Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Westrom asked on the Senate floor whether you have any evidence that pharmaceutical companies
• Senator Westrom asked on the Senate floor whether you have any evidence that pharmaceutical companies
• Senator Westrom asked on the Senate floor whether you have any evidence that pharmaceutical companies
• Senator Westrom asked on the Senate floor whether you have any evidence that pharmaceutical companies
• low-cost medications from pharmaceutical low-cost medications from pharmaceutical manufacturers<

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The meeting focused on a Minnesota Senate floor debate over a bipartisan 340B enforcement bill, with supporters arguing that the measure would require pharmaceutical companies to comply with federal and state law and continue providing discounted drugs to safety-net and rural hospitals. Senators and other speakers said the program is essential to hospital finances, especially for facilities facing operating losses and federal Medicaid cuts, and warned that without enforcement language hospitals such as Hennepin County Medical Center and rural hospitals could face severe financial harm or closure. Supporters also said pharmaceutical companies had spent heavily on media and lobbying to oppose the bill and that the Senate’s bipartisan vote showed the issue had broad support. Several speakers described how 340B revenue is used to sustain hospital services, including addiction treatment, trauma care, and other essential care in vulnerable communities. They said the program was designed to let hospitals buy drugs at low cost and bill insurers at standard rates, using the difference as a funding stream. When asked about claims that hospitals made large sums from the program, supporters said that was consistent with the program’s purpose. They also said some drug companies were not complying with 340B obligations, particularly around contract pharmacies, and that enforcement language was needed to ensure compliance. The discussion also addressed HCMC’s financial situation, with speakers saying 340B funding is not a full solution but is an important support and should not be reduced further. They rejected a proposed transparency/reporting amendment as too burdensome, while noting that federal authorities already have audit power over 340B dollars. The speakers urged the House to pass the same language, said eight Republicans joined the Senate vote, and expressed hope that the bill would advance despite concerns about House support and ongoing pharmaceutical industry opposition.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then we're going to, again, talk about Medicaid pharmaceutical costs.
• But we do know that many of our pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical components are imported.
• We're seeing a substantial increase in pharmaceutical costs.
• They're pharmaceutical cost strategies in the state of Oregon.
• Pharmaceuticals are one of those.

Transcript Highlights:

• manufacturer a pharmaceutical manufacturer a pharmaceutical manufacturer<01:00:01.119> so
• <01:01:25.160> company pharmaceutical company pharmaceutical company sitting<01:01:26.920>
• <01:02:44.880> products coupons around pharmaceutical products coupons around pharmaceutical
• Pharmaceuticals represent a significant part of the spend on health care provision, and the pharmaceutical
• There were no pharmaceutical manufacturers there, but this bill is really about pharmaceutical manufacturer

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• to re-shore very critical supply chains back to the United States of America, not only through pharmaceuticals
• Not only through pharmaceuticals, but also through critical minerals and materials and metals.
• So we manufacture various high-purity inorganic and organic salts for nutrition, food, pharmaceuticals
• Like a sterile filling line or something like that for pharmaceuticals, but you're not building a mine
• They work in partnership with UMSL to help create new efficiencies in pharmaceutical production.

