Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, that factor is set in the rate framework as 99.4%.
• Currently, that factor is set in the rate framework as 99.4%.
• Currently, that factor is set in the rate framework as 99.4%.
• Currently, that factor is set in the rate framework as 99.4%.
• Currently, that factor is set in the rate framework as 99.4%.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• targets on transition rates so they wanted to really focus on rebalancing the LTSS system and they set
• <00:34:15.040> so<00:34:15.280> they set targets on transition rates so they set targets
• In terms of the capitation fee, the capitation rates would be set based on ... would prefer to stay at
• The capitation rates would be set based on the level of setting that they were in.
• So there's a rate set, if you will, a price sheet set for the types of settings.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Committee to Study Long-Term Managed Care met to approve prior minutes and outline its schedule, with meetings set for September 24 and September 29 ahead of an October 1 report deadline. The chair said the committee would use the first two meetings to digest testimony, likely ask follow-up questions of DHS, and then work toward conclusions and a report format. The minutes from the previous meeting were approved unanimously. The main testimony came from Sharon Alexander of Amera Health, who argued in favor of moving from fee-for-service Medicaid long-term services and supports to a managed LTSS model. She described managed LTSS as a capitated, quality-driven system used in about 26 states, and said it can improve care coordination, accountability, access to home- and community-based services, and budget predictability. She cited Amera Health’s experience in Pennsylvania and Delaware, including care coordination, housing and transportation support, caregiver programs, and quality benchmarks tied to state oversight. She also said nursing facilities would remain an important option for people who need that level of care. Committee members asked about how the programs are administered, how rates are set, how care managers work, and how quality is measured. Alexander said states contract with managed care organizations at actuarially sound capitated rates, with annual contracts, reporting, and oversight. She explained that care managers typically conduct quarterly assessments and follow up after trigger events such as hospitalization, and that housing coordinators may assist with transitions to the community. On quality, she said states use CMS-related and HCBS benchmark measures covering service timeliness, care planning, transitions, and other outcomes, and that New Hampshire could build on existing metrics rather than starting from scratch. She also noted that rural areas face workforce and transportation challenges, which managed care plans try to address through technology and self-direction options.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:01:56.399> set<00:01:56.640> for course we have the agenda set set for course we
• I'd also note that they set an incredibly low tax rate by comparison.
• a very low tax of the world, they set a very low tax rate. rate. rate.
• rate. Uh it's a has to be coupled with rate.
• What is the tax base rate? What is the tax base rate?

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Number one, rate setting is absolutely a loss of control.
• They they have they don't set the rate.
• something to set the rates and they something to set the rates and they don't.<01:27:43.600>
• And then, 10 days later, there is a board meeting where rates get set.
• The rate-setting process whatsoever.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee took up the pooled risk management program bill and reviewed a new amendment drafted with input from the Insurance Department and Legislative Services. Department witnesses explained that the proposal would move oversight of pooled risk management programs from the Secretary of State’s office to the Insurance Department, add a licensure requirement, preserve the programs’ non-insurer status, and exempt them from third-party administrator licensure. They also described a series of solvency tools in the draft, including financial reporting, risk-based capital standards, minimum capitalization, investment limits, commissioner examination and enforcement authority, rulemaking authority, merger and affiliate-transaction review, confidentiality protections, and a separability clause. A major theme of the discussion was that pooled risk management programs differ from commercial insurers because the risk remains with the member local governments rather than being backed by a state guarantee fund. Witnesses said the bill is designed to emphasize solvency over return of premium and to give the Insurance Department a regulatory “toolbox” to prevent insolvency, including a proposed $5 million excess or stop-loss coverage benchmark, optional accessible policies, and a requirement that boards vote on dividends or premium returns when capital exceeds 600% of risk-based capital. Members questioned how this approach differed from the original Secretary of State bill and whether assessments on towns would still be possible; the department responded that the new framework would allow more flexible oversight and alternatives to immediate court action. The committee also discussed why the statute should continue to say the programs are not insurers, with the department explaining that this preserves their autonomy and avoids applying unrelated insurance laws and premium taxes. Members asked about the department’s workload and were told the department believed it could absorb the new duties without additional funding. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• What this bill would do, as it relates to that reimbursement rate, is set a floor based on what we call
• In addition to that, it will set a reimbursement rate for what's called treat in place.
• ><00:23:12.000> floor reimbursement rates would set a a floor reimbursement rates would set a
• rural rate, or a super rural rate. rural rate, or a super rural rate.
• . rate. rate.

