Transcript Highlights:

• The current operator at that location runs on a volunteer model.
• So to take out any volunteer or peer support type of model would not be to our city's benefit.
• You look at the model, it is community to community.
• Senator Gallegos: ...congregate model facilities. Has that ever been done and has that money...
• We introduced new, thanks to our partnership with the Healthcare Authority, new models.

Transcript Highlights:

• Each of these models, regardless of what they are, have their pros and cons.
• And so the sales tax model is similar to that.
• And so the sales tax model is similar to that.
• So I get the funding model. I get the services offered.
• So I get the funding model. I get the services offered.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Local Government held a public hearing on Senate Substitute No. 2 for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1023, sponsored by Senator Justin Brown. The bill would expand the existing authority for certain public library districts to ask voters to approve a local sales tax, with county-specific provisions: St. Charles County would have to reduce property tax levies to offset sales tax revenue, and Cass and Johnson counties would be limited to a 0.33% rate and would eliminate property tax levies if the sales tax is adopted. The bill also includes a provision allowing circuit courts to collect a civil case filing surcharge of up to $15 for law library maintenance, and a Kansas City Public Library fiscal-year flexibility provision was also described. Supporters from several library systems and the Missouri Library Association testified that the bill would give libraries more flexibility to diversify revenue, reduce reliance on property taxes, and protect voter-approved library sales taxes from legal uncertainty tied to county reclassification. Witnesses from St. Charles County said the measure would let local voters decide whether to fund library services through sales tax, property tax, or a mix, while a Marshall Public Library representative said the bill would help preserve a voter-approved sales tax affected by unrelated litigation. A Kansas City Public Library representative said the fiscal-year change would improve budget timing. One committee member questioned the fairness of shifting library funding to sales tax, especially for nonresidents, while other members spoke in support of libraries and their community services. No one testified in opposition. The chair closed the public hearing and announced the committee plans to executive the bill on Monday at noon, with notice to be sent by email. A representative also criticized the tone of the senator’s response during questioning, but said he still supported the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• By using psychiatric expertise through consultation rather than requiring more specialists, the model
• By using psychiatric expertise through consultation rather than requiring more specialists, the model
• So what's the solution here is the collaborative care model.
• It's an evidence-based model integrating behavioral health care into primary care settings.
• So the model really has three primary care team members.

Keywords: 00:00 - Call to Order/Roll Call 02:05 - Discussion of 26RS HB 178 14:05 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 178 15:05 - Discussion of 26RS HB 280 20:00 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 280 22:00 - Discussion of 26RS HJR 24 24:30 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HJR 24 26:00 - Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The Health Services Committee met for the first time in the 2026 session and established a quorum before taking up three measures. House Bill 178, sponsored by Rep. Kim Moser with support from the Kentucky Psychiatric Medical Association, was presented as a budget-neutral collaborative care model to improve access to mental health treatment in primary care settings. Testimony emphasized workforce shortages, long wait times, stigma, and the potential for the model to reduce costs and improve outcomes by having primary care providers work with behavioral health care managers and psychiatric consultants. The bill received a favorable recommendation by roll call vote. The committee then considered House Bill 280, also sponsored by Rep. Moser. The bill and committee amendment were described as cleanup and policy updates affecting Kentucky Board of Nursing licensure standards, including restoring language related to abuse, neglect, and exploitation in the central registry, preserving the board’s ability to investigate out-of-state applicants, and adding an emergency provision. The bill also updated school medication provisions to allow certain prescribed rescue medications, including bronchodilator inhalers, nebulizers, glucagon, Solu-Cortef, and updated epinephrine delivery. The committee adopted the amendment, approved the bill with favorable expression, and then approved a motion to roll the committee amendment into the House committee substitute. Finally, the committee took up House Joint Resolution 24, sponsored by Rep. Ken Fleming, with a committee substitute adopted first. The resolution was explained as a request for the cabinet to withdraw a previously submitted Medicaid-related waiver application so it could be resubmitted under new requirements tied to House Resolution 1. The committee approved the resolution with favorable expression and also adopted a title amendment. The meeting concluded with notice that the next committee meeting would be Thursday, January 22nd at noon.