Summary: The committee first established a quorum and heard Senate Bill 1553, sponsored by Senator Curtis Gregory, which would provide incentives related to reshoring critical supply chains for pharmaceuticals and critical minerals/materials. Gregory said the bill is aimed at national defense and clarified that the relevant materials would be tied to federal critical-material and FDA lists. Witnesses in support argued that Missouri has an opportunity to expand production of pharmaceuticals and critical minerals, but that foreign competition, especially from China and India, makes domestic production difficult without incentives. Several witnesses emphasized national security concerns, supply-chain vulnerabilities, and the need for state support to help existing Missouri companies expand into these markets. Support testimony came from Jost Chemical, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the API Innovation Center, Doe Run Company, and Associated Industries of Missouri. Testimony highlighted the difficulty of competing with subsidized foreign producers, the long lead times and capital needs for mines and production lines, and the importance of transferable tax credits and possible future federal support. One witness noted that the bill’s grant component may be more limited and would likely be useful for startup, testing, or initial development rather than fully funding a mine. Another witness suggested that tariffs or price floors could also help create a market for domestic production. There was no opposition or informational testimony. After closing the hearing, the committee moved into executive session and voted Senate Bill 1553 do pass by a unanimous 9-0 roll call vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• to re-shore very critical supply chains back to the United States of America, not only through pharmaceuticals
• So we manufacture various high-purity inorganic and organic salts for nutrition, food, pharmaceuticals
• It is more like for a startup, technology, testing, or a sterile filling line for pharmaceuticals, but
• API stands for active pharmaceutical ingredients. It's based in St.
• They work in partnership with UMSL to help create new efficiencies in pharmaceutical production.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The committee first called the roll, established a quorum, and then heard Senate Bill 1553 from Senator Curtis Gregory. The bill is aimed at national defense and reshoring critical supply chains to the United States, including pharmaceuticals and critical minerals/materials used in defense and manufacturing. Gregory said the Senate had added clarifying language tying eligible materials to federal critical-material and FDA lists. Supporters testified that the bill could help Missouri compete in sectors now dominated by foreign producers, especially China and India, and could strengthen national security by encouraging domestic production of active pharmaceutical ingredients and critical minerals. Witnesses from Jost Chemical, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, the API Innovation Center, Doe Run, and Associated Industries of Missouri emphasized the difficulty of competing with subsidized foreign supply chains, the importance of transferable tax credits, and Missouri’s existing industrial base. Several witnesses noted that grants would be harder to administer and that federal support or price stability may still be needed for large-scale projects like mines. No one testified in opposition or for informational purposes. The committee then moved into executive session and voted unanimously to pass Senate Bill 1553, with nine ayes and zero nays.

Transcript Highlights:

• This expansion was done with the agreement of the pharmaceutical industry in order to have a place at
• <00:08:40.680> industry agreement of the pharmaceutical industry agreement of the pharmaceutical
• <00:26:28.279> iCal entirely supported by pharmaceutic iCal entirely supported by pharmaceutic
• not one single pharmaceutical not one single pharmaceutical manufacturer<00:27:01.640> in
• The pharmaceutical company agreed to that. For whatever reason, they were squeezed.

Keywords: 00:00 Introductions 02:46 Roll Call 03:35 Discussion on SB 14 46:13 Vote on SB 14 48:07 Discussion on SB 17 50:38 Vote on SB 17, 958, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Health Services opened with the chair welcoming several new members and outlining session rules: hearings would start and end on time, the committee would limit the number of bills heard each meeting, prioritize bills heard during the interim, and generally avoid using the consent calendar except in extreme circumstances. The committee then briefly considered administrative regulations, which were treated as approved if members had no questions. The main item was Senate Bill 14, a measure addressing the 340B drug discount program. The chair said the bill had already passed the Senate in a prior session and had been heard in interim, so he did not present it again. He described the bill as prohibiting drug manufacturers from discriminating against 340B covered entities by refusing 340B pricing when the same drug is offered at that price in the state. He also said the committee would not debate the federal 340B program itself, but would hear testimony on the bill. Hospital leaders and Kentucky Hospital Association representatives testified in support, arguing that 340B savings are essential to rural hospitals, oncology services, transportation support, chronic care, addiction recovery, and new service lines such as chemotherapy and hepatitis treatment. They said the program helps keep care close to home and that manufacturer restrictions on contract pharmacies have reduced access and cost hospitals millions. Opponents from BIO Kentucky and the National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions argued the bill would expand federal law beyond Congress’s intent, create administrative burdens, and not lower patient out-of-pocket costs. The chair repeatedly pressed opponents to address why Kentucky should be denied the same 340B pricing available in other states. No vote on the bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Same thing pharmaceutical industry, we need the pharmaceuticals, but we don't need to pay exorbitant
• Same thing pharmaceutical industry, we need the pharmaceuticals, but we don't need to pay exorbitant
• Same thing pharmaceutical industry, we need the pharmaceuticals, but we don't need to pay exorbitant
• Same thing pharmaceutical industry, we need the pharmaceuticals, but we don't need to pay exorbitant
• Same thing pharmaceutical industry, we need the pharmaceuticals, but we don't need to pay exorbitant

