Transcript Highlights:

• Blue is children who receive an oral evaluation.
• But nonetheless, this is where we're evaluated across other states.
• Think about pregnancy and oral evaluation outcomes?
• It's the pro fee or cleaning and the oral evaluation, periodic oral evaluation.
• And so we can evaluate that way.

Keywords: 962, all

Summary: The Care Management Meeting opened with a DSS update on the PCMH program. Staff reported the program remained steady at 124 practices, 553 sites, and 2,548 providers, with some month-to-month fluctuation driven by practice consolidation, retirements, and a few practices leaving the program because NCQA requirements were burdensome. Members asked about declining provider and site counts, member attribution trends, and whether PCMH practices overlap with behavioral health homes; DSS said attribution changes are largely due to members becoming ineligible, moving, or getting other insurance, and that PCMH and behavioral health homes are separate programs that coordinate informally. The committee also discussed why some smaller practices leave the program and whether the requirements could be made easier to support retention. The committee then resumed a detailed presentation on the Husky Dental program. The presenter described the dental benefit’s history, the importance of preventive oral health, workforce and consolidation pressures in dentistry, and the lack of interoperability between dental and medical records. Network data showed year-over-year declines in enrolled dental practitioners and service locations, with access gaps concentrated in rural and eastern parts of the state. Appointment availability surveys showed average waits of 38 days for adults and 23 days for children, but much longer waits at FQHCs than private fee-for-service practices. The presenter said Connecticut remains above the national median on CMS pediatric dental quality measures, though sealant rates remain a concern, and noted that preventive care is associated with lower per-member costs. Members raised concerns about provider participation, large practices dropping Medicaid, mobile dental care, and whether the public directory accurately reflects which dentists are actually accepting new patients. The presenter said the plan uses secret-shopper calls, tracks appointment availability, and has begun using place-of-service coding to better identify school-based dental care. She also noted a new MOU with 20 Head Start programs to share data and provide oral health literacy and navigation support. The final major topic was implementation planning for HR1. DSS said CMS guidance was expected in early June and proposed using upcoming meetings to cover medical frailty, communication strategy, and data integration/ex parte verification. Committee members urged the department to create a dashboard to track disenrollments and other impacts of HR1, to build a process for complaints and problem resolution, and to think through cost-sharing, caregiver verification, exemptions, and notices. Members also asked about using existing eligibility structures such as the working-disabled program as a model. The committee agreed to move the next meeting to June 10 by Zoom, with the agenda to be circulated in advance and any PCMH Plus quality data shared if available.

Transcript Highlights:

• > included the state's application included the state's application included significant<00:15
• 00:15:40.720> bridge end, the application proposes bridge end, the application proposes bridge
• We were very pleased in evaluation.
• had to outline within the application. had to outline within the application.
• extensive reporting and evaluation extensive reporting and evaluation requirements.<00:26:53.440

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Select Subcommittee first took up adoption of three previously prepared nonpartisan committee summary reports dated October 15, November 13, and November 21. Senator Rasmusson objected to the lack of advance notice about the day’s testifiers and criticized the practice of having nonpartisan staff summarize what he described as a partisan agenda. The chair responded that the committee’s purpose is to gather information, not hear bills, and that the summaries were intended as neutral resources for the Senate. Senator Coopek moved adoption, the motion was opposed by Rasmusson and another member, and the motion passed. The committee then turned to the day’s hearing on federal impacts on Minnesota, with the chair focusing on federal funding threats and the effect of congressional budget actions on health care, especially in greater Minnesota. The first presentation came from the Minnesota Department of Health on the state’s rural health transformation work. Assistant Commissioner Carol Broom introduced the team and described the rural hospital transformation program as a major opportunity to invest in rural health, while acknowledging longstanding challenges such as demographics, transportation barriers, and the financing of care. Nitha Moibi outlined the state’s rural health chart book and data showing an aging population, workforce shortages, and many health professional shortage areas, and described proposed strategies including workforce pipelines, bridge payments for low-volume birth hospitals, telehealth access points, mental health urgent care, and chronic disease prevention. Acting Assistant Commissioner Anna Ashby of the Minnesota Management and Budget office explained the state’s application to CMS for the Rural Health Transformation Program, which was created in federal law and awarded Minnesota just over $193 million for federal fiscal year 2026. She said the application was shaped by public comments, stakeholder meetings, and legislative outreach, and included initiatives on preventive care, workforce, care access, behavioral health, and provider financial stability. She also reviewed implementation constraints, including a January 30 revised budget deadline, limits on administrative spending, restrictions on using funds to offset Medicaid losses, and the need to show measurable progress to remain eligible for future funding. The presentation noted that most year-one funding would go to rural hospitals, with additional support for federally qualified health centers, community mental health centers, tribal partners, and technical assistance.

Transcript Highlights:

• The application is due on November 5th.
• We can share our data on how we are evaluating the performance measures.
• evaluation will look somewhat at how you...
• That'll be from the evaluation unit in December, I believe.
• They are not necessarily going to accept every application.

