Transcript Highlights:

• We think that providers serving similar children in similar settings should be getting similar rates.
• are set under the single rate structure.
• be reimbursed at the infant rate.
• elements by defining age rate categories and details around the enhanced inclusion rates.
• That is set to begin July of 2031.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, with no votes taken. The first major discussion focused on child care and early education, including proposed reductions tied to federal Child Care and Development Fund and Proposition 64 revenue changes, the shift of reductions from general child care to the California Alternative Payment Program, the end of funding for prospective pay implementation, a 2.01% cost-of-living adjustment, child care infrastructure grants, and a proposal to increase administrative funding for alternative payment agencies. The Legislative Analyst’s Office generally supported removing prospective pay funding and urged caution on the administrative-rate shift, while also recommending more justification for the slot reduction approach and more detail on infrastructure grant alignment. Committee members strongly objected to eliminating about 6,000 child care slots, arguing the Legislature should preserve and expand child care access. The Department of Education supported the preschool QRIS block grant increase and the COLA but raised concerns about rate alignment for three- and four-year-olds and the lack of funding to maintain enrollment growth. The committee then reviewed trailer bill language affecting child care, including codifying age-based reimbursement categories, expanding documentation for enhanced inclusion rates, clarifying CalWORKs child care eligibility, aligning health and safety standards with federal requirements, coordinating disaster-related infrastructure funding, and updating oversight language. Administration officials said the proposals were intended to support the single reimbursement rate structure, improve safety compliance, and coordinate disaster recovery funding. LAO said it had no major initial concerns with the trailer bill language but would continue reviewing it. The hearing then turned to CalFresh and nutrition programs. CDSS described projected caseload declines, a one-time augmentation for county administration to implement federal H.R. 1 changes, a proposed reassessment schedule for county administrative funding, and updated estimates that H.R. 1 could cut CalFresh funding by $2.3 billion to $3.7 billion annually and affect about 500,000 people. Members pressed the administration on the impact of H.R. 1, the “chilling effect” on immigrant households, county workload, and whether the state should backfill federal cuts, especially for families with children subject to new work requirements. The committee also discussed a one-time CalFood augmentation, state administrative expense funding, staffing for H.R. 1 implementation, and a small increase to the CACFP meal reimbursement rate. Finally, the committee began IHSS items, including the impact of reinstating the Medi-Cal asset limit, automatic IHSS termination tied to Medi-Cal loss, and related savings and caseload estimates, with the administration explaining that these proposals would reduce eligibility and that there is no broad substitute for IHSS for many recipients.

Transcript Highlights:

• So there's only so low an actuarially appropriate price can go, and we're setting rates based on that
• So there's only so low an actuarially appropriate price can go, and we're setting rates based on that
• So there's only so low an actuarially appropriate price can go, and we're setting rates based on that
• that setting the cap at a lower rate that setting the cap at a lower rate will<00:47:44.680>
• that should be set at another rate<00:49:33.000> and<00:49:33.119> get<00:49:33.280>

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• rate of 5 percent.
• fixed rate of 5, which is different from the House that had a flexible rate.
• from a simple fixed interest rate to a variable interest rate that changes every month.
• from a simple fixed interest rate to a variable interest rate that changes every month.
• a 7.5% fixed rate?

Bills: HB40, HB1916, HB1973, HB2524, HB2530, HB3180, HB3421, HB3783, HB4170, HB4213

Keywords: business court, civil procedure, litigation, jurisdiction, arbitration, divorce, property division, family law, court jurisdiction, marital assets, parent-child relationship, birth certificate, identity proof, Family Code, court process, attorney fees, court costs, legal expenses, dispute resolution, child support

