Transcript Highlights:

• If somebody is to not be, if somebody is to be disenrolled, then there is an appeal process in order
• <00:27:54.080> in<00:27:54.240> order process to for appeals process in order process
• to for appeals process in order to<00:27:54.559> do<00:27:54.640> that.
• to<00:30:57.440> somebody an appeal process in order to somebody an appeal process in order
• process to go Yes, there is an appeals process to go through<01:09:24.000> that,<01:09:24.239

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:15 HB 1 Discussion 00:02:00 HB 1 Vote 00:15:05 HB 2 Discussion 00:17:20 HB 2 Vote 01:13:20, 958, all

Summary: The committee met on House Bill 1, which would implement Kentucky’s participation in the federal education freedom tax credit program. Sponsors said the bill would allow donors to receive a federal dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to scholarship granting organizations, with no state dollars involved, and that public school districts could potentially create their own SGOs. Members asked about the removal of state tax language in the committee substitute, the meaning of the 11th Amendment waiver, whether SGOs could serve only public school students, and whether data collection could be added. The sponsors said the state tax language was unnecessary because the credit is federal, the waiver would allow federal-court litigation over the act, and a district could establish an SGO if it met federal requirements. The committee adopted the substitute and then reported HB 1 favorably with 16 yes votes, one nay, three pass votes, and one abstention. The committee then took up House Bill 2, an act relating to Medicaid and making an appropriation. The sponsor described the bill as a response to federal HR 1 and to concerns raised by the Medicaid oversight board, saying it would address program integrity, eligibility redeterminations, cost sharing, and managed care organization contracts. He said the bill would require periodic eligibility verification for expansion Medicaid enrollees, add modest cost-sharing for some services to encourage use of primary care over emergency rooms, and strengthen enforcement of MCO contracts, with penalties going into a restricted compliance fund. Members asked about the committee amendment, and the sponsor explained it restored flexibility on the number of MCOs in future procurement rather than locking in a reduction. Members also asked whether the bill had gone before the Medicaid oversight advisory board and whether a fiscal note was available; the sponsor said the board’s recommendations were incorporated and fiscal notes were included in the packet. After discussion, the committee adopted committee amendment one to PHS2 and then adopted PHS2 as amended for consideration. The sponsor continued outlining the bill’s provisions, emphasizing that it applied to the expansion population and was intended to align Kentucky law with federal requirements while improving oversight and accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• appeal appeal um<00:16:00.199> so<00:16:00.360> I<00:16:00.440> think<00:16:00.560
• There's no due process involved in that.
• There's no due process involved in that.
• <00:43:16.319> whatever<00:43:16.720> processes that that process whatever processes
• that that process whatever processes they<00:43:17.480> have<00:43:17.839> cannot<00:43