Transcript Highlights:

• and the budget model.
• and the budget model.
• and the budget model.
• and the budget model.
• and the budget model.

Bills: HF3797, HF3780, HF4068, HF3935

Keywords: long-term care, insurance policy, healthcare, partnership policy, Minnesota, human services, wage increase, support workers, shared services, community first services, medical assistance, sanctions, healthcare services, monetary recovery, government accountability, assisted living, training, unlicensed personnel, resident rights, safety regulations

Transcript Highlights:

• of early learning providers, funding streams, and models.
• For the cost of care model, for labor that no one sees.
• The new model of the cost of attention, the new model, the new model should push us forward.
• The new model should push us forward, not backwards.
• Well, we can look at other models.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Child Care Costs held its third hearing, focused on how transitional kindergarten (TK) fits into California’s mixed-delivery early learning system, with an emphasis on the Central Valley. Opening remarks stressed that TK and child care should complement each other, not compete, and that families need both part-day school-based options and full-day, year-round care. Committee members outlined hearing goals around aligning TK with existing programs, understanding family needs, and examining the economic impact of early learning on workforce participation and local economies. Panelists from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Every Child California, Early Edge, Children Now, and others described TK’s rapid expansion to all four-year-olds, the growth in enrollment, and related changes to state preschool and after-school programs. Witnesses generally supported TK but warned that its expansion has shifted enrollment away from community-based providers, especially centers and family child care homes, creating financial strain, vacant classrooms, and staffing challenges. They urged stronger partnerships between school districts and community providers, more flexible licensing and facilities support, higher and more uniform reimbursement rates, permanent authority for state preschool to serve two-year-olds, and better compensation and training for educators across settings. Parents and providers testified about the importance of trusted, culturally and linguistically responsive care, the need for infant-toddler and home-based options, and the difficulty of affording child care when TK is not full-day or does not fit family schedules. Several speakers emphasized that many families still face long waits for subsidies and that reimbursement and payment delays threaten provider stability. Public comment echoed these concerns, with providers calling for true cost-of-care rates, more vouchers, support for transportation and nontraditional hours, and protection from insurance and facility costs that can force programs to close. State education officials said California’s UPK system works best when TK, state preschool, Head Start, and community-based providers are treated as a shared system, and noted that planning and implementation grants and local coordination efforts have helped build mixed-delivery partnerships. The hearing ended without formal votes or actions, but committee members indicated they would continue gathering input to inform future policy and budget decisions.

Transcript Highlights:

• There is a smaller model called a park model that is smaller than a manufactured home, and that's the
• park model communities in my model or park model communities in my town,<01:20:14.200> but<01
• models are real estate. Okay. models are real estate. Okay. Anything<01:20:26.680> further?
• model unit at my facility in Lineboro. model unit at my facility in Lineboro.
• financial challenges to that model. financial challenges to that model.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If that is our model, then we need to check ourselves.
• I think that there's several models across the world.
• I think that there's several models across the world.
• Well, as I said, there's models.
• As far as models that are out there, right?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Mental Health, Substance Use, and Recovery held a public hearing on several harm reduction bills, including measures to decriminalize simple possession and paraphernalia, authorize overdose prevention centers, and expand access to naloxone for first responders. Chair Mindy Domb and Senator John Velis opened by describing harm reduction as an evidence-based public health strategy and noting Massachusetts’ recent decline in fatal overdoses. They emphasized that testimony would help shape whether and how the bills advance, and explained the hearing process, including time limits and written testimony. Testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including Rep. Kate Donaghue, Sen. Cindy Friedman, Rep. Marjorie Decker, Rep. Manny Cruz, public health professionals, recovery advocates, and people with lived experience, argued that harm reduction saves lives, reduces stigma, and can connect people to treatment. They supported overdose prevention centers and decriminalization as tools to keep people alive long enough to enter recovery, and several speakers described personal losses to overdose or family experiences with addiction. Some supporters also framed the bills as racial justice measures, arguing that criminal penalties for possession have disproportionately harmed Black and brown communities. Opponents, including Sen. Nick Collins and several South End residents, argued that overdose prevention centers and decriminalization would worsen public drug use, crime, and neighborhood disorder, especially around Mass and Cass. They said current approaches such as Section 35, diversion, and police leverage into treatment are more effective, and they urged more treatment beds and recovery facilities instead of harm reduction sites. Committee members questioned witnesses about research, local siting, crime data, and the relationship between harm reduction and treatment, and several members said neighborhood impacts must be considered alongside overdose prevention. The committee did not take a vote during the hearing; it continued receiving testimony and announced a later break before resuming on H. 2196 and S. 1393.

