Transcript Highlights:

• The behested payments are payments made at the request on or behalf of an official for a legislative,
• report within 30 days of the payment being received.
• For payments of $5,000 or more, from a single source in a calendar year.
• payments.
• Who is directing these payments and who is benefiting from these payments, right?

Committee: House Elections

Transcript Highlights:

• However, if a borrower makes payments during a forbearance plan, the payments must be applied to the
• I do not want lump-sum payments.
• I'm going to ask them about lump-sum payments, but assuming they're not lump-sum payments, I mean, there
• Usually at that point, there is a balloon payment.
• clear that it doesn't allow balloon payments, then it would be illegal to do a balloon payment, correct

Committee: House Banking and Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• motor vehicle payments.
• The holder may not establish electronic payment as the expected form of payment and must inform the borrower
• motor vehicle payments.
• The holder may not establish electronic payment as the expected form of payment and must inform the borrower
• The holder may not establish electronic payment as the expected form of payment and must inform the borrower

Bills: HB111

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Summary: The committee heard a long series of House bills, with most measures laid out by Senate sponsors and then left pending after brief public testimony. Early bills focused on construction and licensing issues, including HB 305 on prompt payment for public construction audits, HB 5093 on restoring public access to notary contact information, HB 2037 on updating landlord-tenant repair and security deposit rules, HB 4214 on a centralized public information request contact database, and HB 5435 exempting higher education institutions from a 90-day notice requirement for certain public-private partnership projects. Testimony was generally supportive on these bills, and no votes were taken; each was left pending. The committee also considered several transparency and regulatory bills. HB 111 would expand the Public Information Act to certain nonprofit state associations and narrow some attorney-client and working-paper exceptions, with supporters arguing it would improve oversight of public funds and critics questioning the scope and thresholds. HB 5129 would protect occupational license holders’ personal identifying information from disclosure without consent, HB 4350 would allow peace officers to redact personal information from online real property records, HB 4748 would authorize multiple-award state purchasing contracts, and HB 4765 would clean up code enforcement officer licensing rules. HB 4134 would allow motor vehicle creditors to charge limited fees for electronic payment options while requiring a free alternative, and HB 1043 would direct a study of blockchain-based property title records; both drew testimony, with some concern about the practical effects and vendor implications of the blockchain study. Several bills addressed insurance, workforce, and digital-asset regulation. HB 3520 would reduce the insurance coverage required for transportation network companies during the period when a driver is en route to pick up a passenger, drawing support from Texans for Lawsuit Reform and opposition from trial lawyers who argued the higher coverage better protects the public. HB 3320 would create a self-insurance pool for religious institutions, with TDI explaining it would still be regulated but operate under a special statutory framework. HB 4233 would modernize rules for digital asset service providers by removing certain auditor-access requirements and updating reporting and licensing provisions. HB 3923 would reduce bachelor’s-degree requirements for some state jobs, though Every Texan argued low pay, not degree requirements, is the main driver of turnover. HB 4518 would create a legal structure for decentralized unincorporated nonprofit associations tied to blockchain governance; business law experts opposed it as unnecessary and potentially risky, while crypto advocates supported it. Finally, HB 1803 would join an interstate compact for dentists and dental hygienists, with supporters citing workforce shortages and opponents saying Texas already licenses quickly and that the compact could weaken state oversight. Throughout the hearing, the committee repeatedly closed testimony and left bills pending, and a quorum was eventually established before later items were heard.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are proposing to increase managed care directed payments and fee-for-service supplemental payments
• payments that I'm talking about.
• You shared some examples on increasing the payments and then the payment lag, but can you share a little
• That would be the same for the increases in payment? In terms of how are we increasing the payment?
• Yeah, how are you increasing the payment?