Bills: SB294, HB296, HB300, SB269

Keywords: public officers, bonding, risk management, notification, delinquency, consumer protection, rental home, marketplace guarantees, insurance, commissioner of insurance, healthcare, breast cancer screening, insurance coverage, deductible, copayment, emergency medical services, ambulance reimbursement, health care insurers, balance billing, provider networks

Transcript Highlights:

• The nursing home bed rates have already been set.
• are set in One is that the rates are set in accordance<01:45:23.000> with<01:45:23.240> the
• <01:46:00.240> setting<01:46:00.520> process, that rate setting process, that rate
• So, we set our rates twice a year, and we have to post those 30 days in advance of that.
• So, we set our rates twice a year, and we have to post those 30 days in advance of that.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: Division Three of the Finance Committee met in work session on April 20, 2026, to consider Senate Bills 481, 603, and 663, with the discussion focused primarily on SB 481, relative to the sale of the Sununu Youth Services Center property. The chair explained that the bill was advisory only and that the committee’s recommendations would go to full Finance on April 27. For SB 481, members reviewed conflicting provisions in the prior budget law about whether sale proceeds should go to the general fund or the Youth Development Center Claims and Administration Settlement Fund, and the bill was described as a compromise that would direct proceeds to the general fund before June 30, 2027, and to the settlement fund after that date. It was noted that the settlement fund had originally received about $20 million and had roughly $10 million remaining. The committee also received an extensive update from DCYF Director Marie Noonan on the new Youth Development Center in Hampstead. She reported that construction remained on schedule, with major structural and interior work complete, substantial completion expected in late summer or early fall 2026, and occupancy anticipated in early 2027. The presentation highlighted the facility’s design features, including single-occupancy bedrooms, sensory rooms, an education wing, medical and clinical suites, visitation space, a gym, and multiple outdoor courtyards, all intended to support a trauma-informed setting. Members asked about the facility’s funding, square footage, fencing, and scanner; staff said the building is about 34,000 square feet, funded entirely with federal ARPA state recovery funds to date, and that the scanner is on site but not yet operational pending policy and staff training. Committee members also raised concerns about the facility’s design and security. In response, DCYF said some concrete walls are required for structural and safety reasons, but they are being painted to maintain a brighter environment, and that the fencing will be about 15 feet high with privacy netting because the campus is shared with Hampstead. Officials said the new facility is legislatively limited to a maximum of 12 youth, while the current center can house 12 to 18, and emphasized that courts ultimately determine placements. No votes or final actions were taken during the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill does it only for one specific product exclusively. along with a specific set of rate caps.
• Typically, we are given the authority to set rate caps. That's true. Yeah.
• Generally, we're administering rate caps set by the legislature.
• Oh I think neither the introduced version nor the committee substitute has our agency setting a rate
• But those rates are a schedule set and are available online.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• , meaning you can have your rates set early on and then never adjusted.
• So, appraisals and how they utilize data and rate-setting in this case, credit reports.
• Consumers, or we could set a per-consumer cap on rate case expenses.
• I'm sorry, by law, TDI does not set or approve homeowners' and personal auto rates, but we do...
• You can have your rates set early on and then never adjusted.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:34:01.120> drives their rates are set and what drives their rates are set and what drives
• We're not as involved with the rates, rate settings, or with premiums.
• It sets the compensation rate that's paid to the injured worker.
• It sets the compensation<00:44:41.359> rate<00:44:41.599> that's<00:44:41.839> paid<
• So if the is set at your comp rate.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I am opposed to a rate setting model.
• I am opposed to a rate setting model.
• I am opposed to a rate setting model.
• I'm a strong believer in rate setting.
• rates are set by folks uh that are whose rates are set by the<02:07:30.079> Department<02:07:

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I also don't want to set expectations because I haven't set them.
• It is treated as standard set by TCEQ, and I move passage.
• It doesn't just say library material rated sexually explicit material.
• I want to set the record straight. It's very simple.
• When setting rates, the Senate added a consumer protection amendment that ensures rebates to consumers

Bills: SB15, SB646, SB800, SB790, SB748, SB571, SB1957, SB1923, SB1896, SB1760, SB1335, SB2368, SB2477, SB2587, SB2986, SB2965, SB1563, SB1467, SB1164, SB1137, SB614, SB705, SB918, SB955, SB869, SB850, SB863, SB1055, SB2206, SB457, SB2337, SB1610, SB1362, SB926, SB1494, SB251, SB456, SB500, SB1307, SB2615, SB2995, SB2321, SB2972, SB973, SB865, SB506, SB1522, SB1558, SB510, SB667, SB763, SB2073, SB1858, SB1660, SB2900, SB1433, SB1540, SB1964, SB1300, SB1644, SB2217, SB2373, SB2431, SB1758, SB974, SB2480, SB3039, SB3047, SB2781, SB826, SB766, SB527, SB1946, SB2885, SB1243, SB2610, SB857, SB2501, SB66, SB268, SB331, SB1302, SB519, SB2807, SB13, SB7, SB1718, SB1567, SB1233, SB413, SB2177, SB30, SB2024, SJR1, SCR27, SB2018, SB1580, SB2121, SB1049, SB1266, SB1400, SB1596, SB2753, SB2221, SB1719, SCR9, SB204, SB437, SB568, SB612, SB672, SB710, SB823, SB876, SB904, SB905, SB968, SB1084, SB1207, SB1230, SB1313, SB1504, SB1790, SB2232, SB2366, SB2367, SB2398, SB2515, SB2520, SB2589, SB2786, SB2790, SB3048, SB3050, SB3052, SB3053, SB3056, SB3029, SCR3, SCR18, SCR30, HCR146, HCR148, HCR149, HCR153, HCR155, HCR157, HB5560, HB762, HB1584, HB 107, HB 114, HB138, HB4386, HB2495, HB581, HB3348, HB5323, HB4341, HB6, HB2712, HB171, HB3153, HB143, HB2688, HB3464, HB449, HB3486, HB4263, HB2, HB1522, HB24, HB 1237, HB2637, HB3126, HB3233, HB4310, HB3487, HCR9, HB5331, HB1397, HB163, HB3250, HB3071, HB3463, HB5033, HB35, HB3824, HB216, HB4226, HB3512, HB18, HB5154, HB 103, HB851, HB647, HB4520, HB3016, HB2313, HB2818, HB2851, HB4486, HB4264, HB1500, HB5081, HB2974, HB2080, HB4384, HB5659, HB493, HB4903, HB2516, HB4488, HB4530, HB3689, HB145, HB43, HB5247, HB2221, HB5671, HB700, HB3711, HB 120, SB17, SB1637, SB1833, SB2155, SB21, SB2778, SB379

Keywords: SB 15, Texas Local Government Code, zoning preemption, housing affordability, small lots, lot size, lot density, single-family zoning, residential subdivision, municipal land use, local control, state preemption, parking requirements, setbacks, infill development, missing middle housing, lot width, lot depth, homebuilders, housing supply