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The interview focused on Senate File 3612, which the senator described as “patient-centered care” legislation for Minnesota’s Medicaid and MinnesotaCare programs. He said the bill would remove private insurers and HMOs from administering those public programs, replace them with a state contract for claims processing and administrative services, and shift care coordination directly to primary care clinics, counties, and nonprofits. He argued the current managed-care system creates churn, prior-authorization barriers, and fragmented care, and said providers should manage care rather than insurers. The senator repeatedly cited Connecticut as a model, saying that state moved away from managed care, improved primary care participation, and saved money. He also argued Minnesota’s current system lacks transparency and may be overpaying health plans, pointing to fraud concerns and a past example in which UCare returned money to the state after an overpayment. He said the bill would improve accountability, make fraud easier to detect, and could save taxpayers billions, though he emphasized his main goal was better care rather than savings. On support and prospects, he said the bill has backing from the governor and the American Cancer Society but currently only DFL co-authors. He said he does not expect it to become law this year because the fiscal note and details are still pending, and he does not expect insurance companies to support it. He added that he is open to discussion but sees the insurers as fundamentally opposed. The interview ended with him saying workers in insurance and claims processing should be treated fairly and offered retraining or dislocated-worker support if broader reforms reduce their roles.

Transcript Highlights:

• pharmaceuticals is spent on marketing. pharmaceuticals is spent on marketing.
• <01:05:01.280> manufacturers<01:05:01.920> is pharmaceutical manufacturers is pharmaceutical
• and the pharmaceut pharmacy and the pharmaceutical<01:20:11.840> industry.
• Uh and that's pharmaceutical industry.
• <01:27:18.880> industry that it puts the pharmaceutical industry that it puts the pharmaceutical

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't know if we'll touch on this, but pharmaceutical-grade xylazine versus non-pharmaceutical-grade
• compounds that you would attain from a pharmacy or from a pharmaceutical distributor or a compounding
• The non-PG, as we call non-pharmaceutical-grade compounds.
• It's a difference between, you know, pharmaceutical-grade approved versus, you know, what's out there
• fentanyl and the non-pharmaceutical-grade fentanyl or the non-controlled production fentanyl.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The working group on best practices for oversight and enforcement met for its first session and focused on xylazine, including its legal veterinary uses, its appearance in the illicit drug supply, and whether it should be classified as a controlled substance. Members discussed the distinction between pharmaceutical-grade and non-pharmaceutical-grade xylazine, the role of international/illicit sourcing, and the limits of state-level regulation if the substance is already being added to fentanyl or other drugs outside the Commonwealth. The Department of Public Health representative summarized the agency’s view that scheduling xylazine could follow the “ironclad law of prohibition” and push the market toward other, potentially worse substances, and said DPH opposed straight scheduling in favor of education, support, and harm-reduction approaches. Veterinary members explained how xylazine is used in large-animal and research settings, why it is useful, and why federal-style scheduling could create practical burdens for veterinarians who work in the field. They also described reversal agents such as yohimbine and atipamezole (Antisedan), and noted that xylazine is not commonly used in small-animal practice. Several members raised questions about how much xylazine is actually used legally in Massachusetts, whether boards of pharmacy or distributors could provide useful data, and what other states have done. Arizona and Florida were mentioned as possible examples for further research, along with the need to examine stakeholder opposition and any effects on legitimate veterinary practice. The group agreed to divide into two subgroups: one focused on oversight and regulation of production/distribution, and another on whether xylazine should be classified as a controlled substance and what penalties, if any, should apply. Staff said they would circulate notes, a draft PowerPoint template, and a shared folder, with members asked to submit materials by December 2, draft materials due December 4, and final approval by December 9 ahead of the next public meeting on December 11. The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn, a second, and unanimous closure.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm Senior Director of State Affairs at Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, otherwise known as
• Pharmaceutical manufacturers are refusing to ship 340B-priced drugs to CHC, or community health center
• It also requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to ship 340B-priced drugs to pharmacy health centers and
• HDA is the national trade association representing pharmaceutical wholesale distributors.
• HDA is the national trade association representing pharmaceutical wholesale distributors.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a lengthy hearing on a large docket of pharmacy and drug-pricing bills, with most testimony focused on PBM reform, 340B drug discount program protections, specialty medication access, and medication adherence. Chair James Murphy and Senator Paul Feeney opened the hearing and took testimony from legislators, patient advocates, pharmacists, health center leaders, industry representatives, and policy groups. Several speakers described delays, denials, high out-of-pocket costs, and pharmacy closures tied to PBM practices, while others emphasized the importance of community health centers and independent pharmacies in serving patients. On the 340B program, supporters including Senator Eldridge, Senator Payano, Community Care Cooperative, Fenway Health, the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers, and several community health center leaders argued that bills such as H. 1107 and S. 819 would stop discriminatory PBM and manufacturer practices, preserve contract pharmacy access, and protect safety-net providers that say they reinvest savings into care, pharmacy expansion, interpreter services, behavioral health, and other services. Opponents including PhRMA, the Community Liver Alliance, and a public policy analyst argued the program lacks transparency and accountability, has grown beyond its original purpose, and may benefit large hospitals and for-profit entities more than low-income patients. They urged more reporting and oversight rather than expanding protections. On PBM reform, testimony supported bills including H. 1157, H. 1234, S. 724, S. 831, and related measures that would require rebate pass-through, ban spread pricing, limit steering to PBM-owned pharmacies, and improve reimbursement for community pharmacies. Independent pharmacists and patients said current PBM practices raise costs, create administrative burdens, and threaten access to local pharmacies. PCMA, representing PBMs, opposed the reforms, arguing PBMs lower costs, that plan sponsors choose to contract with them, and that the Health Policy Commission and CHIA should complete their ongoing study before new mandates are adopted. The committee also heard support for H. 1322 and S. 734 on specialty medications, and for H. 781 and H. 1305 on medication synchronization to improve adherence. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• ...asked the pharmaceutical companies to ask the U.S.
• for the top 10 CEOs of pharmaceutical for the top 10 CEOs of pharmaceutical manufacturer manufacturer
• All it's going to do is increase the bottom line of pharmaceutical manufacturers.
• This is funded through pharmaceutical companies providing these discounts to us.
• This is funded through pharmaceutical companies providing these discounts to us.