Bills: HF414, HF768, HF359

Keywords: data practices, filing fee, government transparency, complaints, public access, free speech, human rights, censorship, protected speech, Minnesota Department of Human Rights, real property, partition, eminent domain, transfer on death deeds, property rights, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Figure two on page 13 shows process.
• not processed timely by the commission. not processed timely by the commission.
• love to process them very quickly. love to process them very quickly.
• process took almost two years of time. process took almost two years of time.
• , there's no appeal, but you can go to court on the one hand, and there can be no appeal.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met to hear the Legislative Budget Assistant Office’s performance audit of the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights. Auditors said the commission was inefficient and ineffective in investigating discrimination complaints and closing cases in a timely manner during fiscal years 2020 through 2023. The report contained 25 observations; the commission fully concurred with 24 and concurred in part with one. Auditors highlighted major problems with case processing delays, inaccurate case data, lack of a case management system, weak strategic planning and risk assessment, outdated and disorganized policies, confidentiality issues, expired administrative rules, fee-setting practices, incomplete financial-interest filings, and failure to complete required reports and reconciliations. Two recommendations, involving complaint screening and conciliation, may require legislative action. Several observations focused on the commission’s intake and investigation practices. Auditors said complaints may have been screened out before docketing, potentially preventing commissioner review required by statute, and that the investigation process lacked clear rules and guidance. They also found investigators were assigned non-investigative tasks, training was inadequate, interview requirements were unclear, supervisory duties were burdensome, and confidential information was not always protected by encrypted email. The audit recommended clearer administrative rules, better internal controls, more focused staffing, a supervisory investigator position, and improved training and documentation. Commission representatives said they had already made progress on several items since the audit began, including posting overdue biennial reports and moving toward a case management system expected to go live in June. They said they were working with EEOC counterparts and legal counsel, but emphasized staffing shortages and high turnover, noting the commission currently had nine people working out of 15 authorized positions, with three investigator vacancies and a vacant paralegal position. Committee members thanked the auditors and commission staff, discussed the history of the audit request, and raised concerns about how long the recommended corrective actions might take. The committee took no vote or formal action during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• They're ever increasing. ...appeals. Yes, we did.
• I wish I could look in the crystal ball and see how many appeals...
• Article 48 of the Constitution is very clear on the process.
• The Constitution is very clear on the process.
• So we know that that will go through an appeals process that is an existing process.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing opened with committee chairs explaining the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions’ role under Article 48 and outlining the process for initiative petition 25-14, H5-004, an act to improve access to public records. The first panel consisted of subject-matter experts. William Clark of the National Conference of State Legislatures gave an overview of public records laws across states, noting that all states have some form of open-records law but that exemptions for legislatures vary widely. He discussed common legislative exemptions, legislative privilege, and court cases showing that outcomes often turn on specific constitutional and statutory language. Rebecca Murray, General Counsel for the Secretary of the Commonwealth, described Massachusetts public records trends, saying state agency requests and appeals have risen sharply since the 2017 law update, with 2025 setting a record for appeals. She said the initiative would extend the public records law to the General Court and the Governor’s Office and add exemptions specific to those offices, while also noting resource concerns from the growing volume of requests and appeals.

Transcript Highlights:

• It takes time for our AG's office to process those matters.
• It's not an onerous process. It's not that expensive.
• You just don't— ...process. It's not that expensive.
• S9480 was subject to a prepayment review process.
• We are in the process of working through quite a few things.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Health and Human Services held a fourth hearing in its ongoing review of alleged fraud, waste, and abuse involving AHCCCS/Access and DHS, with a major focus on Medicaid eligibility verification for the aged, blind, and disabled (ABD) population, behavioral health and sober living oversight, and payment delays to providers. Senator Shamp presented findings she said showed major gaps in ABD asset verification, including claims that only a fraction of enrollees were checked and that many ineligible members may remain on the rolls. She urged referrals to law enforcement, tighter verification requirements, better PARIS data sharing, and legislative changes to close what she described as a compliance and taxpayer-risk gap. Reva Stewart also testified that patient brokering and fraudulent recruitment of vulnerable people, including Native Americans, continues through social media and other channels, and she called for stronger enforcement and transparency. Heather Dukes, representing behavioral health and sober living operators, argued that the state’s response to fraud has become overly punitive toward legitimate providers. She said ADHS often sends technical paperwork deficiencies straight to enforcement instead of allowing plans of correction, that zoning approvals are being questioned despite not being within ADHS authority, and that long Access approval timelines are creating licensing and billing delays. ADHS Deputy Assistant Director Tiffany Slater said the department has seen a large volume of unlicensed complaints, that it is trying to improve staffing and data systems, and that some enforcement tools have been expanded for sober living homes. She also said many sober living operators are in recovery themselves and provide low-cost housing and support rather than direct billing to Access. Access Director Virginia Roundtree said the agency is trying to balance fraud prevention with support for legitimate providers. She reported steps such as daily internal huddles, live dashboards, added project management support, an outside review of the Division of Fee-for-Service Management, and a new external claims vendor to help reduce backlogs. Senators pressed her on a specific provider’s long-delayed payments and prepayment review, and she said the agency would provide answers early the following week. Access staff also described provider resolution roundtables and said unadjudicated claims had been reduced to zero, though members questioned whether that was due to denials rather than resolution. The hearing ended with the chair announcing legislation to preserve the American Indian Health Plan as a fee-for-service option while requiring Access to contract administrative and care management functions to another entity, citing structural failures in Access’s ability to operate the plan safely and effectively.