Transcript Highlights:

• are evaluated for special education services.
• On the evaluation, I think you said your evaluation is currently running $3,000? $2,000-$3,000.
• evaluations to make sure we get our evaluations done in a timely manner.
• That full initial individual evaluation, but we do re-evaluations every three years on students.
• So this funding proposal is only looking at reimbursing that initial evaluation, but we do many evaluations

Bills: SB568, SCR5, SB57, SB1447, SB27, SB24

Keywords: special education, funding, individualized education program, visual impairments, accessibility, support services, state education code, SCR 5, Senate Concurrent Resolution 5, Texas School for the Deaf, TSD, Robert Rives, gymnasium naming, building naming, honorary resolution, commemorative resolution, deaf education, hard of hearing, Gallaudet University, alumni hall of fame

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, my colleague Maggie Klug and I will present our evaluation.
• When you did your evaluation, I don't mean currently.
• Yes, at the time of evaluation, that's accurate.
• But that is something that the LFC evaluation is looking into. Thank you.
• They also had a very full evaluation that was validated.

Transcript Highlights:

• Anyway, you're already self-evaluating yourself.
• TEA will dictate teacher evaluation.
• I've had the privilege of evaluating over 1,300 students.
• Each of my evaluations requires a minimum of 8 to 10 hours of direct evaluation and a warm welcome. one-on-one
• Evaluation is. consuming and thus expensive.

Bills: HB2, HB2

Keywords: public education, teacher compensation, certification, funding, school finance, educator rights, education funding, charter schools, staff compensation, state aid, retention allotment, disaster preparedness, emergency management, flooding, mass fatality, mass casualty, fatality tracking, body recovery, autopsy, justice of the peace

Transcript Highlights:

• In round 2, there were 14 applications that were submitted.
• Total applications there just over $65 million.
• Chair and members, applications will be, or the final applications will be released next week, with funds
• Chair, members, yes, we received four formal applications.
• Are we doing post-occupancy evaluations?

Transcript Highlights:

• The state also funded an evaluation of this program in the 2022-23 budget act, but this evaluation has
• This evaluation has not yet begun.
• Do we have a good estimate about when we're going to see a program evaluation on outcomes?
• My concern is that this has not gone through the, I guess, the typical IT evaluation.
• Is there any thoughts about maybe trying to go through the evaluative process?

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held a hearing focused on California Community College budget proposals. Chair Alvarez opened by emphasizing the system’s role in access, transfer, workforce training, and serving more than 2 million students, while also noting persistent challenges in enrollment, persistence, transfer, and graduation. Public commenters and system representatives broadly supported COLA, enrollment growth funding, deferred maintenance, student support block grants, and additional flexibility for districts facing uncertainty. The first major panel covered the student-centered funding formula, COLA, and enrollment growth. The Department of Finance said the Governor proposes a 2.43% COLA ($230.4 million) and 0.5% enrollment growth funding ($30.4 million). The LAO said the COLA was reasonable and recommended funding at least the proposed growth amount, citing uneven enrollment recovery and regional differences. The Chancellor’s Office supported both proposals and asked for additional changes, including using the greater of current-year or three-year average for apportionments and lifting the 10% local enrollment cap, arguing these would better fund growing districts. Members questioned how the formula works, whether SCFF is improving outcomes, and how much additional funding would be needed under different growth scenarios. The committee then reviewed categorical program COLAs, Rising Scholars, career education proposals, IT proposals, and student housing. The Governor proposed a 2.43% COLA for selected categorical programs ($31.9 million). For Rising Scholars, the Governor proposed $30 million ongoing and removal of the cap on participating colleges; the LAO urged waiting for outcome data before doubling funding, while the Chancellor’s Office said the program is serving more students and supports equity for justice-impacted students. On career education, the Governor proposed $50 million for credit for prior learning and $50 million for a career passport; the LAO supported more reporting on credit for prior learning but recommended rejecting the career passport as too undefined, while the Chancellor’s Office supported both. On technology, the Governor proposed $162.5 million for a common cloud data platform and $168 million for a common ERP system; the LAO said both were premature or lacked sufficient planning and recommended rejection, while the Chancellor’s Office argued they would improve real-time data, security, and systemwide efficiency. The committee also heard an update on student housing: the administration said the 2024 shift to a lease-revenue bond model remains in progress for 13 approved projects, with 11 still active, and members asked about withdrawn projects and possible use of any returned funds. No votes were taken, and several items were held open for further discussion and May Revision updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• And telephone applications.
• You have 30 days to get it, or they don't approve the application.
• were not able to get those applications timely.
• Be the recipients of the applications for a place on the ballot.
• We have a high volume that we're still evaluating from the March election.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• each of those evaluations.
• The two other programs that my husband and I evaluated—one was 35% higher.
• And then, again, that $1,000 per evaluation will add some more.
• So, and then there is a timeline associated with the evaluation.
• So, and then there is a timeline associated with the evaluation.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• During the pandemic, we also saw struggles with the application process.
• Elderly Simplified Application Project does streamline applications for those who are over 60 and those
• application; it directly sends an electronic application through BenefitsCal to our backend system.
• We're continuing to evaluate which programs may be at risk.
• Funding for applications independent of caseload changes.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• :40.880> ending<00:09:41.120> in applications in November ending in applications in November
• > we<00:50:43.440> are getting nuclear applications, we are getting nuclear applications,
• denied a couple of those applications denied a couple of those applications because<00:57:56.800
• <01:01:34.080> So, evaluating the tariff. So, evaluating the tariff.
• that could [snorts] be an application. that could [snorts] be an application.