Keywords: 00:00:00 Call to Order/Roll Call 00:01:19 Discussion of 25RS HB 785 00:30:25 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 785 00:32:15 Discussion of 25RS HB 61 00:36:42 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 61 00:38:07 Discussion of 25RS HB 788 00:51:01 Discussion of 25RS SB 14 01:11:09 Discussion of 25RS HB 685 01:44:57 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Health Services met with a quorum and took up House Bill 785, as amended by a committee substitute that combined language from HB 785 and HB 787. The bill was described as addressing Medicaid managed care organization (MCO) audits, provider contract notice and amendment procedures, mental health parity compliance, and related transparency requirements. Supporters said the measure would tighten notice to providers, limit repeated contract amendments and rate reductions, require more standardized audit procedures, and add reporting on Medicaid claims, appeals, and grievances. It also includes a provision requiring coverage of at least two evaluation-and-management billable services per physician per recipient per date of service, and a section addressing narcotic/opioid treatment program licensing and reimbursement language. Testimony in support came from Representative Kim Moore, John Inman of BrightView Health, Michelle Sandborne of the Children’s Alliance, and Kelly Cormic of RYSE. They argued that MCOs often use audits and recoupments in ways that are burdensome, opaque, and financially damaging to providers, especially smaller and rural ones. They cited examples of multiple audit requests in short timeframes, large record requests with short deadlines, delayed or absent feedback, and recoupments taken before appeals are resolved. They also said parity laws are not being consistently enforced and that the bill would give the Department of Insurance authority to suspend or revoke an MCO certificate of authority for willful or repeated parity violations. Committee members generally expressed support for provider protections and transparency, while asking for clarification on the narcotic treatment and E/M billing provisions. Tom Stevens of the Kentucky Association of Health Plans testified in opposition, saying the bill is complex to implement and should be handled through the broader Medicaid oversight work of House Bill 9, the MOAB. He said the issues raised were better suited for that bipartisan stakeholder process and noted the committee substitute had not yet been fully reviewed by his group. After discussion, the committee adopted the committee substitute and then moved to a vote on the bill; the roll call began, with several members recorded as voting yes, but the transcript cuts off before the final vote result is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Texas has over 13,000, nearly 14,000 jobs in the pharmaceutical industry. pharmaceutical development
• Those restrictions come from the pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves.
• The transparency, I mean, where is the transparency on the pharmaceuticals?
• Evidence supports the idea that pharmaceuticals are still making a lot of money.
• Their pharmaceutical coverage.