Summary: The committee heard several House bills, most of them relating to family law and court procedure, and left each bill pending after testimony. House Bill 1916 would clarify that the court that issued a final divorce decree retains exclusive jurisdiction over later actions involving undivided property. House Bill 1973 would require a certified birth certificate, if reasonably available, to be filed with a SAPCR petition or allow alternative proof of parentage while keeping the information confidential. House Bill 2530 would add qualifications and procedural safeguards for appointing amicus attorneys in SAPCR cases, including notice and hearing requirements, minimum qualifications, conflict rules, and limits on what amicus attorneys may do. House Bill 2524 would make Family Code references to attorney’s fees consistent by using “reasonable and necessary” language. House Bill 3180 would correct a scrivener’s error in the civil discovery rules by changing “settlement” to “statement.” The committee also heard House Bill 4213, which would change the interest rate on overdue child support from the current 6 percent simple interest to a fixed 5 percent and require the Attorney General to report on the impact of the change. Testimony was sharply divided: supporters argued lower interest could improve collections and help low-income obligors catch up, citing research and the size of child-support arrearages; opponents said lowering the rate would reduce incentives to pay and harm custodial parents and children. The Attorney General’s office raised implementation concerns about a House version that would have created a variable rate, while the committee substitute was described as restoring a simple fixed rate. After testimony, the bill was left pending. The committee also discussed House Bill 40, updating business court provisions and supplemental jurisdiction; House Bill 3421, streamlining probate procedures for original wills and copies; and House Bill 417, clarifying venue for lawsuits involving private transfer fees on real property. Each drew limited testimony and was left pending. Finally, House Bill 3783 drew extensive testimony on court-ordered counseling and reunification therapy in family cases. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would protect children and abuse victims from coercive, unregulated reunification practices, while opponents argued it was too broad, could interfere with legitimate therapy and judicial discretion, and might affect military families and other high-conflict cases. The committee heard testimony from judges, therapists, parents, survivors, and advocates, but took no final action and left the bill pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• would be set by the towns themselves or whether we would still be tasked with the rate setting.
• I still be tasked with the rate setting.
• > REIMs municipal rate setting portal to REIMs municipal rate setting portal to REIMs conversion<
• We would just set a swept rate of swept.
• If the towns are going to set tax rate.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This report is not a set of recommendations.
• So why would we have set that whole, those structures up to protect utility shareholders and then set
• You need to drive affordable rates. You need to pay all your victims, and you Affordable rates.
• has already come into rates outside of the general rate case.
• And we are in a very unique position to set a precedent and set an example for everyone else because

Keywords: 988, house, all

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• toll rates.
• just going to kick this off for the technical part of it, but just to talk about the toll policy and rate-setting
• just going to kick this off for the technical part of it, but just to talk about the toll policy and rate-setting
• I don't know that we've actually calculated the cost to collect yet, as we have not set toll rates yet
• And the toll rates are set to pay back all the commitments that Brent went through.

Keywords: 904, 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:

• These are not a nursing home setting. These are much lower care settings.
• these are not a nursing home setting. these are not a nursing home setting.
• As noted, the current monthly rate as set by the cabinet is $50.70 a day.
• As noted, the current monthly rate as set by the cabinet is $50.70 a day.
• the daily rate was $31.3. the daily rate was $31.3.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Health and Family Services committee heard an informational presentation on Kentucky personal care homes from representatives of the Kentucky Association of Healthcare Facilities, Management Systems of Kentucky, and Elder Care Partners. Witnesses described personal care homes as a lower-cost, 24/7 residential option for adults, often with serious mental illness, who do not meet nursing home criteria but need structured supervision, medication assistance, meals, and daily support. They said the homes are regulated by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, are not Medicaid-funded, and are supported largely through state supplementation payments and residents’ SSI income. The presenters argued that the current reimbursement rate of about $50.70 per day is no longer sufficient to cover staffing, food, insurance, utilities, maintenance, and other costs, and said the sector has shrunk significantly over time. They cited figures showing a decline from 64 to 34 homes serving the seriously mentally ill since 2002, with 30 closures over 23 years, and said the loss of beds contributes to homelessness, hospital overcrowding, and longer psychiatric stays. They also gave examples of residents who had spent many months in hospitals before being successfully placed in personal care homes, which they said can prevent more costly institutional care. Committee members asked about staffing credentials, fraud controls, referral processes, and how reimbursement works in other states. The presenters said Kentucky does not require licensed or certified staff in these facilities, though some homes use certified medication technicians or an LPN, and they described a county case-manager-based assessment process used to set individualized rates in other states such as Minnesota. Members expressed support for the work but emphasized the need for documentation of savings and budget offsets. The presenters said they are seeking an incremental reimbursement increase over two years, roughly 25% to 50% in the first year and another 50% after that, and urged the committee to support the homes to prevent further closures.