Transcript Highlights:

• And understand I fully support the move to this model.
• We've directed them to go back to the regional model first.
• We've directed them to go back to the regional model first.
• We've directed them to go back to the regional model first.
• We've directed them to go back to the regional model first.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:00 Roll Call: 00:00:04 SB 02: 00:01:37 Discussion in Opposition to SB 02: 00:09:49 SB 84: 00:22:19 SB 111: 00:30:35, 958, all

Summary: The committee first considered Senate Bill 2, sponsored by Senator Mike Wilson, which would prohibit incarcerated people from receiving cross-sex hormones or gender-affirming surgeries, while allowing a tapering period if stopping an existing treatment would cause physical harm. Wilson said the bill was needed to prevent the Department of Corrections from providing such care by memo or policy rather than statute, and he argued the care was elective and not medically necessary. Senators Thomas, Neal, Nemes, Styers, and others questioned whether any gender-affirming surgeries had actually occurred in Kentucky, whether the hormone treatments were physician-prescribed, and whether the bill would override medical judgment; Wilson said the department reported no surgeries, that 67 incarcerated people were receiving cross-sex hormone therapy, and that he would only support treatment if it fit the bill’s narrow medical-harm exception. Public testimony on SB 2 was strongly opposed. Chris Hartman of the Fairness Campaign said the bill would deny medically necessary care, violate the Eighth Amendment, and target a very small and vulnerable incarcerated population. Dr. Jack Skilles testified that gender-affirming care is medically necessary and supported by major medical organizations, warning that denying it could worsen mental health and lead to suicidality. Hannah Callahan, a transgender woman, described being denied hormone therapy while incarcerated and said the interruption caused severe physical and mental harm, including suicidal thoughts. Emma Curtis, Lexington’s Fourth District councilwoman, also urged a no vote, framing the issue as a matter of compassion and religious duty. The committee then voted on SB 2. Senator Neal explained his no vote by saying he was not medically trained and deferred to doctors; Senator Nemes said he wanted clarification that the bill would not stop ongoing treatment; and Senator Styers argued the bill was a poor priority and noted there was no fiscal note and that only 67 people were affected. Senator Wheeler moved the bill, Senator Reed seconded, and the committee reported Senate Bill 2 favorably. Afterward, the committee began hearing Senate Bill 84, sponsored by Senator Steve Rawlings, which would limit judicial deference to state agency interpretations and require courts, not agencies, to interpret ambiguous laws, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright decision overturning Chevron deference.

Transcript Highlights:

• that kind of a model and they've been<00:13:28.399> doing<00:13:28.560> it<00:13:28.639
• It's modeled a lot like Washington state has where we Okay.
• It's modeled a lot like Washington state has where we >> I could. Yes.
• It's modeled a lot like Washington state has where we The big difference in it is that it would allow
• <00:25:23.120> um<00:25:24.559> and um model um and um model um and that<00:25:26.559