Bills: HB712, HB722, HB946, HB1687, HB1809, HB1899, HB2528, HB2583, HB2741, HB2750, HB3021, HB3150, HB3265, HB3658, HB3812, HB3960, HB4392, HB4432

Keywords: prostate cancer, health benefit plans, insurance coverage, cost sharing, preventive health care, auto insurance, total loss evaluation, disclosure, insurance materials, vehicle appraisal, HB 946, Texas Insurance Code, automobile insurance claims, oral release, written release, settlement agreement, claim release, property damage, bodily injury, psychological injury

Transcript Highlights:

• But also, more importantly, through the Commerce Department and meeting directly with pharmaceutical
• We have 4.2% of the world's population and we take 50% of the pharmaceutical drugs.
• We're the only country that allows full-scale pharmaceutical ads on TV.
• Let's not just do something for the pharmaceutical company. So I appreciate you doing that.
• They did not come from the executives—not one nickel of PAC money from the pharmaceutical industry.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is the pharmaceutical companies that are the ones setting the high prices of drugs, and we're here
• negotiate with the pharmaceutical negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies<00:31:01.039> to
• <00:33:15.240> companies drugs it's the pharmaceutical companies drugs it's the pharmaceutical
• <00:36:02.119> prices impact pharmaceutical prices impact pharmaceutical prices specifically
• <00:36:21.599> advertising to me is the pharmaceutical advertising to me is the pharmaceutical

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00 Roll Call: 00:10 SB145 Discussion: 02:23 SB145 Vote: 05:13 SB183 Discussion: 06:13 SB183 Vote: 11:37 HB413 Discussion Only: 16:15, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Banking and Insurance met with a quorum and first took up Senate Bill 145, sponsored by Sen. David Givens. The bill would update retail installment contract statutes for automobile sales, allowing retailers with installment contracts shorter than 28 days to begin collections after three days instead of waiting for multiple missed payments, and it also harmonizes a related dollar amount in statute from $10 to $15. The committee asked no questions, and the bill received a favorable expression on a roll-call vote. The committee then heard Senate Bill 183 from Sen. Matt Nunn, with testimony from Chris Nolan of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. The bill would require proxy advisers acting for the State Retirement System to act solely in the financial interest of current and future retirees and to avoid political or social considerations in shareholder voting recommendations. Supporters argued it would keep politics out of public pensions and align proxy advice with fiduciary duties; members praised the bill and noted Kentucky could be among the first states to adopt such a model. The committee approved the bill with favorable expression after a roll-call vote. The committee also reviewed administrative regulation 808 KAR 9:10 from the Department of Financial Institutions, with no vote required. It then took up House Bill 413, a PBM rebate pass-through bill, with testimony from Sarah Wood of the Diabetes Patient Advocacy Coalition. She said the bill would require 85% of negotiated drug rebates to be passed through to patients at the point of sale, lowering out-of-pocket costs, especially for high-rebate drugs such as insulin, while still allowing 15% to remain with plans. She cited examples from other states and argued the bill would benefit about 650,000 Kentuckians. Hope McClaflin of Anthem opposed the bill, saying it would reduce employers’ ability to use rebates to lower premiums, could disproportionately favor high-cost brand-name drug users, and could create significant costs for state and fully insured plans. Members asked questions about other states’ pass-through rates and the effect on premiums, but no final action on House Bill 413 was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a voluntary program for pharmaceutical manufacturers.
• Those restrictions come from the pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves. All right.
• The pharmaceuticals are strangling delivery.
• Pharmaceuticals making a heck of a lot of money. But my rural hospitals are not.
• There are over 20,000 pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Transcript Highlights:

• 24:02.160> is Of those trillions, pharmaceutical is Of those trillions, pharmaceutical is the<
• <01:24:13.080> companies pharmaceutical companies pharmaceutical companies spend<01:24:15.600>
• millions of dollars on pharmaceuticals. millions of dollars on pharmaceuticals.
• many pharmaceutical commercials either. many pharmaceutical commercials either.
• profit margin of the pharmaceutical profit margin of the pharmaceutical company?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• you discuss why 340B was not included in the help omnibus and what your discussions with the pharmaceutical
• Uh, the discussions weren't with the pharmaceutical companies.
• have had with the pharmaceutical have had with the pharmaceutical industry.<00:19:55.000> Can
• discussions with the pharmaceutical discussions with the pharmaceutical industry<00:20:02.480>
• <00:20:05.960> The pharmaceutical companies. The pharmaceutical companies.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House Republican leaders in Minnesota gave a post-session recap focused on what they described as major accomplishments in a tied legislature. They highlighted passage of the Office of Inspector General bill to combat fraud, along with tax and fee relief measures including $125 million in property tax relief and $250 million in car tab reductions. They also pointed to funding for hospitals and uncompensated care, county IT modernization, school safety and mental health programs, public official safety at the Capitol and judicial branch, and a $1.2 billion bonding bill for infrastructure. Leaders repeatedly contrasted this session with the prior Democratic trifecta, arguing Republicans blocked new tax increases and helped make government more accountable and affordable. They said the OIG bill had been a top priority, had previously been blocked in the House, and was now signed into law. On health care, they said the final package included support for hospitals and denied that discussions about 340B involved pharmaceutical companies, saying offers on that issue were rejected by House Democrats. In response to questions, leaders said the tie forced public negotiation and that Minnesotans were the real winners because lawmakers worked together. They also defended the lack of final floor votes on gun-related proposals, saying those measures had been voted on multiple times in committee and on the floor but did not have the votes to pass. On transparency, they said the process was as open as possible and that bonding projects had been heard in committee and reviewed by the bonding team before inclusion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Swanson, is that you both talked about pharmaceuticals. I don't think that gets mentioned.
• On the pharmaceutical piece, looking at both nationally and internationally, if we don't move further
• multiplier that the pharmaceutical industry will have to catch up with.
• And I'm assuming you don't have to pump these cells full of pharmaceuticals. No, at all.
• And I'm assuming you don't have to pump these cells full of pharmaceuticals. No, not at all.