Transcript Highlights:

• U electric rate that we establish. U electric rate that we establish.
• > rates.
• They set different compensation rates, but we have seen throughout the affordability crisis that basically
• They set different compensation rates, but we have seen throughout the affordability crisis that basically
• They set different compensation rates, but we have seen throughout the affordability crisis that basically

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thinking through just error rates with eligibility for both TCA and SNAP.
• So SNAP in particular, Florida has some of the worst error rates.
• All eligibility requirements for SNAP are set at the federal level.
• The federal fiscal year 2024 payment error rate is 15.13%.
• Then we picked back up again in 2022 with that error rate.

Summary: The Human Services Subcommittee met to receive implementation briefings on House Bill 1267, which was enacted to address benefit cliffs and help public assistance recipients move toward economic self-sufficiency. The Department of Children and Families reviewed SNAP, Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA), and Medicaid-related eligibility and work requirements, including who must participate in work activities, the role of Florida Commerce and CareerSource Florida, and the new standardized intake and exit surveys required by the law. Members also discussed the TCA program’s household-based structure, the 48-month adult limit, and how work requirements differ for SNAP and TCA participants. Florida Commerce and CareerSource Florida then reported on implementation of HB 1267, including the CLIFF financial forecasting tool, case management changes, and survey data collected from welfare transition participants. They said intake surveys showed common barriers such as child care, transportation, and flexible work schedules, while exit surveys showed many participants were employed or had gained credentials, though response rates were low because the surveys are voluntary. A local workforce board, CareerSource Tampa Bay, described using CLIFF in case management and shared a success story about a participant who completed training, earned certifications, and moved into employment. The committee also heard a separate DCF briefing on the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its impact on SNAP. DCF said the law expands able-bodied adult without dependents requirements, changes non-citizen eligibility, ends future SNAP-Ed funding, increases state administrative cost sharing, and may require states to share in benefit costs if payment error rates remain above federal thresholds. Members focused heavily on Florida’s SNAP payment error rate, which DCF said was 15.13% for federal fiscal year 2024 and 12.60% for 2023, with the state currently on a corrective action plan. DCF described steps to reduce errors, including more verification of rent and utility expenses, improved income matching, staff training, and system modernization. No votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after questions concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• One, for example, is that sometimes managed care organizations have the actuarial rates set by actuaries
• , more than two and a half times Medicare rates because they were set to average commercial rates.
• The Medicaid PBM is an affiliate of Medicaid Pharmacy, where the PBM can set the rate of reimbursement
• The Medicaid PBM is an affiliate of Medicaid Pharmacy, where the PBM can set the rate of reimbursement
• They also have an independent company that sets rates on Kolkhorst.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Health and Human Services convened to discuss interim charges regarding fraud, waste, and abuse in Texas human services, particularly focusing on Medicaid and childcare programs. The meeting highlighted the importance of preventing misuse of taxpayer funds, with testimony from various stakeholders emphasizing the need for increased oversight and accountability in these programs. Key points included the alarming rise in healthcare fraud in other states, the necessity for Texas to enhance its fraud prevention measures, and the potential financial repercussions of failing to meet federal compliance standards. Several committee members expressed concerns about the impact of fraud on vulnerable populations, particularly those relying on Medicaid services. Testimonies from experts underscored the effectiveness of Texas's Office of Inspector General (OIG) in combating fraud, yet pointed out existing vulnerabilities, such as inconsistent enforcement and the need for better data sharing among agencies. The discussion also touched on the challenges faced by hospice care providers, with a significant increase in the number of hospices in Texas raising concerns about quality and oversight. The committee heard from various witnesses, including representatives from health plans and advocacy organizations, who provided insights into the complexities of managing Medicaid and the importance of maintaining program integrity. The meeting concluded with a commitment to further explore legislative solutions to enhance oversight and ensure that resources are directed to those in genuine need.