Transcript Highlights:

• So sometimes in our budgetary process, we get the taxpayer money.
• Senator, are you appealing the ruling of the chair? I appeal the ruling of the chair. Okay.
• "Are you appealing to the chair?" "I appeal the ruling of the chair."
• "The appeal has been made and recognized. Senator Walczyk, you may be briefly heard on the appeal."
• The appeal fails." "The nays have it. The appeal fails and the ruling of the chair stands.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Energy and Telecommunications Committee met under Chair Kevin Parker and considered a series of energy, utility, and clean transportation bills. The committee first advanced a bill by Senator Connery on make-ready electric infrastructure for public-serving EV charging, after members raised concerns that the costs of preparing school bus charging infrastructure could be shifted to ratepayers. The committee then advanced Senator Parker’s pilot program for resilient EV charging microgrids, with discussion focused on using existing NYSERDA resources, the role of batteries, and the bill’s purpose in supporting emergency charging during outages. Another bill on heavy distribution centers and EV charging was also advanced after debate over its application to large warehouse and e-commerce facilities. The committee also considered a bill on carport-mounted solar systems that would limit local zoning restrictions. A motion to substitute in a different bill was ruled improper for lack of notice, and the chair’s ruling was upheld on appeal. Members then advanced a PSC guidebook bill on gas and electric rate-making, and a utility shutoff protection bill for medical emergencies, life support equipment, and elderly, blind, or disabled customers, with questions about age definitions and the scope of medical documentation. The committee also advanced the Home Utility Weatherization Jobs Act, which would create a pilot program for electrification and weatherization in disadvantaged communities, with members discussing whether the program would be available at no cost to building owners and how utilities would access capital. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly raised concerns about who would pay for the programs, whether ratepayers or taxpayers would bear the costs, and how much local control would remain under the solar siting bill. At the end of the meeting, members briefly discussed a recent NYISO report warning about possible summer reliability issues and urged the committee and the PSC to review it closely. The chair noted the report should be considered alongside other state planning documents, and the meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's that appeal process.
• There's that appeal process.
• There's that appeal process.
• There's that appeal process.
• Motion is question. appeal process. But if if not and they appeal process.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There's appellate process, correct. What is the venue provision? Appellate process.
• Respectfully, the state systems have a process: there is an intake process when people are hired, and
• Like right now, what is the appeal process?
• That appeal would be taken to the, if I'm not mistaken, the court of appeal.
• And that appeal means there's a whole new trial.

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it certainly has met the expectations of trying to improve the process and collect those payments
• <00:01:54.159> and<00:01:54.399> collect improve the the process and collect improve
• are often being noticed in the appeal. are often being noticed in the appeal.
• to that. >> Is the AG also being named as a party in any appeal to the front?
• I noticed in the rules that it talks about a 10-day appeal of the subpoena that's in the rules.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee heard and advanced several bills. Senate Bill 198, relating to operations of the Office of the Attorney General, was described as a cleanup measure with seven changes, including allowing the AG’s office to handle child support employee background checks and fingerprinting, updating child support guideline commission references, clarifying control of constitutional officers’ records in multistate litigation, setting a 10-year statute of limitations for certain consumer protection matters, streamlining administrative hearing appeals, and changing representation of the professional geologist board. After questions about the administrative hearing appeal language, the committee passed the bill 9-0. The committee then passed Senate Bill 323, which would require subpoenas for medical records to be served at least 14 days before production. President Stivers said the bill is intended to give health care providers reasonable time to comply with HIPAA, redact records, and avoid motions to quash when subpoenas are served on short notice. A question about appeal deadlines was answered by noting the bill would not affect the common 10-day motion-to-reconsider rule. The bill passed 9-0. Senate Bill 66, as amended by committee substitute, was also passed 9-0. The substitute addressed DUI-related issues, including preserving certain driving records for 10 years, removing urine screens from the bill, adding fentanyl and other substances to the per se controlled-substances DUI list, and clarifying that a preliminary breath test may be refused and that officers should advise drivers of that right. The committee also passed Senate Bill 221, a model-law bill making the knowing purchase, sale, transfer, or offer to sell human remains for consideration a Class D felony; members asked about whether it could affect older medical specimens or fetal remains, and sponsors said the bill is aimed at remains authorized for final disposition through cremation or burial. That bill passed 8-0. Finally, Senate Bill 312, concerning court-ordered transports in mental health cases, was presented by court security and sheriff’s association representatives. They said the bill clarifies that sheriffs may use court security staff to monitor and transport individuals undergoing 202A mental health evaluations, addressing staffing shortages and existing practice. The committee passed the bill 8-0. The committee then began hearing Senate Bill 333 on body armor grants, with the Attorney General’s office testifying that the bill would transfer administration of the Law Enforcement Protection Program to the AG and align it with the office’s existing body armor grant program, but the transcript cuts off before any vote on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• Oliver: Can you walk me through the appeals process for the family? Chair: You are recognized.
• Oliver: CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH THE APPEALS PROCESS FOR THE FAMILY?
• If the appeal is upheld, the appeal could be overturned and the service could be issued.
• On a follow-up with Representative Oliver's second question on the appeal process, what is the time frame
• for the appeal process for the parents?