Bills: SB8

Keywords: utilities, public service commission, energy regulation, appointment, emergency declaration, tax increases, consumer protection, The first couple minutes of the livestream was cut off. This recording restored the beginning of the meeting Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:51 Approval of Minutes 00:02:07 Legislator Comments 00:02:18 LIHEAP Public Hearing 00:04:19 PSC Update on RS 26 SB 8 00:32:18 WaterStep Presentation 01:04:08, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There's not a medical school in the country that doesn't receive the most applicants from the states
• for proposals or applications.
• The next step, after we award those contracts, will be monitoring and evaluating, and then continuing
• that loop with the needs assessment and evaluation.
• We have the application ready.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will continue to monitor and evaluate conditions throughout the winter.
• All other requirements of applications are still in place, including mitigation.
• And I highlight this as well: we do continue to evaluate applications, including this week, and provide
• technical ...while we do continue to evaluate applications, including this week, and provide technical
• As Ria alluded to, we have heard from applicants, both in the form of applications and inquiries, interested

Summary: The committee heard first from Deputy State Climatologist Karen Bumbacco, who reviewed the weather and snowpack conditions that contributed to Washington’s 2025 drought. She said the state had a very warm and dry water year, with April through September ranking among the warmest and driest periods on record, and that three straight years of below-normal snowpack and precipitation had compounded drought impacts, especially in the Yakima Basin. She also explained that a weak La Niña could bring a wetter-than-normal winter, though temperature forecasts were less certain, and noted that long-term climate projections point to continued snowpack decline and earlier runoff timing. Department of Ecology staff Rea Burns and Caroline Melor then described the state’s drought declaration process and response. They said Washington’s statutory drought threshold is less than 75% of normal water supply plus a hardship finding, and that Ecology extended the Yakima drought declaration in April and expanded it statewide in June. They discussed reliance on federal monitoring data and staffing at NRCS, USGS, Reclamation, and NOAA, and said federal staffing and funding instability has created concerns for snowpack and water data. They also reviewed drought response funding, noting that grants have supported projects in the Yakima and Dungeness basins and that the drought emergency account still has a balance available for current needs. Burns gave a detailed update on the Yakima Basin, saying it experienced unprecedented conditions this year, including nearly empty reservoirs, curtailment orders sent to about 1,500 water users, and the first time even the most senior 1855 surface water rights were turned off. She said widespread compliance occurred, though the process exposed areas for improvement, especially coordination with federal partners. Committee members asked about the long-term basis for climate projections, the 75% drought threshold, federal impacts, drought insurance, reservoir storage, and whether the state should consider more drought funding or new storage projects. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Retention Committee to {quote} evaluate Retention Committee to {quote} evaluate judicial<00:20:58.280
• :21:26.280> judge information to evaluate a judge information to evaluate a judge including<00
• > comments<00:26:47.480> from The evaluation scores and comments from The evaluation scores
• 49.120> having applicant self-disclosed about having applicant self-disclosed about having ADHD
• No applicable, the Senate rules apply.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• or perhaps just evaluate as it relates to goals and outcomes.
• And as I said earlier, there will be some evaluation done of those efforts over the next 3 years.
• Um, we, we started this work as far as sort of evaluation last year.
• And because of that, we're not always able to make good decisions or evaluate programs.
• Sustainability plans and program evaluation measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• With long-term care applications, it's from the date of application signed that we have to go back to
• their application there and sign it sign their application<01:42:13.360> that<01:42:13.600>
• people um complete applications. people um complete applications.
• that go with uh Medicaid application that go with uh Medicaid application delays.<01:54:52.480><
• respect to these uh medical evaluations. respect to these uh medical evaluations.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We received 111 applications.
• applicants that we have.
• So, we received four applications totaling 10 million.
• application with enhanced... ...requirements to better support that application.
• We have a few applications in for teacher housing currently.

Transcript Highlights:

• What I want us to say is that, to make it clear that as DEES is evaluating permit applications, DEES
• evaluation that we were asked to do, we're also asked to determine whether the application advances
• dees as it's considering applications. dees as it's considering applications.
• And that was in my applicant.
• Representative Scully and then— be borne by the applicant. So that's be borne by the applicant.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As an update, HCA will have to submit their application by November 5th.
• For the application.
• With data, there's always discrepancies and things that have to be evaluated.
• planned clinical outcomes. bookmarks for the way we would evaluate planned clinical outcomes.
• When we evaluated it, we had a lot of people tell us that they changed their practice.