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Committee to Study Long-Term Managed Care approved the prior meeting minutes as amended after correcting the first paragraph. The chair then outlined the committee’s plan to produce a preliminary report by October 1, with additional meetings to follow, since some questions remain about the federal One Big Beautiful Bill (OB3) and its effects on Medicaid financing and managed care. The main discussion focused on New Hampshire nursing home funding and how ProShare and MQUIP work. Members reviewed Medicaid rates, supplemental payments, intergovernmental transfers, and the role of federal matching funds. The chair and Mr. Litman concluded that OB3’s phase-down of payments above the Medicare rate likely would not directly eliminate ProShare or MQUIP in New Hampshire, but uncertainty remains about intergovernmental transfers and about how these payments would function if the state moved nursing facilities into managed care. Mr. Litman said managed care would likely require waivers for supplemental payments, and Texas was cited as an example of a state operating under such waivers. The committee also discussed dual eligibles, DNIP, PACE, and the possibility of carving out HCBS from nursing facility services. DHS said its managed care contract would allow the state to use MCOs for DNIP, with the goal of better coordination between Medicaid and Medicare, while PACE would likely require more study and might be more feasible in populated counties. Members also reviewed OB3’s new presumptive eligibility provisions and a state waiver request modeled on Washington’s approach, plus a separate grant for transitioning people from facilities back to the community. The rural health transformation fund was discussed as a possible source for workforce, telehealth, mobile integrated health, and other support investments, but not for direct construction or major building renovation. County representatives emphasized that any county role in PACE or DNIP would require significant vetting, infrastructure, capital investment, and a realistic timeline. The meeting ended with the chair saying the draft report would outline issues and possible alternatives, but not recommendations yet, and the committee adjourned without taking further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• This shift resulted in the privatized model that we operate today.
• This shift resulted in the privatized model that we operate today.
• The model would need to predict.
• I do think the funding model is one that we need to put some good thought into.
• And so we're very invested in the funding model, as you make, the year.

Summary: The Human Services Subcommittee held its first meeting of the term and heard introductory remarks from the chair, vice chair, ranking member, and members, who broadly described their interest in child welfare, mental health, aging services, homelessness, and agency accountability. The chair then outlined the subcommittee’s jurisdiction, including child welfare, mental health and substance abuse safety net services, domestic violence, developmental disabilities, elder services, and child support, and introduced the Department of Children and Families (DCF) as the first agency panel for the term. DCF presented an implementation update on HB 7089, a 2024 law aimed at increasing accountability and transparency for community-based care (CBC) lead agencies that deliver most child welfare services under contract. The department said the bill was prompted by forensic examinations that found problems such as noncompetitive procurement, related-party transactions, excessive executive compensation, and weak financial oversight. DCF described new contract requirements and monitoring tools covering board governance and annual training, conflict-of-interest disclosures, financial penalties for noncompliance, fidelity bond requirements, limits on direct service provision by lead agencies, related-party procurement rules, procurement thresholds, real-property approvals, compensation caps, expanded public reporting, and a new Future of Child Protection and Funding Work Group. DCF reported that some lead agencies had completed required board training, others were still on schedule, and two agencies exceeding the direct-service threshold had been referred to the Auditor General. Members asked DCF about the reasons for the bill, the impact on children, the work group’s regional representation, aging-out youth, the Embrace Families transition, board training requirements, and whether enforcement actions had been taken. DCF said the bill was intended to protect funds for children and families and improve oversight, and clarified that the Central Florida lead agency contract was awarded through competitive procurement rather than an absorption. DCF also said the board training was designed to be meaningful but not overly burdensome, with timing left partly to lead agencies as they implement the new requirements. The committee then heard from two CBC leaders, who generally supported the accountability goals of HB 7089 and said their agencies had already addressed most of the new governance and disclosure requirements. They reported that board training had been completed or was being scheduled, but both agencies said the fidelity bond requirement has been difficult or impossible to obtain in the market as written, though they were able to secure the separate performance bond. The CBC witnesses also warned that recruiting providers is increasingly difficult, especially for higher-acuity children and group-home placements, due to limited provider supply, regulatory burden, insurance costs, and rising risk. They said these pressures are contributing to budget deficits in some areas and urged lawmakers to consider the funding model, insurance and indemnification issues, and the risk of overregulation reducing provider participation.