Summary: The Health Facilities Subcommittee met to receive implementation updates from the Agency for Health Care Administration on three bills passed in prior sessions. First, Deputy Secretary Brian Meyer reported on the transfer of the Children’s Medical Services managed care plan from the Department of Health to AHCA under HB 1085. He said the move was administrative only, with no change to enrollment, providers, services, or clinical eligibility functions, and that it was intended to create efficiencies by aligning procurement and shifting staff resources between agencies. Members then questioned AHCA about reports of reductions in private duty nursing and therapy services for medically fragile children, including concerns about appeals, provider credentialing, and whether families were losing services or being transitioned appropriately. AHCA said it was reviewing denials, monitoring the plan, and using contractual remedies while focusing on maintaining access for members. The committee also reviewed implementation of a bill creating permanent Medicaid eligibility for individuals with permanent disabilities. AHCA staff explained that the agency had submitted a federal 1115 waiver request after public comment and stakeholder meetings, but CMS had indicated it did not anticipate approving the requested authority. Members pressed AHCA on why the waiver was submitted later than the bill’s directive date and on whether the delay was avoidable. AHCA said the waiver was complex and required review, drafting, and public input, and noted that DCF already has a specialized unit to help with redeterminations while the agencies work on operational changes. The committee discussed the practical impact on families who struggle with annual eligibility renewals and the need for clearer communication and faster follow-up from the agency. Finally, AHCA presented on the home health aide program for medically fragile children and related Medicaid eligibility changes. The agency described the 2023 law that created a family caregiver provider type and the 2025 changes that increased the hourly rate, expanded hours, reduced training requirements, and removed caregiver earnings from Medicaid eligibility calculations, subject to federal approval. AHCA said it had completed state public comment, submitted the waiver amendment to CMS, and was awaiting federal action. Members raised concerns that some families may have enrolled or begun work before the eligibility fix was in place and may have lost benefits, especially in Broward County. AHCA said it would work with affected families and plans, review outreach through DCF and the health plans, and continue rulemaking, system updates, and provider training. The meeting ended with the chair noting that the committee had received the updates and adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, this was also a competitive process. The statement of work was reviewed by DIR.
• We have many appeals to consider in limited time.
• McDermott introduce each appeal.
• the initial determination process.
• Continued to do the appeal, um.

Transcript Highlights:

• Over the following state agencies, the Supreme Court, the courts of appeals, the Court of Criminal Appeals
• We are in the process of implementing court analytics, so that's similar with our branding.
• Turning to the next page, we also helped implement the 15th Court of Appeals.
• For example, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals, BODA as we call it, BODA.
• , anything that they can do to further their appeal on their own.