Bills: SJR18, SCR9, SCR13, SB10, SB14, SB19, SB263, SB412, SB441, SB523, SB569, SB687, SB688, SB707, SB766, SB914, SB971, SB1006, SB1066, SJR36, SJR18, SCR9, SCR13, SCR25, SB565, SB372, SB495, SB842, SB971, SB1066, SB765, SB523, SB62, SB19, SB18, SB666, SB688, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB290, SB766, SB11, SB10, SB13, SB263, SB412, SB441, SB569, SB914, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB917, SB925, SB388, SB1902, SB1121, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB35, SB6, SB815, SB3, SB1281, SB1379, SB1300, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB1451, SB263, SB523, SB569, SB688, SB766, SB914, SB971, SB1066, SR215, SR245, SR247, SR258, SCR9, SJR56, SJR63, SJR64, SJR69, SJR70, SJR71, SCR30, SCR31, SCR32, SCR33, SB1701, SB1702, SB1703, SB1704, SB1705, SB1706, SB1707, SB1708, SB1709, SB1710, SB1711, SB1712, SB1713, SB1714, SB1715, SB1716, SB1717, SB1718, SB1719, SB1720, SB1721, SB1722, SB1723, SB1724, SB1725, SB1726, SB1727, SB1728, SB1729, SB1730, SB1731, SB1732, SB1733, SB1734, SB1735, SB1736, SB1737, SB1738, SB1739, SB1740, SB1741, SB1742, SB1743, SB1744, SB1745, SB1746, SB1747, SB1748, SB1749, SB1750, SB1751, SB1752, SB1753, SB1754, SB1755, SB1756, SB1757, SB1758, SB1759, SB1760, SB1761, SB1762, SB1763, SB1764, SB1765, SB1766, SB1767, SB1768, SB1769, SB1770, SB1771, SB1772, SB1773, SB1774, SB1775, SB1776, SB1777, SB1778, SB1779, SB1781, SB1782, SB1783, SB1784, SB1785, SB1786, SB1787, SB1788, SB1789, SB1790, SB1791, SB1792, SB1793, SB1794, SB1795, SB1796, SB1797, SB1798, SB1799, SB1800, SB1801, SB1802, SB1803, SB1804, SB1805, SB1806, SB1807, SB1808, SB1809, SB1810, SB1811, SB1812, SB1813, SB1814, SB1815, SB1816, SB1817, SB1818, SB1819, SB1820, SB1821, SB1822, SB1823, SB1824, SB1825, SB1826, SB1827, SB1828, SB1829, SB1830, SB1831, SB1832, SB1833, SB1834, SB1835, SB1836, SB1837, SB1838, SB1839, SB1840, SB1841, SB1842, SB1843, SB1844, SB1845, SB1846, SB1847, SB1848, SB1849, SB1850, SB2188, SB2230, SB2312, SB2345, SJR56, SJR63, SJR64, SJR69, SJR70, SJR71, SCR30, SCR31, SCR32, SCR33, SB1701, SB1702, SB1703, SB1704, SB1705, SB1706, SB1707, SB1708, SB1709, SB1710, SB1711, SB1712, SB1713, SB1714, SB1715, SB1716, SB1717, SB1718, SB1719, SB1720, SB1721, SB1722, SB1723, SB1724, SB1725, SB1726, SB1727, SB1728, SB1729, SB1730, SB1731, SB1732, SB1733, SB1734, SB1735, SB1736, SB1737, SB1738, SB1739, SB1740, SB1741, SB1742, SB1743, SB1744, SB1745, SB1746, SB1747, SB1748, SB1749, SB1750, SB1751, SB1752, SB1753, SB1754, SB1755, SB1756, SB1757, SB1758, SB1759, SB1760, SB1761, SB1762, SB1763, SB1764, SB1765, SB1766, SB1767, SB1768, SB1769, SB1770, SB1771, SB1772, SB1773, SB1774, SB1775, SB1776, SB1777, SB1778, SB1779, SB1781, SB1782, SB1783, SB1784, SB1785, SB1786, SB1787, SB1788, SB1789, SB1790, SB1791, SB1792, SB1793, SB1794, SB1795, SB1796, SB1797, SB1798, SB1799, SB1800, SB1801, SB1802, SB1803, SB1804, SB1805, SB1806, SB1807, SB1808, SB1809, SB1810, SB1811, SB1812, SB1813, SB1814, SB1815, SB1816, SB1817, SB1818, SB1819, SB1820, SB1821, SB1822, SB1823, SB1824, SB1825, SB1826, SB1827, SB1828, SB1829, SB1830, SB1831, SB1832, SB1833, SB1834, SB1835, SB1836, SB1837, SB1838, SB1839, SB1840, SB1841, SB1842, SB1843, SB1844, SB1845, SB1846, SB1847, SB1848, SB1849, SB1850, SB2188, SB2230, SB2312, SB2345