Transcript Highlights:

• be a more robust standard of the practice's Barriers inherent in some of the practice's regulatory model
• And the current practice model for pharmacists, unfortunately, is very protocol-based, and we are not
• “We urge your support for a standard of care model to modernize pharmacy regulation.
• Under the current model, federal changes could immediately halt pharmacists-provided services for HIV
• Moving to a standard of care model aligns with the state’s definition of pharmacy practice and allows

Summary: The joint Assembly and Senate business committees held a sunset review hearing on the California State Board of Pharmacy, with board leadership describing the board’s consumer-protection role and its priorities around access, enforcement, and updating pharmacy law. The board emphasized a proposed shift toward a standard-of-care model for pharmacists, arguing it would reduce rigid protocol requirements and improve access to services such as HIV PrEP/PEP, contraception, and naloxone. Board representatives also discussed pharmacy deserts, possible fee waivers for pharmacies in underserved areas, concerns about payer practices contributing to closures, continuing education audits, and a request to restore more flexibility in licensure decisions and probationary monitoring for applicants with certain criminal histories. A major focus of the hearing was the board’s ongoing compounding regulations, especially the treatment of sterile versus nonsterile compounding and substances such as glutathione and methylcobalamin. The board said the proposal was not a ban on those substances and described the rulemaking as grounded in federal law, USP standards, and public comment, noting the process had gone through multiple modified texts and hearings. Testimony from stakeholders was sharply divided: pharmacists, veterinarians, firefighters, naturopathic doctors, and patient advocates warned the rules were restricting access to compounded medications and harming patients and first responders, while the California Medical Association, psychiatric physicians, and PhRMA raised concerns that the board’s proposals could expand pharmacist authority beyond training, affect physician practice, or create safety risks. Other public comments addressed pharmacy technician ratios, remote processing, flavoring medications, hospital-specific regulation, budget and enforcement transparency, and whether the board should add members with community compounding or pharmacy technician expertise. Committee members also asked about the board’s oversight priorities and the rationale for its standard-of-care proposal. Board staff explained that consumer protection includes education, licensing, policy, and enforcement, with the highest-priority enforcement cases being those posing imminent public harm. After public testimony concluded, the chairs thanked participants and adjourned the sunset review hearing, announcing an immediate transition to the joint informational hearing on the Department of Cannabis Control.

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to continue to provide them with reliable funding that reflects the economic reality, because
• 03:58:12.239> provide<03:58:12.560> them<03:58:12.720> with<03:58:12.960> reliable
• <03:58:13.840> uh<03:58:14.000> funding to provide them with reliable uh funding to
• provide them with reliable uh funding that<03:58:14.960> reflects<03:58:15.439> the<03

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not a reliable opportunity for the critical education... opens up and this was one in opens up and
• and<05:07:41.958> it's<05:07:42.120> not<05:07:42.280> a<05:07:42.600> reliable
• questionable and it's not a reliable questionable and it's not a reliable opportunity<05:07:44.240

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first addressed House Bill 415, which would remove the requirement that schools provide menstrual products. Members supporting an ITL said the mandate was unfunded, had been in place since 2019, and was already working without complaints from districts. Other members opposed the bill, arguing menstrual products are essential and that the requirement helps students, especially those with fewer resources. The committee voted ITL on HB 415 by a roll call of 17 yeas, 0 nays. The committee then took up House Bill 388, concerning public reports on special education. Supporters of ITL said they agreed with the goal of transparency but were concerned about student privacy, especially in small districts, and thought the bill’s information requests went too far. They noted that related issues could potentially be addressed in another bill, HB 557. The committee voted ITL on HB 388, 17-0. House Bill 730, which would require schools and some colleges to provide information on adoption, was also moved ITL. The sponsor said adoption is personally important to him but that the bill was not the right vehicle and involved entities such as colleges and the Attorney General unnecessarily; he said related ideas might be folded into other bills later. The committee agreed and voted ITL, 17-0. The committee then discussed House Bill 671, a preschool/early literacy proposal involving a statewide nonprofit digital program, likely Waterford. Members raised questions about who would be covered, data privacy, prior use of federal ESSER funds, whether the program had measurable results, and whether the bill’s nonprofit requirement was too restrictive. Department of Education witness Melissa White said the state had spent $400,000 in FY22 and $600,000 in FY23 on a Waterford contract using ARP ESSER funds, but she did not have participant counts and said the department could not measure literacy gains for that population. She also said the bill’s funding level would likely require an RFP and that, if enacted as written, the program would probably still be Waterford-based. The discussion continued without a final vote in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we have had some model updates since then and new data and information that goes into that model,
• Um, and we have had some model updates since then and new data and information that goes into that model
• What your pump models? What does that all look like?
• So, well over the modeled available groundwater, exporting out.
• So, well over the modeled available groundwater, exporting out.

