Video & Transcript Research : 'back pay'
Page 22 of 500
TX
Texas 89th 2nd C.S.
Senate Committee on Health and Human Services May 27th, 2026
Health & Human Services
Transcript Highlights:
- So the idea that we're going to go back to individual conversations about billing and paying and tracking—can
- And back to Mr.
- And the only way we can find to do it is with this third-party pay that I think we simply moved it back
- pay it at all.
- So they don't have to file, be rejected, do prior auth, go back and forth, go back and forth, go back
AR
Arkansas 2026 1st Special Session
ALC-STATE INSURANCE PROGRAMS OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE Mar 18th, 2026
ALC-STATE INSURANCE PROGRAMS OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE
Transcript Highlights:
- So now, instead of paying carriers on the back end for high claims, the federal government sends an upfront
- Patrick: ...instead of paying carriers on the back end for high claims, the federal government sends
- Now we're paying $200. And the sicker... Patrick: ...we used to pay $2. Now we're paying $200.
- So they're paying much less on the back end.
- So they're paying much less on the back end.
Summary:
The committee received an update from Grant Wallace on the state employee Medicare Advantage group plan and the ongoing rebid with UnitedHealthcare. Wallace said the agency is exploring “decoupling” the medical and pharmacy portions of the plan, and that preliminary estimates suggested potential savings of about $100 to $200 per participant per month. He said the final CMS rate-setting process would conclude in April, with a revised contract amendment likely to come before the committee in May or June after review by the EBD Advisory Commission and State Board of Finance. He also clarified that the plan covers post-65 teacher and state employee retirees, including retirees from state agencies and K-12 public schools.
Representatives from Segal Consulting then gave a broader presentation on Medicare Advantage and Part D market trends, reviewing Arkansas’s prior decision to adopt a Medicare Advantage prescription drug plan and the savings generated since the 2023 RFP. They explained that the Inflation Reduction Act significantly changed Part D financing by shifting more federal support into a direct subsidy tied to risk scores, which makes accurate risk adjustment more important and creates a larger difference between Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans and standalone Part D plans. They said this has led to a growing divergence in funding, especially for standalone Part D, and is the main reason decoupling medical and pharmacy coverage is being considered.
Committee members asked about how the risk-score changes affect costs and members. Segal said the new structure has reduced member out-of-pocket costs, with the annual cap now at $2,000 and many members reaching it after roughly $600 to $800 in spending, but that the plan absorbs more of the cost. They also said the market appears to be adjusting through annual bids, and that a decoupled structure could allow the state to capture more favorable funding on the Part D side. No votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after being told to expect further information once the April rate notice and renewal proposal are available.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee May 12th, 2026
Energy, Utilities and Communications
Transcript Highlights:
- the state may need to pay, some utilities may need to pay some, and ratepayers may need to pay some—various
- And it ties it back to incentivizing the utilities rather than making the ratepayers pay for something
- The total back, the total back...
- In October, the CPUC approved a massive Edison rate hike and nearly $1 billion in back pay.
- If companies that start fires pay less, everyone else is forced to pay more.
Summary:
The committee held the first of several informational hearings on the SB 254 Natural Catastrophe Resiliency Study, focused on wildfire risk, utility liability, and how to finance catastrophic losses. Chair Allen opened by describing California’s recent utility-ignited wildfires, the creation of the wildfire fund under AB 1054, and SB 254’s extension of that fund and requirement for a study. The California Earthquake Authority, as wildfire fund administrator, presented the report’s process and findings, emphasizing that the study was intended to be neutral and broad, based on extensive stakeholder outreach, and that the status quo is not working well for survivors, communities, ratepayers, insurers, or utilities.