Keywords: capital gains, taxation, constitutional amendment, state revenue, individual investment, Supreme Court, judicial independence, Keep Nine, checks and balances, water rights, treaty compliance, Rio Grande, agriculture, drought, international water, Texas water supply, education, Ten Commandments, public schools, religious display

Transcript Highlights:

• Pursuant to the Public Utilities Code, general rate cases and a number of other rate-setting proceedings
• So pursuant to the public utilities code, general rate cases, and a number of other rate setting proceedings
• So the staff that are working on the rate cases, the skill sets, I think, is part of your question.
• Demand response proceeding is rate setting because we're authorizing... The rate case.
• Demand response proceeding is rate setting because we're authorizing budget to do work.

Summary: The committee first heard Issue 1 on trailer bill language to redirect funding for emergency demand-response programs. The Department of Finance proposed using about $26.9 million in General Fund originally set aside for the Distributed Energy Backup Assets program to bolster the Demand-Side Grid Support Program for summer 2026, and using about $70 million in CalCHAP interest to support ratepayer-funded demand response in summers 2027 and 2028. The CEC and CPUC said they are working on a transition from DSGS to ELRP or a successor program, while the LAO noted the General Fund money would otherwise revert to savings. Members pressed the administration on whether demand response remains important, whether DSGS has been successful, and whether the state should keep funding it through the CEC rather than shifting to a ratepayer-funded CPUC program. The CEC and CPUC said the programs are not directly comparable, emphasized different cost structures and enrollment metrics, and said a CPUC rulemaking is underway with a proposed decision expected in Q3 2026. No vote was taken in the transcript. The committee then took up Issue 2, a budget proposal tied to SB 254 and the new transmission accelerator. GoBiz and the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank described a five-year, roughly $26 million request to staff and administer the accelerator and manage Proposition 4 and AB 1207 funds for transmission financing. Members asked about state liability, ownership of financed lines, FERC revenue requirements, and whether the program would help underserved regions and offshore wind development. Staff explained that the accelerator would only consider projects already identified through CAISO’s competitive transmission planning process, and that state financing would be a small portion of large projects intended to lower overall costs to ratepayers. The LAO said it had no specific concerns but urged the Legislature to ensure the final language matches its intent. The committee also heard Issue 3 on petroleum market oversight. The CEC and its Division of Petroleum Market Oversight requested additional positions and funding to implement ABX2-1 and continue work on supply stabilization, refinery monitoring, and transportation fuels analysis. Members questioned why the work was funded through the Energy Resources Programs Account, whether existing staff from the paused price-gouging work could be reassigned, and whether the program had produced evidence of price gouging or improved supply conditions. CEC and Finance said the new positions are needed because the workload has expanded, while some existing staff remain on related analysis and reporting duties. The discussion ended without a vote in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Alliance's annual rate-setting deadlines and legislative session.
• to set probable maximum loss, PML, and rates to occur in a tier one coastal county, counting only in-person
• Alliance's annual set rates setting deadlines and legislative session.
• set probable maximum loss, PML to, uh, and rates to occur in a tier one coastal county, counting only
• rates for their policies.