Bills: HB24, HB27

Keywords: groundwater, conservation, water permits, sustainability, resource management

Summary: The committee met to hear House Bills 27 and 24 on groundwater issues in East Texas, with members and witnesses focusing on a proposed large-volume groundwater export project and the need for more science before major permitting decisions are made. HB 27, which was within the special session call, would direct the Texas Water Development Board to conduct a hydrogeologic study of the aquifers in the affected area and temporarily pause new export permits while the study is underway. HB 24, a separate bill that would limit certain production and export permits to 5% of modeled available groundwater, was laid out but the chair said it would not be moved out of committee. Testimony on HB 27 was largely supportive, though some witnesses were neutral. Supporters, including representatives from a water supply corporation, the Trinity River Authority, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, said the region lacks enough hydrologic data, that the proposed pumping could affect private wells, surface water, and local economies, and that the state needs better information on sustainable yield and groundwater-surface water interaction. Several witnesses emphasized that groundwater conservation districts need clearer tools and better data, while also noting concerns about property rights and the rule of capture. Committee members discussed the scale of the proposed project, the absence of a groundwater conservation district in Houston County, and the possibility that the study should examine desired future conditions and maximum sustainable pumping rather than only modeled available groundwater. The committee adopted the committee substitute for HB 27 and voted it out favorably to the full House with a recommendation that it do pass, be printed, and be sent to the Committee on Calendars. The roll call was unanimous, 11 ayes and 0 nays. After the vote, members briefly reflected on the complexity of the issue and the need to continue working on broader groundwater policy in the interim and next session. HB 24 was discussed later in the meeting, but no final action on that bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 2174, Strike Everything Title: Insurance Modeling and Data Organizations.
• information related to content of the model and outputs necessary to verify the model complies with Arizona
• HB 2174, Strike Everything Title: Insurance Modeling and Data Organizations.
• information related to the content of the model and outputs necessary to verify the model complies with
• information related to the content of the model and outputs necessary to verify the model complies with

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The caucus reviewed a long calendar of House bills across education, health, water, land, housing, labor, public safety, and taxation. Several measures dealt with artificial intelligence, including bills on AI disclosures for minors, AI-assisted divorce arbitration, an Arizona AI education program, AI privilege protections, and a required AI course in schools. Other topics included ESA administration funding, a prohibition on public money for certain foreign-controlled genetic sequencing devices, towing regulations, DUI and ignition interlock changes, health facility and nursing facility complaint timelines, internationally trained physicians, nurse anesthetist reimbursement, pharmacy penalties, childhood cancer research, cybersecurity encryption, school mental health instruction repeal, superintendent performance pay, adoption disclosures in student health settings, anti-Semitism in schools, and a range of water, land, and housing bills. Members frequently raised concerns about local control, unfunded mandates, constitutional issues, and the scope of state intervention. Several bills drew criticism for affecting school curriculum, public education, reproductive rights, protest activity, or tribal communities. Others were supported as technical fixes, consumer protections, or funding measures. The caucus also discussed a series of bills related to the Mexican gray wolf, state land management, solar and wind siting, groundwater transport, and rural development, with some members objecting that the proposals would undermine federal protections or tribal interests. A number of bills were pulled from consent for further discussion, including HB 2020, HB 2957, HCR 2044, HB 2352, HB 2667, HB 2906, HB 2093, HB 2386, HB 2481, HB 2830, HB 2076, HB 2411, HB 2136, HB 2665, and HB 2904. The meeting ended with an announcement of the Latino Caucus guest presentation and an emotional tribute to Reverend Jesse Jackson, followed by presentation of an Affordability Award to Representatives Lorena Austin and Stephanie Simacek for work on economic justice and working families. The caucus then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The second one is that we want to be a model of efficiency and effectiveness, and you may...
• I've talked to a few legislators about how we can create models. For instance...
• And then how do we create a model of efficiency and effectiveness in North Dakota?
• So what a tremendous model. I think we'd have to work directly with them.
• So is it a model like that Community of Care that Castleton has?