CEA’s report organized recommendations into three policy pathways: continued mitigation investment, more equitable allocation of catastrophe burdens, and expanded state roles in catastrophe financing. For utilities, the report discussed options such as setting a binding risk-tolerance standard, preserving safety certificate accountability, tying executive compensation more directly to safety, creating confidential reporting with safe-harbor protections, reforming utility liability including possible changes to inverse condemnation, limiting damages, reducing insurance subrogation, and creating a fast-pay facility for survivors. The financing analysis compared a more durable wildfire fund, risk transfer/reinsurance, liability reforms, and state-backed mechanisms such as a state insurer, a state backstop, and broader funding for community wildfire mitigation.
The CPUC said wildfire mitigation oversight has improved, but wildfire-related costs are driving electricity bills higher and creating an affordability crisis. The Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety highlighted its wildfire mitigation plan review and field inspections, and recommended stronger safety reporting and more safety-weighted executive compensation. In member discussion, senators and assemblymembers focused on the cost of the status quo, whether the burden should be shared by ratepayers, utilities, the state, or other parties, and whether California should consider broader disaster-financing approaches. Several members raised concerns about inverse condemnation, the pace of survivor compensation, local land-use responsibility, and the need for a more comprehensive statewide solution rather than piecemeal bills. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing was informational only.
KY
Kentucky 2026 Regular Session
Budget Review Subcommittee on General Government, Finance, Personnel, and Public Retirement.(6-3-26)
Transcript Highlights:
- you all require the city to pay a portion of that back?
- you all require the city to pay a portion of that back?
- you all require the city to pay a portion of that back?
- We will tell you you have to pay that back.
- We will tell you you have to pay that back.
Keywords:
Meeting Start 00:00:00
Attendance Roll Call 00:00:54
Pension System Update 00:03:38, 958, all
Summary:
The committee held its first official interim meeting after merging the General Government and Finance, Personnel, and Public Retirement committees, establishing a quorum and opening with the pledge and prayer. Members then received a briefing from KPPA representatives Ryan Barrow and Aaron Sarock on the state retirement systems, including KERS, CERS, and SPRS, and on the importance of fully funding the actuarially determined employer contribution, supplemental appropriations, and investment earnings in reducing unfunded liabilities. They said the systems have made progress toward a statutory closed amortization target of 2049 and emphasized that supplemental funding lowers current employer contribution rates but does not change that end date.
A major topic was federal and state reemployment-after-retirement rules for retirees who return to work with participating employers. KPPA explained that retirees must have a bona fide separation from service, no prearranged agreement to return, and generally a one-calendar-month break in service for retirees on or after January 1, 2024. If a member fails to comply, retirement benefits can be voided, payments stopped, health coverage ended, and benefits repaid. The presenters also noted that rehired retirees do not earn a second retirement account, and employers rehiring them must pay employer contributions and, in non-exempt cases, reimburse health insurance costs.
Members asked about the scale of rehired retirees and the difference between employer contribution and health insurance reimbursement amounts. KPPA said that in fiscal year 2025 there were over 3,500 rehired retirees in CERS and over 5,000 in SPRS, with substantial employer contributions and health reimbursement payments collected. They also explained that some positions are exempt from these chargebacks, including school resource officers and certain law enforcement positions that meet statutory criteria. The committee discussed House Bill 213, which allows cities, sheriffs’ departments, and post-secondary institutions to offer health insurance to rehired officers if authorized by the governing body, effective August 1, 2026, and clarifies the fiscal-year basis for certain exemption limits. No votes were taken.
FL
Florida 2025 Regular Session
December 4, 2025 - 11:00 AM
Transcript Highlights:
- TO PAY INCREASES.
- SO I WILL BE BACK I WILL COME TO YOU THIS YEAR NOT JUST TO PAY FOR CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS BUT FOR COMMUNITY
- INCREASES AND STARTED RAISING THEIR PAY AND COMPETITOR STARTING RAISING THEIR PAY AND WE HAVE SLIP BACK
- SLIP IN THE BACK SIR.
- THE PART WE HAVE TALKING ABOUT PAY. PAY IS ALWAYS THERE.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee May 13th, 2026
Transcript Highlights:
- In October, the CPUC approved a massive Edison rate hike and nearly $1 billion in back pay.