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the Department of Health Care Services’ proposed budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds budget and projected Medi-Cal enrollment decline as redeterminations continue. Members focused heavily on the fiscal and programmatic effects of prior budget solutions and federal changes, especially the elimination of General Fund-supported Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, the hospice utilization-management change, and the impact of reduced caseloads alongside rising health care costs. DHCS said it is still completing required access and rate-reduction analyses for the dental cuts and has been engaging stakeholders, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect on utilization or provider participation. The committee also reviewed the November 2025 Medi-Cal local assistance estimate, which shows higher General Fund spending despite lower enrollment, driven by managed care rate growth, Medicare cost growth, state-only claiming, and federal policy changes. The hearing then turned to provider taxes and federal H.R. 1 constraints, with extensive discussion of the MCO tax, the hospital quality assurance fee, and other health care-related taxes. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 phases down allowable tax levels and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, making the current MCO tax structure and the proposed higher hospital fee levels difficult or impossible to renew as originally designed. Staff and the LAO described the tradeoff between preserving Medi-Cal funding and avoiding higher costs on private providers and consumers. Members asked about options for preserving revenue, including possible amendments to Prop. 35 or returning to voters, and were told the department is still evaluating approaches while federal guidance remains in flux. The committee also reviewed hospital payment increases already implemented through state-directed payments, with DHCS noting that H.R. 1 will force those payments down to Medicare levels over time. Several budget change proposals were discussed and left open, including requests tied to the managed care final rule, managed care operations, hospital value strategy, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability requirements. The committee also heard about a one-year trailer bill extension for skilled nursing facility financing, including continuation of the SNF workforce standards program, the SNF quality assurance fee, and annual rate growth, while the department develops a longer-term financing redesign for 2027-28. Members expressed skepticism about repeated rate reform efforts and questioned whether a one-year extension of the eliminated workforce quality incentive program should be restored during the transition. Finally, Covered California presented its budget and enrollment update, reporting that the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit is expected to reduce affordability significantly, with average premiums roughly doubling for many enrollees and as many as 400,000 Californians potentially losing marketplace coverage over time. The exchange said California’s $190 million subsidy program is helping lower-income enrollees, but not enough to offset the federal loss, and it is also implementing a new gender-affirming care benefit and awaiting federal action on benchmark plan changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> payment has been made or not. payment has been made or not.
• </c> payment within 60 days of the invoice. payment within 60 days of the invoice.
• The GC would not provide the payment.
• But, unfortunately, the payment paid.
• </c> their rights to seek timely payment. their rights to seek timely payment.

Committee: Senate Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• What this means is the payment schedule is built assuming that UAL payments in the future will grow by
• payments as you move further.
• What this means is the payment schedule is built, assuming that UAL payments in the future will grow
• payments as you move further. smaller payments in the near term and larger payments as you move further
• That's how the payments are being calculated.

Committee: House Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement

Transcript Highlights:

• And non-claims can be like value-based payments, right?
• But there are value-based payments for HCBS, too. Is that question about value-based payments?
• Value-based payment is a very important... Value-based payment is a very nice term. Sounds great.
• And if those differences in payments go up substantially, then that hospital is receiving more payments
• That hospital is receiving more payments than, or higher payments than, a benchmark that is set for this

Summary: The Complex Care Committee meeting focused first on a new Diabetes Caucus launched at the Capitol. Rep. Johnson described the caucus as a forum to educate people about type 1 and type 2 diabetes, genetic risk, early testing, pregnancy-related diabetes, and ways Medicaid policy might improve prevention and lower long-term costs. Members agreed the caucus could intersect with care management, and Carolyn Grandell of CHNCT offered to share information about current diabetes-related care management services at a future meeting. The committee then heard a detailed presentation from Alex Rigger of the Office of Health Strategy, who is moving to the Office of Policy and Management. He reviewed Connecticut health care benchmark data, including total health care expenditures, medical spending, and market-by-market trends. He said 2023 to 2024 per-capita spending grew more than 8.5% statewide and 14% in Medicaid, with long-term care accounting for about 46% of Medicaid spending and retail pharmacy also identified as a major cost driver. Members asked about enrollment changes, dual-eligible populations, Medicare Savings Program members, 340B drug pricing, and value-based payment models. Rigger explained that his office tracks alternate payment models and quality benchmarks, but does not separately capture 340B data. Discussion then shifted to Medicare Advantage, dual eligibles, and hospital discharge planning. Members said they want better data on how many Medicaid members are in Medicare Advantage plans and whether those plans shift costs back to Medicaid or affect access to care, especially for complex-care patients. Staff noted DSS does have some Medicare Advantage indicators and that CMS is developing encounter-data rules for states. Kathy Holt and others raised concerns about denials, nursing home stays, and the need to compare Medicaid spending for dual eligibles in Medicare Advantage versus traditional Medicare. The meeting ended with plans for follow-up data sharing, including Alex Rigger’s slides, the diabetes caucus materials, and a future discussion with DSS and other agencies; no formal votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• And you see there, the mid-year payment totaling up, without the OAB payment that's now zero, is the
• $565 million total projected UAL payment.
• The next page is a projection of UAL payments.
• Now, that's just the UAL payment.
• Right, but now that's just the UAL payment.