Summary: The committee first took up several bills and voted them out favorably without amendment: SB 2857, relating to prescription drug purchasing proof for certain health benefit plan issuers and employers; SB 1307, relating to the biennial health coverage reference guide; and SB 527, relating to health benefit coverage for general anesthesia for certain pediatric dental services. Each of those motions passed on a 7-0 roll call. The main discussion centered on SB 1643, which would require prior approval from the Texas Department of Insurance for property and casualty rate changes above 10% from a previously filed rate. The chair framed it as a response to rate volatility and rising homeowners and auto premiums, while several members questioned whether it would slow a market that is already stabilizing and could encourage insurers to file repeated increases just under the threshold. Witnesses from consumer groups supported tighter oversight and argued for a lower threshold, while insurance industry representatives opposed the bill, saying Texas’s file-and-use system and competitive market work better and that the proposal could increase costs or create uncertainty. After testimony, SB 1643 was left pending. The committee then heard SB 1642, which would replace the single Texas Department of Insurance commissioner with a three-commissioner structure and an executive director. Supporters said it could improve accountability and transparency, while opponents argued the current single-commissioner model is more efficient and avoids confusion and added cost. Witnesses also raised concerns about open meetings issues, administrative expense, and the lack of a clear model from other states. SB 1642 was also left pending. Finally, the committee heard SB 2530, the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association omnibus bill. The bill would make a number of changes to TWIA’s governance and finances, including exempting TWIA from certain taxes, moving its headquarters to a coastal county, changing board composition and voting rules, and lowering the probable maximum loss standard from 1-in-100 to 1-in-50. Supporters said the bill would strengthen TWIA’s reserve funding and improve local relevance, while opponents warned it could increase assessments, reduce reinsurance protection, and create operational risks by relocating the headquarters to the coast. The bill was left pending, and the committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Each year, we develop a rate range, and we're proposing to essentially set the rate range more toward
• And it would be part of the certification process and the normal rate setting that we would do for 2026
• And it would be part of the certification process and the normal rate setting that we would do for 2026
• commercial rates.
• Of the amount of the rate? I don't have the rate amount. I don't have the rate amount.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held the first of several hearings on the Governor’s May Revision for health care, with opening remarks focused on the state’s projected $12 billion deficit, looming federal Medicaid changes, and the potential impact on Medi-Cal, public health, reproductive health, and safety-net providers. Several members criticized the proposal as balancing the budget on vulnerable Californians, while others defended the need for cost containment and questioned the administration’s assumptions. The chair set ground rules for respectful, focused questioning and outlined three topics: the Medi-Cal proposals, Proposition 35, and Proposition 56. DHCS Director Michelle Baas presented the May Revision’s Medi-Cal package, saying the department’s budget totals $200.6 billion overall, including $45.2 billion General Fund, and that the proposals are intended to address rising caseloads, pharmacy costs, and managed care spending. She described proposed changes for adults with unsatisfactory immigration status, including a freeze on new full-scope enrollment for those 19 and older, $100 monthly premiums beginning in 2027, elimination of adult dental and long-term care coverage, removal of PPS/RAP payments to FQHCs and rural health clinics for that population, and a pharmacy rebate aggregator. Other proposals included eliminating certain OTC drug classes, removing GLP-1 coverage for weight loss, prior authorization and step therapy changes, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test, eliminating acupuncture as an optional benefit, allowing utilization management for hospice, raising the managed care minimum medical loss ratio to 90%, reducing PACE capitation rates toward the midpoint of the actuarial range, eliminating the skilled nursing facility workforce and quality incentive program, and suspending the SNF backup power requirement. The LAO said the revised Medi-Cal spending estimate is about $2.5 billion higher than the Governor’s Budget in the budget year, and that the increase appears driven more by higher per-enrollee costs than by caseload alone. The LAO said the budget solutions are concentrated in a few areas, are largely ongoing, and should be considered in light of federal uncertainty, but suggested the Legislature could explore alternatives such as more targeted income thresholds for the undocumented expansion and simpler asset-test rules. Department of Finance officials said the proposals are difficult but necessary to address a third consecutive deficit and rising Medi-Cal costs. Members then pressed the administration on the methodology and impacts of the proposals, especially the enrollment freeze, premiums, asset test, hospice controls, PACE reductions, and the elimination of benefits and provider payments. No votes or formal actions were taken at this hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• July 28, 2024, which included the CFI case management rate setting.
• Parity requirements were not a component of the methodology used to set the rate.
• management rate the case management rate management rate the case management rate setting setting
• <01:38:30.199> setting<01:38:31.159> parity compliance with the rate setting parity
• from a I personally looked at the rate from a I personally looked at the rate setting<01:44:16.400