- And so unless we can create some way to fast pay people, then the only people who will get back home
- So to answer your question, what I would do is I would lift the cap of SCE having to pay back the $4
- So to answer your question, what I would do is I would lift the cap of SCE having to pay back the $4
- billion. because if all they have SCE having to pay back the $4 billion, because if all they have to
Summary:
The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the California Earthquake Authority’s SB 254 report and broader options for reforming California’s utility wildfire recovery system. The chair framed the discussion around the Palisades and Eaton fires, the scale of wildfire-related costs on utility bills, and the need to weigh trade-offs among survivors, ratepayers, utilities, insurers, and taxpayers. The first panel featured wildfire survivors William Abrams and Joy Chen, who described long delays in compensation, housing insecurity, and what they viewed as a system that protects utility shareholders more than victims. They urged greater transparency, clearer accountability for utility spending and safety performance, faster and fuller compensation for survivors, and reforms such as independent audits and better alignment of utility incentives with wildfire prevention and restitution.
The second panel began with Tom Welsh of the California Earthquake Authority, who explained that the SB 254 report was intended as a broad inventory of policy pathways rather than recommendations. He described the report’s process, including stakeholder submissions, workstreams, and a convergence process, and outlined the current wildfire fund structure: utilities remain liable, the fund reimburses eligible claims after a covered wildfire, and the CPUC later determines prudency and possible reimbursement back to the fund. RAND’s Lloyd Dixon summarized compensation data, saying utilities paid about $38 billion between 2017 and 2024, with major shares going to injured parties, insurers, and public entities, while litigation costs and survivors’ own losses remain substantial. He noted that legal fees and delays reduce the amount survivors ultimately receive.
Utility and public-interest witnesses offered differing views on the report’s pathways. PG&E’s Tyson Smith said the report shows inaction is the worst outcome and argued for community wildfire risk reduction, equitable allocation of catastrophe costs, and state-led resilience tools. LADWP’s Fernando Valero emphasized the vulnerability of municipal utilities and cities, and supported inverse condemnation reform, a state-sponsored liability insurance framework, damages and subrogation limits, and stronger insurance access. Consumer Attorneys of California’s John Fisk argued that IOU-caused fires are not natural disasters but the result of negligence and sometimes criminal conduct, and opposed reducing utility liability while supporting stronger oversight and audits. The Public Advocates Office’s Nathaniel Skinner focused on affordability, saying ratepayers already bear large and growing wildfire costs and warning against shifting more costs onto bills without measurable risk reduction and tighter accountability. Committee members then began questioning witnesses about what counts as measurable mitigation, how to define full and fair compensation, and how any fast-pay process should work.
TX
Texas 89th 2nd C.S.
Health Care Affordability, Select May 1st, 2026
Health Care Affordability, Select
Transcript Highlights:
- And the only thing I fall back on is because their incentives say, "I need to pay." ...I fall back on
- Yeah, it pays itself, but it pays itself more than it pays independent providers.
- But I will say to your point, yes, they pay them quickly unless they claw it back with DIR fees.
- Yes, they pay them quickly unless they claw it back with DIR fees and other things like that, retroactive
- I mean, you'd rather pay 30% more, but only pay when it works.
LA
Transcript Highlights:
- it, that they don't end up coming back and having to pay it again.
- You pay for the claim cost.
- It doesn't cap the co-pay.
- But the only retroactivity piece of this is one PBM paying back to January 1 on something that they completely
- But the only retroactivity piece of this is one PBM paying back to January 1st on something that they
Summary:
The Senate Committee on Insurance met on May 6, 2026, and first reported HB 1241 favorably. That bill, by Chairman Furman, requires insurers to check with DCFS before paying certain insurance settlements to determine whether the recipient owes delinquent child support, and to withhold and remit arrears if found. DCFS explained that Louisiana already has intercepts and other collection tools, but no current mechanism for insurance settlements. Senators raised concerns about notice to obligors and about liability if insurers fail to withhold, but the bill was advanced without objection.