Summary: The Public Retirement System Actuarial Committee met on Monday, June 22, with a quorum present and approved the prior meeting minutes. There was no public comment. The main item was an actuarial update from Ms. Johnson on LASERS, prompted by House Bill 312 of 2026, which appropriated about $145 million to LASERS and required the committee to revise the projected fiscal year 2027 employer contribution rate to reflect the funds received. Ms. Johnson explained that $87.6 million was applied to the original amortization base, paying it off, and the remaining $57.9 million was applied to the experience account amortization base. As a result, the projected aggregate employer contribution rate for fiscal year 2027 was reduced from 32.51% to 30.05%, a decrease of 2.46%, with the projected employer contribution amount revised to about $738.7 million. She also noted that the original amortization base balance would be zero by June 30, 2026, while the experience account amortization base would continue to be paid down over time. Committee members asked about the longer-term impact of the changes, including a question about projected savings in 2036. Ms. Johnson said the later-year savings would depend on future actuarial experience and investment performance, but the projected UAL payment in that year would be lower under the revised schedule. The committee then moved to adopt the revised projected fiscal year 2027 LASERS contribution rate of 30.05% by plan, the motion was seconded, and it passed without opposition. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it does not affect your mortgage payment.
• Then they have this balloon payment to pay. And still make their payments. I apologize. I'm sorry.
• They could keep their payment, keep their hope.
• Then they have this balloon payment to pay. And still make their payments. I apologize. I'm sorry.
• So any temporary payment would be in addition to it.

Committee: House House Government, Elections & Indian Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• I've seen a 2.2 percent rate of improper payments in Minnesota.
• So I want to be very clear: improper payments do not mean fraud.
• We have other ways to recover improper payments, right?
• You talked about how you recover improper payments?
• We are stopping payment percentage-wise; we are stopping payment unless the law enforcement entity says

Committee: House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• payments.
• payments.
• payments.
• </c> Officer Payments. Officer Payments.
• Equivalent payments, 10,94,22. Payments to OIT.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> this program only makes payments this program only makes payments to<00:03:34.560><c> companies<
• ><c> that</c> rata payments or partial payments, that rata payments or partial payments, that sort<00
• </c> get a payment they were hoping to get. get a payment they were hoping to get.
• </c><00:10:22.880><c> and</c><00:10:23.000><c> then</c> make payments and then make payments and then
• I mean, or is it payments weren't made?

Transcript Highlights:

• Late payments erode profits.
• </c> interest on late payments. interest on late payments.
• , retainage payment, or final payment made to the contractor.
• 45:41.680><c> made</c> retainage payment, or final payment made retainage payment, or final payment made
• </c> those payments if they request it. those payments if they request it.

Committee: Senate State and Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• payments?
• to claw back previous payments from January and December.
• It's okay if they miss a payment.
• payment systems. would you apply this previous experience to improve the payment processing systems
• And improper payments is a part of this as well.

Committee: Senate Finance Committee

Keywords: Social Security, Medicaid, Frank Bisignano, Elon Musk, benefit processing, office closures, public testimony, administration policies, health care, vulnerable populations

Summary: The committee meeting focused heavily on the nomination of Frank Bisignano as the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, with intense discussions around the current state of Social Security and its management under the current administration. Members voiced significant concerns regarding potential changes to Social Security and Medicaid, specifically addressing issues such as office closures, delays in benefit processing, and the perceived policies from Elon Musk's association with the administration. Public testimonies highlighted fears that these changes would severely impact the accessibility of benefits for seniors and vulnerable individuals, resulting in a chaotic environment at the SSA. Members expressed a unified opposition to the notion of dismantling these critical programs, emphasizing the long-term implications on their constituents' well-being.

Transcript Highlights:

• our ability to make these payments more quickly.
• payments that I’m talking about.
• You shared some examples on increasing the payments and then the payment lag, but can you share a little
• Would that be the same for the increases in payment? In terms of how are we increasing the payment?
• Yeah, how are you increasing the payment?