Transcript Highlights:

• our rates.
• There's only two ways states can use to set their rates and so we're codifying that here in Senate Bill
• Representative Dow, I think we just took out including co payments in the rate setting.
• We have a standard rate that we pay to providers again based on the age of the child, the setting, and
• Entities are able to set their rate. That's what this bill does though.

Bills: SB132, SB241

Keywords: SB132, DOIT, Department of Information Technology, software replacement, equipment replacement, technology funding, revolving fund, capital equipment, enterprise services, state IT budgeting, software budgeting, amortization, depreciation, State Treasurer, Department of Finance and Administration, New Mexico, information technology, IT infrastructure, fund accounting, legislative appropriation

Transcript Highlights:

• These are the five states that are in the rate study, which is the way in which rates will be indexed
• So this is the children's rates, right? So this is the children's rates, right?
• So prior to CTDHP coming into effect, the treatment rates were higher than prevention rates until the
• Reach and other settings.
• Yeah, I mean, just about the rates. It's not cheap by the care, because you don't set the rates.

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:

• We track their four-year graduation rate as well.
• Year graduation rate.
• Our system's four-year graduation rate exceeds the six-year graduation rate of many other states as well
• graduation rates.
• It focuses on graduation rates, retention, affordability, degree outcomes, access rate, and graduate

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education heard a presentation on the State University System’s new strategic plan, SUS 30, and its legislative budget request. University officials described the plan’s five priorities: One SUS collaboration, elevating student success, operational excellence, world-class talent, and innovative research and economic development. They highlighted Florida’s continued status as the top higher education system in the nation, low tuition, strong graduation outcomes, rising median wages for graduates, and expanded use of the My Florida Future website to help students and families compare degree outcomes and earnings. Members asked for follow-up information on programs of strategic emphasis, mental health and social work workforce needs, wage data over time, and how the system supports innovation moving toward commercialization. The committee also discussed campus safety, prompted in part by recent events at FSU. System officials said universities and the Florida College System recently held a safety summit to share best practices on building security, threat assessment, and coordination with law enforcement, and they agreed to provide a report back to the committee after the Board of Governors reviews recommendations in November. Senators also raised questions about Pell student support, first-generation student success, and whether liberal arts graduates’ earnings catch up over time. Officials said Pell students are tracked through performance-based funding metrics and that the system’s accountability plans will continue to emphasize access and completion. A separate update covered line funding for nursing and health care partnerships. Officials said the $6 million appropriation was fully subscribed through 24 proposals from all 10 nursing programs, supporting scholarships, faculty recruitment, internships, simulation, and licensure preparation. They reported over 1,900 new nursing graduates, more than 200 new student slots, over 300 scholarships, and a 92% NCLEX pass rate. Senators asked about expanding eligibility for the program, and staff said that issue would be revisited this year. The Board of Governors’ legislative budget request totaled $634.5 million and included $295 million for performance-based funding institutional investment, a request to restore and increase the state investment portion to $400 million, $125 million for preeminence funding, $100 million for faculty recruitment and retention, $6.4 million for UF/IFAS extension workload, and $3.1 million for State Fire Marshal inspections. The chair noted that resources are limited and that difficult budget decisions lie ahead. No votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• The department sets nursing home rates twice a year.
• The department sets nursing home rates twice a year.
• The department sets nursing home rates twice a year.
• bill, our rate-setting methodology won't allow us to do that.
• to section one of the bill, our rate to section one of the bill, our rate setting<00:37:59.280><