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Rural Health Transformation Committee met to receive an extensive briefing from the Department of Health and Human Services on North Dakota’s federal Rural Health Transformation award. HHS leaders Pat Traynor, Donna Auckland, Jonathan Ollum, and Krista Freming described the $198.9 million award, the tight federal timelines for obligating and liquidating funds, and the need for rapid procurement, CMS approval, and technical assistance. They outlined broad funding priorities including connect tech/data, care closer to home, workforce recruitment and retention, and a “Make North Dakota Healthy Again” prevention initiative focused on chronic disease, movement, nutrition, behavioral health, and community connection. They also emphasized that the program cannot fund new buildings or supplant existing funding, and that sustainability will be a key requirement for all projects. The department previewed likely first-round grant opportunities, including recruitment and retention incentives, technical assistance and equipment grants for rural providers, financial analysis support for rural hospitals, and exploration of a unified electronic health record option. Freming also reviewed four policy bills tied to the award: a presidential fitness test, nutrition continuing medical education, the Physician Assistant Compact, and pharmacist scope-of-practice changes, explaining that these policy actions affect future scoring and funding. HHS said it will work with tribes, local public health, hospitals, medical and pharmacy associations, and other partners, and will use a website, listserv, listening sessions, and committee updates to communicate opportunities. Committee members raised concerns about how the money will reach rural residents, whether newspapers and existing local communication networks will be used, how “rural” and “frontier” will be defined, how faith communities might participate in behavioral health efforts, and how HHS will avoid CMS delays and supplanting issues. HHS responded that the focus will be on where the patient lives and on rural community need, that local public health units and existing structures will be part of outreach, and that technical assistance and template applications will help speed approvals. The committee approved the December 4, 2025 minutes, then recessed into divisions for further work on the appropriations bill and the four policy bills, with the full committee set to reconvene the next morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• model.
• Um, sometimes a better model that time.
• ,<00:13:24.959> new also acknowledge that new models, new also acknowledge that new models
• to a co-requisite model. ...models to a co-requisite model.
• Uh, may be more appropriate. ...models to a co-requisite model.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• model.
• It is not a one-size-fits-all model.
• And just a follow-up question. model like this, we'd be so happy to get that opportunity to do so.
• It sounds like you are the model for other school districts and other areas to match, so thank you.
• The peer-to-peer model we just heard about is also a great example of this.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on youth mental health and treatment access, with the chair framing the issue around California’s Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative (CYBHI), school-based supports, and the need to coordinate education, health, and community systems. The first panel featured PPIC researcher Shalini Mostala, who said teen mental health remains a serious concern but recent California Healthy Kids Survey data show improvement in chronic sadness and suicidal thoughts since the pandemic peak. Youth advocate Ella Cruz described her own struggles, emphasized stigma reduction, peer support, and the importance of youth voices in shaping policy and outreach. Members asked about phone use, cultural stigma, and how to encourage young people to seek help and connect with trusted adults and peers. The second panel, led by CYBHI director Dr. Sohill Sood and DHCS Deputy Director Autumn Boylan, provided implementation updates. Dr. Sood said recent data show more students receiving counseling, lower stigma, and a drop in reported suicidal ideation, while also highlighting growth in certified wellness coaches and the CYBHI fee schedule. He said the program has generated more than 230,000 claims and over $11 million in new revenue for participating entities, though implementation is still early and technical assistance remains important. Fresno County’s Trina Frazier described a multi-tiered system of care with wellness centers, mobile therapy units, and strong outcomes in attendance, suspensions, and academic performance, while Rachel Kroberniski of the James Morehouse Project described a long-running school wellness center and a peer-to-peer model that helps students feel connected and supported. Members pressed witnesses on rural staffing, billing coordination, higher education participation, and how to sustain services after one-time grants expire. In the final panel, WestEd’s Lisa Eisenberg discussed what makes the fee schedule work best, saying schools are most successful when they build on existing staff, relationships with health plans, and data-sharing agreements rather than creating entirely new systems. Across the hearing, witnesses and members repeatedly returned to themes of flexibility, sustainability, youth-led and peer-based supports, and the need to reduce stigma while improving coordination across schools, counties, providers, and colleges. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The student-based models child.
• this model. this model.
• And lastly, a hybrid model often combines aspects of student-based models, resource allocation models
• And lastly, a hybrid model often combines aspects of student-based models, resource allocation models
• > and models, resource allocation models, and models, resource allocation models, and various<