Summary: The subcommittee heard a lengthy Department of Health Care Services presentation on the governor’s Medi-Cal budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds proposal, projected Medi-Cal enrollment declines as redeterminations continue, and several major cost drivers such as managed care growth, Medicare-related costs, pharmacy spending, and changes tied to federal policy. Members focused heavily on the elimination of Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, questioning the likely impact on provider participation and utilization. DHCS said it is completing the required rate reduction/access analysis for CMS, has been holding stakeholder meetings and issuing provider bulletins, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect. The committee also discussed a $50 million savings proposal tied to new hospice utilization management authority and asked about possible effects on emergency dental care and provider participation. The hearing then moved through the November 2025 family health estimate and several county and program administration issues, including CCS, GHPP, and Every Woman Counts. DHCS said family health costs are rising despite slight caseload declines because of higher utilization and medical costs, and members raised concerns about CCS website accessibility, county administrative funding, and the transition of youth aging out of CCS. The department said most CCS beneficiaries are also on Medi-Cal, that counties have long raised funding concerns, and that it had clarified use of maintenance-and-operations dollars to address some county workload issues. Members also asked about Every Woman Counts potentially seeing higher demand as Medi-Cal changes take effect; DHCS said that is possible and that the program has multiple funding sources including General Fund. A major portion of the hearing focused on provider taxes and federal changes under H.R. 1, especially the Medi-Cal managed care organization tax and the hospital quality assurance fee. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 restricts new or increased health care-related taxes, phases down allowable tax levels over time, and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, which could sharply reduce the state’s ability to use the MCO tax for Medi-Cal financing. Members asked whether the Legislature could amend Prop. 35 or whether voters would need to act; DHCS said a three-fourths legislative amendment may be possible if it aligns with the measure’s purpose, but the department is still evaluating options. The committee also discussed hospital financing, with DHCS describing recent increases in state-directed payments and the effect of H.R. 1 in capping those payments at Medicare levels, and the LAO noting the tradeoff between preserving provider taxes and maintaining Medi-Cal funding. The subcommittee also reviewed a series of DHCS budget change proposals and trailer bill items, including managed care final-rule implementation, managed care operations, a hospital value strategy, a one-year extension of skilled nursing facility financing, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability/prior authorization requirements. Members repeatedly questioned the use of limited-term versus permanent positions, the overlap among proposals, and the timing of new financing reforms. DHCS said the SNF extension would preserve current workforce standards, sanctions, growth limits, and the SNF quality assurance fee while the department develops a broader 2027-28 redesign. No votes were taken; items were repeatedly held open for later action. Covered California then presented on the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit and the resulting affordability crisis. The agency said Californians will lose about $2.5 billion in premium assistance for 2026, average premiums could nearly double for many enrollees, and as many as 400,000 people could eventually leave marketplace coverage. Open enrollment ended with 1.9 million sign-ups, down 3% from the prior year, with especially steep declines among middle-income consumers and increased movement into bronze plans. Covered California said the state’s $190 million affordability subsidy is helping lower-income enrollees retain coverage, but cannot fully replace the lost federal assistance. Members also asked about the Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund, repayment of loans from that fund, the status of federal review of California’s essential health benefits benchmark, and implementation of the new gender-affirming care benefit under AB 144.

Transcript Highlights:

• This allows a permanent withholding of payment to entities who have a credible allegation of fraud.
• This allows a permanent withholding of payment to entities who have a credible allegation of fraud.
• Thank you. of payment to entities who have a of payment to entities who have a credible<00:04:07.000>
• </c> other agencies to also withhold payment other agencies to also withhold payment when<00:04:19.720
• ><c> for</c><00:05:02.880><c> credible</c> withholding of payment for credible withholding of payment

Transcript Highlights:

• payments that I'm talking about.
• You shared some examples on increasing the payments and then the payment lag.
• You shared some examples on increasing the payments and then the payment lag.
• That would be the same for the increases in payment? In terms of how are we increasing the payment?
• Yeah, how are you increasing the payment?

Transcript Highlights:

• The city of Jericho was granted a payment agreement less than 10% allowed by the law.
• The city made the following payments totaling over $2,600. This is a repeat finding.
• , and then once they receive those payments, they transfer and sign off on those receipts or payments
• doing that monthly check register to make sure we're able to verify all those payments.
• Invoices and timesheets were not properly approved prior to payment.