Summary: The Select Committee on Alternative Protein Innovation held its first informational hearing to examine the state of alternative protein research, industry growth, and policy needs in California. The chair opened by noting California’s $5 million public investment in UC research in 2022 and framed the hearing around three panels: the climate, environmental, and security potential of alternative proteins; industry scaling and commercialization; and university-led research and workforce development. Members emphasized that the committee will continue with site visits and additional hearings across the state. The first panel focused on the case for alternative proteins as a climate, land, water, biodiversity, and food-security solution. Shana Fertig of the Good Food Institute argued that plant-based, fermentation-derived, and cultivated proteins can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and water use while helping California meet its climate and conservation goals. Zane Swanson of CSIS added that alternative proteins could reduce risks tied to zoonotic disease, antimicrobial resistance, supply-chain disruption, and broader national security concerns. In questions, members discussed the role of pharmaceuticals in animal agriculture and how alternative proteins might complement, rather than replace, traditional farming by creating new markets for California crops and helping farmers diversify. The second panel featured industry leaders Ethan Brown of Beyond Meat, Myra Passick of Upside Foods, and Arye Elfenbein of Wildtype. Brown highlighted plant-based meat’s health and climate benefits, criticized misinformation campaigns against the sector, and urged better labeling, reduced subsidies for factory farming, and more plant-based food in public institutions. Passick described cultivated meat as a scalable food-production technology, said Upside Foods has already produced millions of pounds annually at its Emeryville facility, and asked for grants, low-interest loans, and possible participation in cap-and-trade or similar revenue programs. Elfenbein described cultivated seafood as a way to address overfishing, contamination, traceability problems, and the heavy import dependence of the U.S. seafood supply, while also noting conservation benefits and the need for California to remain a hub for the industry. The final panel centered on research and workforce development. UCLA’s Amy Rowat described state-funded work on technical bottlenecks such as growing fat cells and creating edible scaffolds, along with a Future Food Fellows program that trains students across science, engineering, law, and policy. UC Santa Cruz economist Galina Hale argued that alternative proteins are necessary to meet future protein demand while reducing food-system emissions, and said California must support the sector through grants, loans, procurement, and research centers to avoid losing leadership to other states and countries. The hearing ended with the chair thanking the witnesses, noting that all materials would be posted online, and saying the committee would continue building policy and budget proposals to support the sector.

Transcript Highlights:

• requires drug pharmaceutical requires drug pharmaceutical manufacturers<00:13:53.080> to<
• And yet today we have pharmaceutical And yet today we have pharmaceutical companies<01:15:04.640
• > the<01:15:30.840> US US pharmaceutical profits in the US US pharmaceutical profits in
• Thanks. or do we stand with the pharmaceutical or do we stand with the pharmaceutical companies<01:18
• pharmaceuticals pharmaceuticals uh<01:30:19.000> and<01:30:19.200> all<01:30:19.320>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Supply costs have increased on average by 5% since COVID-19 officially ended, and pharmaceutical costs
• We partnered with Amnial Pharmaceuticals through an open request for information process.
• The pharmaceutical sector, as you know, is well known for being secretive and litigious.
• You mentioned the company was Amnial Pharmaceutical. How exactly were they chosen?
• Most pharmaceutical companies have lawsuits against them. That's probably true.

Keywords: 988, house, all