes clear long-vacant blighted properties and return them to commerce and the tax rolls. Members raised concerns about transparency, competition, title issues, and possible conflicts with recent tax-sale reforms. The committee adopted a conceptual amendment requiring the property to have been offered at public auction within the preceding 12 months before an over-the-counter sale could occur, and HB 515 was reported favorably as amended. The committee next considered HB 440, a constitutional amendment allowing parishes to increase the homestead exemption above the current level. The sponsor said the exemption has not been updated since 1980 and argued that raising it would provide relief from rising property taxes, insurance costs, and cost of living pressures. Amendments were adopted requiring parish approval and a local election before implementation, and delaying effectiveness until 2030. Several members and LABI warned the change could shift tax burdens onto businesses and other taxpayers, create parish-by-parish disparities, and affect bond ratings. The committee voted 5-9 against reporting HB 440, and the sponsor voluntarily deferred the companion bill, HB 543. Finally, the committee took up HB 614, presented with help from eighth-grader Elijah Brown as part of a civics competition. The bill would rebate state sales taxes on lodging and meals for utility company workers performing disaster or emergency-related work. After discussion, the committee adopted a large amendment set that narrowed the bill to water, gas, and electric utilities regulated by the PSC, limited the rebate period to 10 days after a declared disaster, tied eligible lodging and meal costs to federal per diem rates, and capped annual rebates at $55,000. Members asked about administration, eligible workers, and fiscal impact; the Department of Revenue said it could administer the rebate with existing resources. The discussion was ongoing at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• It renames the electric bicycle and electric moped rebate program to the Electric Mobility Device Rebate
• Program, expands eligibility, and amends a maximum rebate amount. support and Paula kurash individual
• The third-party administrator shall not expend more than 10% of the amounts for the rebate program, revising
• The third-party administrator shall not expend more than 10% of the amounts for the rebate program, revising
• The third-party administrator shall not expend more than 10% of the amounts for the rebate program, revising

Summary: The House Transportation Committee met on February 6, 2025, and heard testimony on several transportation-related bills. HB 667 would require DOT or county departments to scan deceased cats or dogs found on public roadways for microchips, record information, and report it to county animal services. DOT said it supported the bill, and the Hawaiʻi Humane Society and others strongly backed it, describing it as important for grieving pet owners. A private citizen also testified in support, saying the measure could help families learn what happened to missing pets. The chair noted there were nine supporters. The committee then heard HB 230 on sending a carbon copy of traffic citations to vehicle owners, followed by HB 77, which would make civil identification cards free to issue or renew. The Attorney General’s office said it had already submitted comments on HB 77, DOT opposed it, and a private citizen supported it as a way to reduce barriers to basic services. HB 668, which would make license suspension mandatory for operating a vehicle without insurance, drew opposition from the Office of the Public Defender and DOT. The Public Defender argued current law already allows suspension and that a mandatory rule would discourage people from obtaining insurance, increase court burdens, and disproportionately affect indigent drivers; the chair emphasized that driving is a privilege and raised concerns about uninsured driving in rural areas. The Public Defender also said it would look into whether state insurance options could help people who cannot get traditional coverage. The committee also took up HB 12, which would bar inspection certificates for mopeds or vehicles modified to increase NOx emissions. DOT offered comments, Citizens Against Noise supported it, and the Motorcycle Industry Council opposed it; the chair noted six additional supporters and ten opponents. HB 169 would raise the minimum age for moped operators from 15 to 16 and increase the helmet requirement age from 18 to 21; DOT supported it, while Moped Doctors, Moped’s Direct, and seven individuals opposed it. HB 220 would require moped operators to carry insurance under motorcycle/motor scooter insurance laws; DCCA offered comments, DOT supported it, and Moped Doctors and ten individuals opposed it. Finally, the committee heard HB 277, which would establish a statewide vehicle pursuit policy for law enforcement agencies. The Policing Project at NYU and the ACLU of Hawaiʻi supported the bill, citing national data on deaths and injuries from pursuits and arguing for a baseline limit on pursuits for minor offenses; the Hawaii Police Department and Maui Police Department opposed it. The committee also heard HB 54, which would make a third or subsequent excessive speeding offense a Class C felony and allow vehicle forfeiture. DOT supported it, while the Public Defender opposed it, arguing the bill was overly harsh, internally inconsistent, and likely to strain courts, law enforcement, and probation systems by turning a traffic offense into a felony with prison exposure and jury-trial rights. No votes or final actions were taken on the measures in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a massive program within our state government.
• </c><00:10:48.160><c> as</c> them to continue to use those rebates as them to continue to use those rebates
• </c><00:12:47.880><c> and</c> looking to go into these programs and looking to go into these programs
• </c><00:13:55.600><c> and</c> okay so my question is about rebates and okay so my question is about rebates
• </c><00:15:33.199><c> are</c> state and how those programs are state and how those programs are implemented