The committee then heard HB 870, which would require health insurers and PBMs to cover lower-cost generic or biosimilar drugs when available and to use utilization management no more restrictively on those drugs. Supporters said the bill would improve access and lower patient costs by using wholesale acquisition cost as the comparison point. Opponents, including Louisiana Blue and the AFL-CIO, argued that WAC ignores rebates and net cost, could force plans to cover higher-cost biosimilars first, and could increase premiums and disrupt ERISA and fully insured plan design. The committee adopted a technical amendment set and then a second amendment set that added notice and reporting requirements tied to net cost calculations, and HB 870 was reported favorably as amended.
Several other bills were moved with little or no opposition. HB 1176, concerning Medicare Advantage coverage for integrative cancer treatments such as cold cap therapy, cryotherapy, and acupuncture, was amended to change the effective date and then reported favorably. HB 1196, dealing with colorectal cancer screening follow-up colonoscopies, was also amended and reported favorably. HB 1162, a consumer protection bill requiring DOI to verify that a contractor named on a first-party property damage check is licensed in Louisiana, was amended and reported favorably. HB 826, which modernizes insurance referral rules to allow referrals by email or website address, was reported favorably. The committee also heard HB 1151 on insurer investment limits and solvency protections, and HB 1236 on pharmacy reimbursement and copay maximizer programs; both drew substantial testimony and concern, especially over retroactivity, PBM cost allocation, and whether copay maximizers shift costs to patients, but the transcript cuts off before final action on HB 1236.
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Afternoon Subcommittee Work Session (02/12/2025)
Transcript Highlights:
- Oh, right, they don't pay it in full. Do they? Do they pay what they want to pay?
- of the competition down south, they have to pay their people more, so you back up to the same cost.
- of the competition down south, they have to pay their people more, so you back up to the same cost.
- pay whatever is that's going to pay pay whatever is going<00:28:55.120>
to <00:28:55.240>be - back they came back numbers and he come back they came back and<00:47:53.720>
said <00:47:54.720
Summary:
The subcommittee discussed three ambulance reimbursement bills and tried to distinguish their approaches. House Bill 185 would require insurers to pay the full amount billed by an ambulance provider when there is no contract rate, with no balance billing to the patient; the Insurance Department clarified that emergency ambulance services are already covered under the benchmark plan, so the bill’s reference to policies without ambulance coverage is effectively meaningless. House Bill 725 would set reimbursement at 325% of the Medicare rate for non-contract ambulance services and prohibit balance billing. House Bill 316 was described as addressing the broader problem that Medicare/Medicaid rates are low and that current balance billing shifts costs to patients or municipalities; its sponsor said the bill would require insurers to pay a rate that gives providers a fighting chance to remain in business, and he viewed 325% of Medicare as the most logical option.
Members debated whether insurers should pay the billed amount, a negotiated in-network rate, or a regulated percentage of Medicare. Some argued that out-of-network ambulance providers are underpaid and that in-network rates are often too low to sustain service, especially for emergency providers who cannot steer patients. Others said ambulance companies should not be able to bill whatever they want and questioned the fairness of charging insured patients or insurers more than the service is worth. There was also discussion of whether rate schedules should be reviewed by an oversight body and whether different costs in rural areas justify different reimbursement levels.
A recurring issue was balance billing and who ultimately bears the shortfall. Several members said balance billing harms patients and often does not get paid, leaving cities and towns or property taxpayers to cover the difference for municipal ambulance services. Others argued that shifting the cost to insurance premiums would spread the burden more fairly, though it could raise premiums by a few dollars per person per month. No vote or final action was taken in the excerpt; the discussion focused on clarifying the bills and weighing their policy tradeoffs.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee May 13th, 2026
Utilities and Energy
Transcript Highlights:
- In October, the CPUC approved a massive Edison rate hike and nearly $1 billion in back pay.