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Budget Process 00:02:28 Allotment Process 00:10:30 School Facilities Construction Commission 00:29:10 Role of KDE in School Facilities Funding 00:47:00 Kentucky School Boards Association 01:13:25 Elementary and Secondary School Construction 01:20:40 Perkins V Funding 01:35:32, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So that is a really significant improvement that leverages the model of WAC Cares to give Washington
• And this is what most people prefer, and as previously covered, is the least expensive service model
• I will say that the model for us... ...to suit this work.
• Rector and her team at DSHS for their foresight in developing this model.
• Care models are, again, really lagging behind.

Summary: The committee met for what was described as its final meeting, with members and staff reflecting on the work of the Joint Legislative Executive Committee on Aging and Long-Term Care and noting that future work would likely shift to standing health and wellness committees. The meeting began with introductions and then moved into updates on major initiatives that originated from the committee, including Washington Cares, the Dementia Action Collaborative, and Medicaid long-term care programs. Presenters emphasized that these efforts were developed through long-term legislative-executive collaboration and were intended to help Washington prepare for the state’s aging population. On Washington Cares, DSHS described the program’s development from a 2014 research effort to its 2019 enactment, premium collection beginning in 2023, portability improvements in 2024, and 2025 changes including a grandfathered opt-out fix and a framework for supplemental private long-term care insurance. The agency said benefits are expected to go fully live next summer, with a pilot of up to 400 applicants planned for next January. On dementia policy, the Dementia Action Collaborative reported on the state dementia plan, Project ECHO training for providers, and pilot dementia-capable community programs at area agencies on aging, citing preliminary results that about 85% of family caregivers said services helped people remain at home. DSHS also reviewed Medicaid Transformation Project initiatives, including Medicaid Alternative Care, Tailored Supports for Older Adults, presumptive eligibility, and health-related social needs benefits such as rental assistance, nutrition support, and home modifications. The committee then heard an emerging issues panel from ombuds and disability advocates. Patricia Hunter of the long-term care ombuds program raised concerns about staffing shortages, resident rights, surveillance technology, private equity ownership of facilities, and illegal discharges or evictions. Betty Sweeterman of the Developmental Disabilities Ombuds discussed people stuck in hospitals without medical need, gaps in behavioral health services for people with developmental disabilities, and the need for better workforce training. Todd Carlyle of Disability Rights Washington urged expansion and bundling of community supports such as PACT, GOSH, and peer bridgers to reduce repeated institutionalization and support discharge from inpatient psychiatric settings. Provider and labor panels followed, with nursing home, assisted living, supported living, and union representatives all emphasizing workforce shortages, low wages, Medicaid rate inadequacy, case management bottlenecks, behavioral health complexity, and the need for more flexible care models and stronger accountability for rate increases. No formal votes were taken; the meeting ended with public comment on manufactured housing and closing remarks thanking staff and participants for the committee’s work.