Committee: All LEGISLATIVE JOINT AUDITING-COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES

Summary: The committee approved the February 12 minutes and then received updates on delinquent municipal water and sewer reports, noting substantial progress in bringing cities back into compliance. Several items were deferred at the request of local officials, including Fargo’s municipal accounting code report, Jericho’s misuse of street funds matter, Biggers, Holly Grove, Gilmore, and several private water and sewer reports lacking proper responses. The committee also filed a number of reports with no questions or with resolved findings. A lengthy portion of the meeting focused on repeat audit findings and management responses. The City of Strong’s mayor described corrective steps on undeposited funds, improper use of solid waste funds, unsupported spending, IRS payroll tax issues, accounting controls, restricted fund transfers, and budget overruns; the committee commended the city’s efforts and filed the report. Calhoun County’s report, involving improper county spending for an appreciation banquet and altered receipts in the collector’s office, was also filed after discussion about educating local officials on constitutional spending limits. Other reports filed included Salem, Briarcliffe, Compton Water Association, and Montgomery County Regional Public Water Authority, while several private water reports were deferred or referred to prosecutors and the Attorney General. The committee reviewed a major regional solid waste management districts report, with significant findings for Pulaski County and Faulkner County involving unapproved payroll items, missing documentation, vehicle and cell phone use, lack of competitive bids, and weak internal controls; Benton County had fewer issues, and several districts had no findings. On motion, the Pulaski County report was deferred so district representatives could answer questions. The committee also heard from Nevada County, where unauthorized withdrawals and interlocal landfill agreement problems were discussed; the county judge said the issues were being corrected, and the report was filed. Later, the committee heard from the City of Grubbs about long-standing IRS debt and from Cross County Rural Water System about overdue audit posting and water quality problems; both witnesses described corrective efforts and ongoing funding or infrastructure projects, and the committee filed the reports after extensive discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• The problem, though, is malpractice itself, not malpractice payments.
• incidents resulting in a payment per 1,000 physicians.
• So there's a lot of malpractice payments.
• Therefore, you save money on malpractice payments.
• You will reduce medical malpractice payments if you reduce medical malpractice.

Committee: House Legislative Health & Human Services Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• office overpayments, or duplicate invoice payments.
• They approve the payments.
• Most vendors are paid under net 30 payment terms.
• We also have vendors who have ACH payments.
• payment into two.

Summary: The committee met to receive a detailed financial operations presentation from the South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agency, with staff walking members through funding sources, budgeting, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and grants management. Sabrina Walker explained VR’s blended funding structure, including federal grants, state appropriations, program income, and interagency contracts, and emphasized that state funds are essential to meeting the federal match and maintenance-of-effort requirements. Members asked repeatedly about transparency, audit controls, and the risk that state cuts could reduce federal drawdowns; staff responded that all reports reconcile back to the SCEIS accounting system, are subject to state audits and internal reviews, and that even modest state reductions could significantly reduce total available funding. The committee also discussed pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities, with staff confirming services are offered through school districts, charters, and private schools, and that contracts are monitored for performance and compliance. The presentation then shifted to budgeting and internal controls. Walker described a zero-based departmental budgeting process, monthly monitoring reports, contingency reserves for unexpected expenses, and a formal annual cycle that culminates in board approval. Members asked about facilities tracking, culture, and how the agency maintains accountability; staff said facilities staff inspect buildings and equipment, supervisors justify line-item requests, and the process has become smoother over time as departments learned the system. Cynthia Johnson followed with an accounts receivable overview, describing invoicing, receipting, aging, customer verification, year-end reporting, and the use of cross-training, shared email inboxes, and spreadsheets as checks and balances. She also explained work training center billing, interdepartmental transfers, and the revolving fund used to issue consumer checks more quickly than standard vendor payments. Olivia Perez presented accounts payable operations, including invoice processing through SCEIS and OnBase, the three-way match, travel reimbursements, revolving fund checks, State Treasury Office interactions, and handling of reversals, rejections, and levy notices. She reported that AP processed 67,723 SCEIS payments, 13,670 case management system invoices, 3,379 travel reimbursements, and 15,693 revolving fund checks in fiscal year 2025, with only 70 payment rejections. The final portion of the meeting covered Grants and Funds Management, where Walker explained federal reporting, drawdowns, payroll allocation, asset tracking, lease and IT contract reviews, cost allocation, and closing packages. She noted upcoming system changes such as S/4HANA, Workiva, and SC Pro, but said the agency is receiving training and feedback opportunities. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the presentation portion beyond approval of the prior minutes and a brief recess.