- And so unless we can create some way to fast pay people, then the only people who will get back home
- So to answer your question, what I would do is I would lift the cap of SCE having to pay back the $4
- So to answer your question, what I would do is I would lift the cap of SCE having to pay back the $4
- billion. because if all they have SCE having to pay back the $4 billion, because if all they have to
Summary:
The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the California Earthquake Authority’s SB 254 report and possible reforms to California’s utility wildfire recovery system. The chair framed the discussion around the Palisades and Eaton fires, the high and growing wildfire-related costs on utility bills, and the need to weigh tradeoffs among survivors, ratepayers, utilities, insurers, and taxpayers. The chair emphasized that the SB 254 report is an inventory of policy pathways rather than recommendations, and that the Legislature’s role is to evaluate the options publicly.
The first panel featured wildfire survivors William Abrams and Joy Chen, who described severe ongoing displacement, housing insecurity, delayed compensation, and frustration with what they characterized as opaque and unfair compensation structures. They argued for greater transparency, clearer accountability for utilities, stronger oversight of wildfire mitigation spending, and incentives tied to safety performance. They also urged faster survivor payments, but only if they are full, fair, and not financed by shifting more costs to taxpayers or ratepayers. Committee members asked about gaps in the SB 254 report, the meaning of “full” compensation, and how a fast-pay facility might work.
The second panel included the California Earthquake Authority, RAND, PG&E, LADWP, Consumer Attorneys of California, and the Public Advocates Office. Tom Welsh of CEA explained the report’s process and the current wildfire fund structure, including that utilities remain liable, the fund reimburses eligible claims, and prudency reviews can require reimbursement to the fund. RAND’s Lloyd Dixon outlined how roughly $38 billion has been paid to survivors, insurers, and public entities since 2017, and noted substantial litigation costs and cost-shifting among stakeholders. Utility representatives supported reforms that preserve financial stability and reduce risk, while consumer and public-interest advocates opposed shifting more costs to ratepayers and stressed accountability, audits, and safety-linked recovery. No votes or formal actions were taken in the hearing.
NM
New Mexico 2025 Regular Session
IC - Investments and Pensions Oversight Jul 18th, 2025
Investments & Pensions Oversight Committee
Transcript Highlights:
- We'll be paying more retirees out than we have active members paying in.
- Paying in.
- pay 9.6%.
- get back on track.
- to pay.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Transportation Committee Aug 25th, 2025
Transcript Highlights:
- Some people will pay more money and some people will pay less.
- Some people will pay more money and some people will pay less.
- That's pay-as-you-go.
- They're just paying the base registration fee that every vehicle pays, and then they're either paying
- So an electric vehicle, which pays no gas tax, pays 85% of that $155.
Summary:
The Assembly Transportation Committee first took up three highway naming resolutions on its consent calendar: ACR 109, SCR 78, and SCR 90. The committee approved the consent calendar with 11 aye votes and no no votes, then adjourned the bill-hearing portion. Members also recognized committee science fellow AJ Mendeola for his service, noting his contributions to bill analysis and staff support.
The committee then held an informational hearing on alternatives to the gas tax, focused on the projected decline in fuel-tax revenue and the need for a more sustainable transportation funding model. The chair and invited experts described how inflation, improved fuel efficiency, and growth in electric and other alternative-fuel vehicles are eroding gas-tax revenues. Presenters from the National Conference of State Legislatures and the University of California discussed state options such as higher or indexed gas taxes, EV registration fees, road usage charges, delivery fees, public EV charging fees, transportation network company fees, and managed lanes, emphasizing tradeoffs among revenue adequacy, fairness, administrative cost, and public acceptance.
Committee members raised concerns that mileage-based fees or EV fees could function as new taxes on commuters and lower-income drivers, especially if the gas tax is not repealed. Presenters responded that road usage charges are generally intended as replacements for the gas tax, not additions, and argued that mileage-based systems better preserve the user-pays principle while being less tied to vehicle fuel efficiency. They also noted that flat EV registration fees are easy to administer but can be less equitable because they are not linked to actual road use.