Transcript Highlights:

• the question about appealing and who is against whom in an appeal.
• When an appeal is made, it is an appeal of the PUC order; the appealing party is appealing that decision
• who in an appeal.
• When an appeal is made, it is an appeal of the PUC order.
• It's an appeal of the order.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• year through the 10-year plan process. year through the 10-year plan process.
• This was a six-year process. And system. This was a six-year process.
• That is an ongoing process.
• That is an ongoing process.
• That is an ongoing process.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We know that leaving is a process.
• It’s a very expensive process.
• I will add just quickly that Mazda, I believe, along with most other companies, has an appeals process
• The question I have is: how does this appeal process work?
• ,' how long does the dealer tell me that the appeal process is going to take?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure heard testimony on a wide range of bills involving consumer protection, auto regulation, alcohol licenses, and professional licensure. A major focus was legislation to require a one-hour domestic violence awareness training for salon and cosmetology licensees (H.323/S.200), supported by District Attorney Marion Ryan, law enforcement, and a salon industry witness who described the program’s value in identifying and helping victims. The committee also heard strong support from the Attorney General’s office for auto consumer protection legislation (S.228/H.379) that would expand used-car warranty protections, extend the Lemon Law return period to seven days after receipt of the vehicle, raise the mileage cap to 200,000 miles, and increase dealer surety bonds to $50,000. Independent dealers opposed those changes, arguing they would burden small businesses and that dealer education, not expanded liability, was the better solution. The committee also took testimony on bills related to vehicle financial products and repair information. A trade association supported GAP waiver legislation (H.4188/S.281), saying it would create clear consumer protections and standard disclosures. On right-to-repair and heavy-duty vehicle service information (S.266), engine and truck manufacturers supported an exemption for commercial vehicles, while others argued that releasing service data to the general public could create safety, cybersecurity, and emissions risks. The committee then heard extensive testimony on auto dealer franchise and warranty reimbursement legislation (S.201/H.406), with dealer groups supporting changes to warranty labor reimbursement and manufacturer groups opposing them as costly and unnecessary. Manufacturers from GM, Volvo, Toyota, Hyundai, Mazda, and others said their current time-study and appeals processes already compensate dealers fairly and that the bill would raise costs for consumers. In addition, the committee heard testimony on H.333, which would move auto damage appraiser licensing from the Division of Insurance to the Division of Occupational Licensure. Collision repair advocates supported the change, saying the current board structure leads to repeated dismissals of complaints and lacks accountability, while emphasizing that the bill is intended to protect consumers and ensure proper repair reimbursement. The hearing also included testimony in support of a local alcohol license petition for Westwood and a separate local alcohol measure for a town grant license. At the end of the hearing, the chairs announced that all docketed bills had been heard, noted that a joint poll would be held on H.4184, and the committee voted to adjourn by voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Be necessary to educate voters as part of this process.
• Have their processes in place for doing that. Does Forward have that process in place? We do, yeah.
• offices, the parties do run a process.
• You know, in the middle process, right? You're appealing to a broader electorate.
• The process is integrity, qualifications, and policies.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-12, H.503, a proposal to implement all-party state primaries for Massachusetts state and federal elections. The committee opened with procedural remarks explaining Article 48 requirements and then heard first from two subject-matter experts. Professor Costas Panagopoulos of Northeastern University testified that top-two primary systems in other states have produced mixed results: they may modestly increase primary turnout in some cases, but the research does not show a reliable reduction in polarization, and such systems can weaken party gatekeeping, increase strategic behavior, raise campaign spending, and reduce general-election choice for voters whose preferred party is not on the ballot. Katie King of the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined the different primary models used nationwide, explained that Massachusetts currently uses an open-to-unaffiliated primary, and reviewed legal distinctions between blanket primaries and top-two systems; she noted that blanket primaries were struck down by the Supreme Court, while Washington’s top-two system was upheld because it narrows the field rather than nominating party candidates. She also said voter education and administrative preparation would be important if the system changed. The proponents’ panel, led by Danielle Allen of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, argued that Massachusetts has chronically uncompetitive elections, low turnout, and too many uncontested races, and that all-party primaries would give every voter a meaningful choice in the first round and force candidates to appeal to a broader electorate. Allen said the proposal is designed specifically for Massachusetts and differs from other states by allowing party endorsements to appear on the ballot, which supporters said would preserve useful information while shifting control of the preliminary election from party insiders to voters. Jim Henderson, the coalition’s counsel, said the bill is narrowly tailored to state-level primaries and would amend Chapter 53 to put all voters on equal footing. Other supporters, including Kevin Johnson, Kate Kavanaugh, and Spencer Reynolds, emphasized that the reform could increase competition, reduce polarization, improve participation by independents and underrepresented voters, and create more accountability to the full electorate. Committee members pressed the witnesses on turnout, the practical effect of endorsements, whether the proposal would simply shift party influence to an earlier stage, and whether it could disadvantage minority-party or independent candidates. Senator Fattman repeatedly asked about evidence that turnout would materially increase, while Representative Peisch and others questioned whether requiring or seeking endorsements would create new barriers or pressure candidates to clear the field. Supporters responded that the system would modestly increase primary participation, that the general election would remain the decisive contest, and that endorsements would be optional and handled through party rules. No vote was taken at the hearing; the committee heard testimony and questions only.