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 537, as amended by PHS 1, which was described as a technical measure needed to ensure Kentucky can receive opioid settlement funds despite changes in bankruptcy court orders. The sponsor and Attorney General’s office explained that the bill does not change the settlement formula or substantive terms, but adjusts the mechanism for receiving the money. After brief discussion, the committee adopted PHS 1 and then passed HB 537 out favorably on a 17-0 vote, with one member recording attendance after arriving late. The committee then considered House Bill 695, also amended by PHS 1, a Medicaid stabilization bill. The sponsor said the measure is intended to hold the program steady while the legislature gathers more information and awaits work by a future Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board. The bill would limit new waivers, state plan amendments, and coverage expansions; require reporting and record retention; create a Kentucky Medicaid Pharmaceutical Rebate Fund; direct certain behavioral health and managed care changes; and include an emergency clause. Members raised questions about the rebate fund, work requirements, and whether the bill could affect coverage or funding, while supporters emphasized transparency, data collection, and preventing new expansions until oversight is in place. Several members spoke in favor of the bill’s goals but expressed caution about micromanaging a complex program and about possible unintended consequences for beneficiaries. Representative Fleming stressed the need for stronger oversight and noted the potential fiscal impact of federal Medicaid changes. Representative Stevenson voted pass, saying the committee should let the new oversight board handle the issue, and Representative Gentry also passed, citing concern about overreach and the burden of data collection. The committee ultimately reported HB 695 favorably on a 16-1 vote with three pass votes. Afterward, members recorded additional yes votes on HB 537 for the record.

Transcript Highlights:

• It does not seek to modify the existing program in any way.
• This program will allow Addison to receive rebates of state hotel occupancy taxes as well as sales and
• program.
• program.
• As this committee knows, those rebate funds... ...10-year tax rebate for qualified hotel projects.

Bills: HB 1039 , HB2289 , HB2370 , HB2404 , HB3066 , HB3076 , HB3117 , HB3118 , HB3169 , HB3178 , HB3179 , HB3182 , HB3196 , HB3241 , HB3377 , HB3500 , HB3567 , HB3715 , HB3954 , HB4098 , HB4109 , HB4222 , HB4226 , HB4412 , HB4659 , HB4682 , HB4683 , HB4755 , HB4926 , HB5165 , HB5562 , HB5596

Committee: House Ways & Means

Summary: The committee heard a long series of bills, most of them expanding or adjusting hotel occupancy tax or qualified hotel project authority for specific local governments. Measures discussed included HB 2404 for Childress County; HB 3066 for Allen’s Kalahari resort project; HB 4682 for Plano; HB 4683 for Anna; HB 3076 creating a project finance zone in Frisco; HB 3567 for Wichita County; HB 3715 for McAllen; HB 1039 for Alpine; HB 3182 for Burleson; HB 4926 for Grimes County; HB 4222 for Victoria County; HB 3377 for Katy; HB 4659 for Addison; HB 3241 for Georgetown; HB 4098 for Taylor; HB 3178 for Kerr County; HB 3179 for Mason County; HB 2289 for New Braunfels; HB 4412 for Kermit; HB 5165 for Monahans; HB 3500 for Bastrop; and HB 3169 for Carrollton. In each case, authors and local officials described tourism, convention, hotel, airport, or mixed-use development needs and argued the bills would help attract visitors, investment, and jobs. One non-hotel-tax bill, HB 4226, would exempt Texas food banks from sales tax on vehicle purchases and rentals, with testimony emphasizing the scale of food bank operations and the savings’ impact on meal delivery and disaster response. Testimony was generally supportive from city officials, economic development representatives, and industry groups such as the Texas Hotel and Lodging Association. Several witnesses described major private projects, including Kalahari in Allen, a proposed hotel and conference center in Addison, a mixed-use project in Georgetown, and a large development tied to Samsung growth in Taylor. For HB 4226, food bank representatives said the bill would help them purchase refrigerated trucks and other delivery vehicles, while an opponent questioned the fiscal note and the scope of the exemption. HB 4926 drew opposition from Camp Allen, whose representative argued a new county hotel tax would raise costs for guests and could hurt the retreat center’s operations. HB 3178 also drew an objection from a Kerr County resident who argued the tax would grow county government and pointed to event center losses, though the author said the revenue would support tourism-related county uses. The committee took no final votes on the bills in this transcript. After each bill was laid out and testimony concluded, the chair repeatedly asked whether there was objection to leaving the bill pending; in each instance, no objection was heard, and the bills were left pending. Several committee substitutes were offered and then withdrawn or noted as conforming drafts, but no bill was reported out or otherwise acted on beyond being left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• rebate rebate for<00:46:28.800><c> 2.7</c> for 2.7 for 2.7 million million million property<00:46:32.320
• </c> rebate to arrive later this year. rebate to arrive later this year.
• </c><00:49:49.280><c> to</c> than delivering this rebate to than delivering this rebate to Minnesotans
• </c> They administer the SNAP program. They administer the SNAP program.
• ,</c> related to administering these programs, related to administering these programs, particularly<

Transcript Highlights:

• But it's a great program.
• You should also be aware that there is a federal program, a rural program to support rural hospitals,
• Kavanaugh kind of structured his amendment, he said, hey, we can still keep a rebate program.
• It's all well and good to have a rebate program.
• It doesn't hurt any nonprofit payment premiums or any drug rebate programs or anything of that nature