Officials from Hawaii, Utah, and Oregon described their state programs and policy choices. Hawaii said its new road usage charge began July 1, 2025, for EVs, offers a choice between a per-mile charge and a flat annual fee through 2028, and will transition to mandatory EV participation before expanding to all light-duty vehicles by 2033. Utah described its voluntary EV road usage charge program, quarterly reporting, privacy protections, and legislative scenarios for removing the cap or making participation mandatory. Oregon outlined its constitutional cost-responsibility framework and broader transportation funding challenges, including reliance on user fees and limited use of general-fund support.
VT
Vermont 2025-2026 Regular Session
Senate Session - 2026-04-30 - 11:00AM
Vermont Senate Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Meaning that the people who truly can't pay more don't pay more, and the people who currently are paying
- money to pay less. money to pay less.
- <00:18:10.080>
on you pay on income and what you pay on you pay on income and what you pay - the 75% back and to pay the PILOT payments back.
- back below that $18 surplus. back below that $18 surplus.
AZ
Transcript Highlights:
- and private prompt-pay.
- We simply cut it back all the way to one provision of private prompt pay, which allows us to pause work
- , give the pennies back.
- As a result, investigations and back-pay determinations can take months or even years to resolve.
- In some cases, workers wait months or even years to see back pay they're already owed.
Keywords:
insurance regulation, modeling organizations, financial disclosure, rate-making, predictive models, revitalization districts, construction contracts, infrastructure, municipal services, intergovernmental agreements, user fees, landowner agreements, overtime, wages, employee rights, industrial commission, complaints, adjudication, landlord, tenant
Summary:
The Commerce Committee heard and advanced five bills. HB 2174, as amended by a strike-everything, redefined “advisory organization” as a modeling and data organization and allowed models used by insurers for rate-making to be filed with DIFI, with DIFI able to require supporting data to verify compliance. The sponsor said the measure was the product of extensive stakeholder negotiations and technical cleanup. The committee adopted the amendment and then approved the bill 10-0 for a due-pass recommendation.
HB 2496 would require revitalization district construction contracts to include payment protections allowing contractors and subcontractors to pause or stop work if the district fails to pay. Supporters argued it was a fairness measure to prevent contractors from being forced to continue work without payment; opponents, including bond counsel and the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, warned it could disrupt public infrastructure projects, misalign incentives, and create bond-financing concerns. The committee passed the bill 9-1 with one member present.
HB 2910 would extend from 10 to 20 days the time a contractor has to contest an ROC recovery fund claim after notice. The sponsor and Home Builders Association said it was a minor, technical change and requested more time to respond to claims. The committee approved it 10-1. HB 2938, the “penny” bill, would require Swedish rounding for cash transactions when pennies are unavailable, with an amendment clarifying taxes and fees are calculated before rounding and protecting businesses complying with the rule. The sponsor described inconsistent business practices and support from stakeholders; the committee adopted the amendment and passed the bill.
HB 2744 would authorize the Industrial Commission of Arizona to investigate and adjudicate overtime wage violations at the state level. Supporters from the carpenters’ unions said federal enforcement is too slow and workers need a faster path to recover earned wages; the Industrial Commission said it would need additional FTEs and spending authority but not general fund money. One member opposed expanding agency authority over private wage disputes, but the committee ultimately passed the bill 10-1 and adjourned.
NM
New Mexico 2025 Regular Session
IC - Investments and Pensions Oversight Nov 5th, 2025
Investments & Pensions Oversight Committee
Transcript Highlights:
- We're currently paying 46,942.
- We pay for it, but we don't pay enough, unfortunately.
- pay into the fund.
- Back to the state each year.
- This would be tax exempt for their military retirement pay. Their military retirement pay.
TX
Texas 89th Regular
Pensions, Investments & Financial Services Apr 14th, 2025
Pensions, Investments & Financial Services
Transcript Highlights:
- This is the amount you will be paying us back.
- paying that back.
- pay it back, that's immaterial.
- You still have to pay it back.
- They do have to pay it back, but if they don't pay it back, we're out.