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The second point that involves a match rate is under H.R. 1: if you have a high error rate, you have
• error rate between 2025 and 2026.
• and Year to try to acquire some data sets and consultants to help them manage the error rate.
• Or fiscal '26 error rate.
• happens between a preliminary error rate and a final error rate, and you also have the last, and they

Bills: HB2053, HB2116, HB2148

Keywords: stormwater, recharge mapping, water resources, groundwater, appropriation, Arizona, HB2116, Colorado River, litigation fund, water rights, Arizona water law, general fund appropriation, state budget, interstate water compact, Colorado River Compact, water litigation, A.R.S. 45-119, natural resources, water policy, river management

Summary: The committee first considered House Bill 2116, which would appropriate $1 million in fiscal year 2027 from the State General Fund to the Colorado River Litigation Fund. The sponsor said it was a repeat of last year’s request and was intended as a backup if the seven Colorado River basin states cannot reach a new agreement. Arizona Department of Water Resources staff testified in support, explaining the state’s role in ongoing Colorado River negotiations and distinguishing the litigation fund from the executive’s separate Colorado River Protection Fund. The bill received a due pass recommendation on a 17-1 vote. The committee then took up House Bill 2053, which appropriates $100,000 to ADWR for updated stormwater recharge mapping and expands the mapping effort beyond state trust lands to private lands. The committee adopted Chairman Livingston’s amendment, which extended the coordination timeline to one year, broadened the agencies involved, and revised language on site eligibility and the definition of stormwater. The sponsor said the bill would help identify more places to capture stormwater for recharge, while ADWR testified neutral, supporting the mapping work but raising a concern about language tied to appropriable surface water because that is a legal determination for the courts. The amended bill passed 11-7. House Bill 2148 was then heard, proposing to give the legislature authority to appropriate non-custodial federal monies, with requirements for specifying purposes and allowing agencies to spend such funds if the legislature does not act. An amendment excluded university and Board of Regents research grants from the bill’s scope, which the chair said was intended to avoid implementation problems. The sponsor framed the bill as a transparency measure, and members discussed the large amount of federal pass-through funding Arizona receives. The amended bill passed 11-7. After the bills, the committee received a lengthy JLBC presentation comparing the executive budget with the JLBC baseline. Discussion focused on revenue forecasts, the impact of federal tax conformity, state employee health insurance costs, SNAP administrative and error-rate costs under H.R. 1, developmental disabilities and AHCCCS growth, and K-12/ESA funding trends. Members repeatedly criticized the executive budget for funding some ongoing costs on a one-year basis and expressed concern about rising caseloads and supplemental needs. No formal action was taken on the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• 55% to 65% funding rate.
• Lastly, we recommend the legislature consider setting a fixed rate for Tier 2 ELOP funding.
• Setting a fixed rate would reduce a lot of that uncertainty for districts, but it might open up the state
• What is the finance's position on the LAO's recommendation or consideration of setting a fixed rate for
• 1 and Rate 2 going back to Rate 2.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of their rates.
• rate.
• rate.
• , your retail rate is different.
• benefits to rate payers and non- rate benefits to rate payers and non- rate payers<01:35:40.960>

Bills: HF2103, HF2793

Keywords: energy, renewable energy, ammonia, hydrogen, certificate tracking, funding, environment, community solar, energy policy, sustainability, solar garden program, regulation sunset, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• rate of 5 percent.
• rate that changes every month.
• We're just not set up to handle variable interest rates at this point.
• rate the committee decides.
• Problems with the variable rate.

Bills: HB40, HB1916, HB1973, HB2524, HB2530, HB3180, HB3421, HB3783, HB4170, HB4213, HB40

Keywords: business court, civil procedure, litigation, jurisdiction, arbitration, divorce, property division, family law, court jurisdiction, marital assets, parent-child relationship, birth certificate, identity proof, Family Code, court process, attorney fees, court costs, legal expenses, dispute resolution, child support