Transcript Highlights:

• to to inform us as to how the process to to inform us as to how the process works,<00:39:54.720>
• costly appeals. costly appeals.
• is then appealed to the zoning board. is then appealed to the zoning board.
• appealing their decision. appealing their decision.
• . processing. processing.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• process.
• We have had 28 hardship appeals this year. And again, of those decisions, four have been appealed.
• We have had 28 hardship appeals this year. And again, of those decisions, four have been appealed.
• So obviously five of those were for sure denied because they went to the appeals process.
• Or is this a closed process?

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The truth in taxation process requires.
• Several of the study processes overlap.
• process.
• However, ISDs can appeal. appeal the final comptroller determination to district court, but the property
• It has been two distinct separate processes, the appraisal process to determine the proper size of. of

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Due process being what it is, they have the ability to appeal.
• is<01:01:24.559> a during the appeals process so this is a during the appeals process so this
• Due process being what it is, they have the ability to appeal.
• 01:46.799> process uh however during that appeal process uh however during that appeal process
• c> process the appeal process the appeal process the appeal process the appeal process can<01:02:

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Health heard testimony on several bills. On SB 1441, which would repeal the transfer of the Oahu Regional Health Care System from HHSC to the Department of Health, the Department of Health said it strongly supports the measure and requested clarifying amendments. HHSC/Oahu Region also supported the bill and said it had no objection to the department’s amendments. In response to questions, witnesses said the agencies have been working on an MOU to support transfers of long-term care patients to Leahi, with the current goal being about 10 to 15 patients, but transfers would occur only as space and staffing allow; one patient was reportedly being admitted at the time, and the process was described as slow and case-by-case. The committee then heard SB 1443 on payment rates for state hospital patients and related Department of Health services. The hospital administrator said the bill would allow rates above Medicaid for community or foster-home placements if patients cannot be placed at Leahi or elsewhere, and would set Medicaid-level reimbursement for outside medical services used by state hospital patients. He said at least one provider was interested in offering services at that rate and that the population involved is largely non-ambulatory long-term care patients. Members asked about availability and training, and the witness said special training could be provided. SB 1322, a broad mental health bill, drew mixed testimony. The Department of Law Enforcement supported giving crisis-intervention-trained officers more discretion to transport people to medical care instead of arresting them. The Attorney General supported the bill but recommended revisions to emergency-transport language and restoring liability protections. HHSC and Queens Hospital supported the overall goal but sought amendments to preserve the mental health emergency worker role in decision-making and to avoid negative impacts on emergency departments. The Disability Rights Center and ACLU opposed parts of the bill, arguing that it weakens due process, reduces protections in involuntary treatment and transport, and should retain a three-person treatment panel rather than reduce it to one. A Queens representative said the current program works well and reported that more than 90% of MH1 cases once went to hospitals, but that figure has dropped to about 60-70%, with about 20% now diverted to community settings or the behavioral health crisis center. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion provided.