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:23.920> uh rate uh class rate is uh rate uh class rate is uh multiplied<00:02:25.680>
• longer separate classifications rates longer separate classifications rates for<00:31:36.559>
• enters that second tier the class rate enters that second tier the class rate would<00:34:03.480
• was were set at types of property was were set at 75<00:35:07.160> and<00:35:07.680> uh
• I'm assuming that those tiers are set by the department, or are they set by the legislature? Mr.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• through 7 establish a reimbursement rate through 7 establish a reimbursement rate for<00:05:15.440
• Section 8 of the bill adjusts the Medical Assistance reimbursement rate for a specific set of home care
• Section 8 of the bill adjusts the Medical Assistance reimbursement rate for a specific set of home care
• Section 8 of the bill adjusts the Medical Assistance reimbursement rate for a specific set of home care
• Rate for a specific set of home care services such that the rates are a bit closer to the cost of providing

Bills: HF729, HF728

Keywords: human services, provider enrollment, medical assistance, healthcare, housing stabilization, substance use disorder, vulnerable adults, fraud prevention, respite care, children, licensed settings, home and community-based services, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• There's this rate negotiation that goes on, and final rates are usually set sometime in April.
• So we're nearing the end of when those final rates are going to be set up.
• And we are now just awaiting the final responses through the final rate-setting exercise that United
• So if you go back to the way the Part D program was initially set up, it was set up in 2006.
• It's actually set up to work on a... revenue. It's actually set up to work on a private market.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are other ways you can set a differential rate. You can look at a particular cost of service.
• These are folks who are nationwide experts in setting rates.
• undertaken by utilities across the country using the same standards for setting those rates, whether
• utility basis for setting rates.
• So this issue of differential rate setting is, as we’ve established, not anything unique in the state

Bills: HB2042, HB2052, HB2055, HB2056, HB2094, HB2098, HB2185, HB2328, HB2758, HB2798

Keywords: solar radiation management, environment, prohibition, Arizona Revised Statutes, public health, complaint process, Attorney General, groundwater management, water conservation, irrigation, water supply, brackish groundwater, water supply development, desalination, water infrastructure, financial assistance, environmental reviews, brackish water, groundwater, water resources

Summary: The committee first received an update from Arizona Department of Water Resources Director Tom Buschatzky on Colorado River negotiations and post-2026 operating rules. He described the legal framework governing Arizona’s allocation, argued that Arizona and the lower basin have already made substantial conservation cuts, and said the upper basin is pressing positions Arizona views as inconsistent with prior Supreme Court rulings. He emphasized the need to move water from upstream reservoirs to Lake Mead, warned of continued shortage risk, and said the state is seeking an equitable deal through ongoing federal and interstate negotiations. Members asked about outside water use, tourism and recreation impacts, and tribal water rights, including the Navajo-Hopi-San Juan Southern Paiute settlement. Buschatzky said the state’s delegation and bipartisan support have been helpful and urged continued public and legislative backing. The committee then heard House Bill 2758, which would expand McMullen Valley groundwater transportation authority and add related requirements and guardrails, including an amendment increasing the La Paz County transportation cap from 10% to 50% of the annual volume and adding conditions for sales or leases from historically irrigated acres. Supporters, including bill sponsor advocates, the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, and the Home Builders Association, said the bill would create a lawful, regulated transfer option similar to the Harquahala model, support housing growth, and include oversight through hydrologic studies, pumping limits, and monthly reporting to ADWR. Opponents, including La Paz County Supervisor Holly Irwin’s statement, local residents, Sierra Club, and rural advocates, argued the bill would accelerate aquifer depletion, harm private wells and subsidence conditions, and benefit a New York hedge fund at the expense of rural communities. After debate, the committee adopted the Griffin amendment and then passed HB 2758 as amended on a 6-4 due-pass vote. The committee next took up House Bill 2098, which would modify bonding authority and public hearing notice requirements for county water augmentation authorities and allow local repayment agreements with WIFA. Pinal County Supervisor Stephen Miller and other supporters said the bill would clean up statutory language so the Pinal County Water Augmentation Authority can finance future water augmentation and infrastructure projects, including potential Bartlett Dam-related work, and better prepare for future Colorado River uncertainty. The Home Builders Association also supported the bill, saying it included proportionality protections for private utility water charges. The bill was moved for a due-pass recommendation and the committee proceeded to a roll call vote, with the transcript ending before the final vote result was shown.