Committee: House House Health & Human Services Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee heard several bills related to radiation protection in cardiac catheterization labs and later a stem cell/regenerative therapy bill. On SB 1121, which would allow hospitals with radiation protection systems to let clinicians forgo lead aprons if they work in the designated safety area and use real-time dosimetry, testimony was largely supportive or neutral after a late amendment gave radiation safety officers discretion to require protective gear if exposures approach thresholds. The committee adopted the amendment and passed SB 1121 on a 9-1 vote. SB 1120, a more prescriptive bill requiring at least 50% of cath lab rooms in hospitals to be equipped with the radiation protection system, drew divided testimony: sponsors and several physicians argued it would reduce orthopedic injury and radiation exposure and improve recruitment and retention, while hospital and radiology groups objected to the mandate, cost, limited vendor pool, and lack of clarity in the bill’s definitions. After adopting an amendment excluding children’s hospitals, the committee deadlocked 6-6 and SB 1120 failed to pass. The committee then considered SB 1118, which would appropriate $3 million to help rural hospitals install radiation protection systems in cath lab rooms. The sponsor said the funding would help rural facilities meet the same safety goals, and the committee passed the bill 6-5. The committee also heard SB 1214, a “guardrails” bill regulating non-FDA-approved stem cell and regenerative therapies, requiring informed consent, sourcing and reporting standards, advertising limits, and civil penalties for violations. Supporters said it would protect patients while allowing access to promising therapies; some members raised concerns about evidence and commercialization, but after adopting a technical amendment, the bill passed 9-3. The transcript ended as the committee moved on to SB 1630, which would seek federal approval for a home- and community-based service benefit for adults with serious mental illness; the sponsor described it as a capped, Medicaid-based community care option, and Access testified neutral while estimating a fiscal impact, but no final action on SB 1630 appears in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Funding for special education and school-age parent programs.
• I find the so-called tax rebate provision particularly objectionable.
• rebate.
• giving more money for those programs.
• And then rebate checks.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> rather than rebates is do cost plus. rather than rebates is do cost plus.
• There are two separate programs. I'll be focusing on the balance program.
• ><c> separate</c><00:38:16.079><c> program</c> generous program is a separate program generous program
• </c> balance program.
• Uh the balance program balance program.

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board met on February 23, 2026, approved the January 12 minutes, and then focused primarily on Kentucky Medicaid’s coverage and potential expansion of GLP-1 drugs, especially for weight loss. Department for Medicaid Services Commissioner Lisa Lee explained that Medicaid currently does not cover drugs for weight loss, anorexia, or weight gain, but the department had filed a regulation to remove that blanket exclusion so GLP-1s could be covered when used for an underlying health condition. She said the administrative regulation review subcommittee found the regulation deficient, and the co-chairs wanted the board to discuss the policy and financing implications before any change. DMS also said it would be open to adding caveats to ensure coverage would not extend to cosmetic weight loss alone. The department provided several data points on current utilization and spending. In 2025, Kentucky Medicaid paid for appetite-stimulating drugs such as Megestrol, Dronabinol, and Marinol, but did not pay for weight-loss drugs. For GLP-1s, DMS said coverage began in 2025 and is limited to FDA-approved medical conditions, with prior authorization requiring a type 2 diabetes diagnosis code and A1C documentation. DMS reported $234.6 million in GLP-1 spending in 2025 before rebates, about 240,931 prescriptions, and said GLP-1s accounted for 7.3% of pharmacy spend in 2024 and 8.3% in 2025. It also said there were 24,844 expansion members and 13,638 non-expansion members using GLP-1s, with spending of about $156 million and $78.5 million respectively, and that 10 pediatric weight-loss prescriptions were covered under EPSDT. The department said outcome analyses, including whether GLP-1 use reduces insulin or other diabetes treatment, are underway and should be completed in a couple of months. Members asked about cost, rebates, and whether the state should wait for more outcomes data before expanding coverage. DMS said average reimbursement to pharmacies was $975 per prescription and the average dispensing fee was $109; it also said 2025 rebate invoices totaled $90.8 million, with $7.6 million collected so far. Several members expressed concern about the high cost and the need to evaluate whether the drugs improve health outcomes before expanding access, while others noted the potential benefits for obesity and diabetes treatment. Some members also discussed whether GLP-1s are effectively being used for weight loss in diabetic patients and whether broader data collection should be used to assess long-term value. After the Medicaid discussion, Eli Lilly executive Tracy Sims presented on obesity as a chronic disease and the economic burden it creates in Kentucky. She said Kentucky’s adult obesity rate is a little over 37%, that obesity is linked to about 200 diseases, and that untreated obesity costs the state billions in GDP and hundreds of millions in state budget impact. She highlighted recent federal access programs for GLP-1s, including a Medicaid-related program that she said could lower the state share of a Zepbound prescription to about $71 per month after federal matching. No votes were taken on the GLP-1 policy question during the meeting, and the main action was the receipt of testimony and discussion of the department’s proposed regulatory change.