Bills:
HB245, HB700, HB2783, HB3526, HB3900, HB4061, HB4124, HB4166, HB4395, HB4534, HB4609, HB4641, HB4736, HB4738, HB4739, HB4945, HB5015, HJR175, HB245
Keywords:
military service, retirement, law enforcement, custodial officer, Employees Retirement System, commercial financing, brokers, registration, disclosures, finance, consumer protection, fees, deferred compensation, automatic participation, county employees, payroll deductions, retirement plans, fiscal transparency, local government, bond issuance
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Revenue Jun 21st, 2026 at 10:00 am
Joint Committee on Revenue
Transcript Highlights:
- Like Dave said, at a time when working people are choosing between paying for medication or paying for
- They pay taxes into any jurisdiction they pay.
- They pay taxes into any jurisdiction they pay.
- We pay taxes; we all pay taxes. The big corporations should pay the taxes too.
- We pay taxes; we all pay taxes. The big corporations should pay the taxes too.
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Revenue, chaired by Senator James Eldridge and Representative Adrian Madaro, opened its hearing with a moment of silence for the late Lowell State Senator Ed Kennedy and reviewed hearing procedures and deadlines. The committee then took testimony on several corporate tax bills, including S. 2033/H. 3110 on offshore tax avoidance, H. 3248 on a manufacturing tax exemption, H. 3057 on a tiered corporate minimum tax, and S. 2041 on a corporate tax haven blacklist, along with a separate business interest deduction bill. No votes were taken during the hearing.
Supporters of S. 2033/H. 3110, including labor unions, health care workers, educators, public health advocates, seniors, and several legislators, argued that Massachusetts needs new revenue to offset federal cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, health care, education, and other services. They said the bill would raise roughly $400 million annually by increasing the share of offshore profits included in the state tax base from 5% to 50%, and they framed it as a fairness measure that would require large multinational corporations to pay more while leaving most local businesses and workers unaffected. Testimony emphasized risks to MassHealth, PCA services, adult dental care, hospitals, schools, and public health programs if new revenue is not raised.
Opponents, including the Mass Taxpayers Foundation and the Council on State Taxation, argued the proposal is poor tax policy and likely unconstitutional because it would tax foreign-source income without allowing foreign tax credits or a comparable apportionment method. They said Massachusetts should take a broader, coordinated approach to federal tax changes rather than a standalone bill, and warned of litigation risk and possible double taxation. Supporters such as MassBudget and former tax counsel Don Griswold countered that the bill is a reasonable rough-justice approach, consistent with federal and neighboring-state treatment, and that it would primarily affect a small number of very large multinationals. On S. 2041, the Global Business Alliance opposed the proposed tax haven blacklist, while supporting a separate bill allowing business interest deductibility.
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services (04/08/2025)
Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services
Transcript Highlights:
- Would I be eligible for back pay law.
- Um, you you can't get back pay not.
- They got a lump sum from the carrier, didn't pay back the employee, didn't pay back... department so
- > for the carrier to pay back the employer for the carrier to pay back the employer for the<02:40
- > for carrier pay the employer back for carrier pay the employer back for benefits<02:44:12.880><
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee Jun 17th, 2026
Budget and Fiscal Review
Transcript Highlights:
- You don't pay taxes on the services that they provide. Is that your expertise here coming back?
- You don't pay taxes on the services that they provide. Is that your expertise here coming back?
- You don't pay taxes on the services that they provide. Is that your expertise here coming back?
- A lot of people are paying. A lot of people are paying $0 in premium.
- It's time that we make corporations pay their fair share, and we just beat that money back into the hands
LA
Transcript Highlights:
- it, they don't end up coming back and having to pay it again.
- it, they don't end up coming back and having to pay it again.
- You pay for the claim cost.
- But the only retroactivity piece of this is one PBM paying back to January 1 on something that they completely
- But the only retroactivity piece of this is one PBM paying back to January 1st on something that they
Keywords:
family leave, insurance, paid leave, employment benefits, caregiver support, 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