Transcript Highlights:

• The state's budget has grown at an exponential rate, and the sales tax is the primary driver of that
• These checks do not actually lower tax rates. These checks do not solve the property tax problem.

Bills: HB 3902, HB 4420, HB 3269, HB 469, HB 336, HB 316, HB 5396, HB 993, HB 1342, HB 5216, HB 2046, HB 2188, HB 2450, HB 2813, HB 2857, HB 4075, HB 2911, HB 4682, HB 3117, HB 3253, HB 3442, HB 4820, HB 4336, HB 5356, HB 3669, HB 3428, HB 5465, HB 3662, HB 2590, HB 2288, HB 1886, HB 3458, HB 5603, HB 5620, HB 1489, HB 4101, HB 4990, HB 5685, HB 4950, HB 4980, HB 5684, HB 3507, HB 3566, HB 4487, HB 4462, HB 4876, HB 4915, HB 4663, HB 5570, HB 2929, HB 5261, HB 2920, HB 4642, HB 4746, HB 1609, HB 5403, HB 5453, HB 3844, HB 2336, HB 1572, HB 1226, HB 2806, HB 2617, HB 2827, HB 3948, HB 3945, HB 4266, HB 4542, HB 3319, HB 1772, HB 2496, HB 1970, HB 3434, HB 5545, HB 5577, HCR 59, HCR 135, HB 4, HB 46, HB 3221, HB 1403, HB 3892, HB 4234, HB 722, HB 4105, HB 4413, HB 170, HB 551, HB 3053, HB 3142, HB 3180, HB 3722, HB 1794, HB 1784, HB 1581, HB 2530, HB 4308, HB 1896, HB 2974, HB 3359, HB 4580, HB 2458, HB 2215, HB 3332, HB 2278, HB 3015, HB 3151, HB 1368, HB 40, HB 101, HB 112, HB 146, HB 214, HB 413, HB 1523, HB 493, HB 521, HB 594, HB 557, HB 305, HB 549, HB 854, HB 1057, HB 1052, HB 842, HB 3174, HB 3196, HB 824, HB 1039, HB 2529, HB 2713, HB 4936, HB 4995, HB 4830, HB 4864, HB 5219, HB 5263, HB 5154, HB 2674, HB 5525, SB 529, SB 541, SB 2004, SB 1012, SB 2269, SB 1886, SB 1236, SB 693, SB 2308, HB 2486, HB 4862, HB 4689, HB 4520, HB 2225, HB 168, HJR 218, HB 4921, HB 5623, HB 2494, HB 2545, HB 2587, HB 2625, HB 5520, HB 5436, HB 4926, HB 1573, HB 5165, HB 4811, HB 5081, HB 4755, HB 3179, HB 4310, HB 4611, HB 2159, HB 4626, HB 3637, HB 3153, HB 3066, HB 2786, HB 2966, HB 638, HB 640, HB 876, HB 497, HB 5539, HB 4809, HB 5308, HB 4687, HB 4070, HB 4421, HB 4412, HB 3284, HB 3369, HB 3420, HB 3449, HB 4098, HB 4281, HB 4120, HB 4504, HB 4370, HB 1106, HB 2370, HB 2404, HB 3863, HB 2407, HB 2253, HB 2273, HB 2040, HB 1586, HB 3788, HB 3993, HB 4690, HB 4309, HB 4696, HB 2308, HB 1142, HB 1533, HB 1621, HB 2242, HB 2012, HB 2193, HB 2442, HB 2464, HB 2348, HB 2313, HB 2289, HB 1942, HB 2011, HB 1629, HB 2993, HB 3592, HB 3824, HB 4076, HB 4535, HB 4623, HB 4773, HB 1091, HB 5115, HB 5515, HB 3372, HB 5659, HB 127, HB 386, HB 115, HB 2868, HB 1249, HB 4766, HB 3720, HB 4656, HB 4879, HB 105, HB 5383, HB 4621, HB 5431, HB 5678, HB 5534, HB 4174, HB 4212, HB 3954, HB 3966, HB 3636, HB 3918, HB 1422, HB 4765, HB 4732, HB 4742, HB 5122, HB 4518, HB 5084, HB 3986, HB 4045, HB 4144, HB 3911, HB 3976, HB 4473, HB 3425, HB 3641, HB 3642, HB 3475, HB 3509, HB 3424, HB 3383, HB 4744, HB 4531, HB 4539, HB 3159, HB 5228, HB 5370, HB 4359, HB 4398, HB 4443, HB 4466, HB 3861, HB 3849, HB 4240, HB 4706, HB 4685, HB 5354, HB 5141, HB 5686, HB 3629, HB 3554, HB 3567, HB 2015, HB 3575, HB 5381, HB 1431, HB 3514, HB 4614, HB 4546, HB 4683, HB 5681, HB 5673, HB 5663, HB 4271, HB 4350, HB 4035, HB 3807, HB 3812, HB 3552, HB 3540, HB 3715, HB 3710, HB 3664, HB 4196, HB 4233, HB 4173, HB 1998, HB 3333, HB 3510, HB 4222, HB 2070, HB 2854, HB 2347, HB 113, HB 983, HB 4847, HB 1449, HB 3833, HB 5151, HB 265, HB 1845, HB 782, HB 108, HB 1960, HB 158, HB 1954, HB 1955, HB 2512, HB 605, HB 2581, HB 2803, HB 627, HB 2667, HB 1738, HB 636, HB 3679, HB 2638, HB 2655, HB 871, HB 2438, HB 1107, HB 1765, HB 1822, HB 2153, HB 4099, HB 3732, HB 3171, HB 3178, HB 3182, HB 3749, HB 2814, HB 3977, HB 4204, HB 4207, HB 4449, HB 1820, HB 1876, HB 1939, HB 1347, HB 2593, HB 2136, HB 2132, HB 2658, HB 2413, HB 2757, HB 2080, HB 3154, HB 3063, HB 3009, HB 3448, HB 3006, HB 2844, HB 3241, HB 3680, HB 3169, HB 2078, HB 2507, HB 4559, HB 3946, HB 3460, HB 3405, HB 475, HB 3463, HB 3441, HB 3520, HB 2060, HB 4731, HB 4991, HB 1991, HB 5596, HB 2014, HB 2142, HB 2673, HB 2731, HB 2417, HB 2399, HB 2301, HB 3335, HB 3234, HB 3320, HB 5573, HB 4848, HB 4748, HB 4769, HB 4795, HB 2086, HB 2234, HB 2203, HB 4916, HB 5624, HB 4505, HB 139, HB 5093, HB 5302, HB 5402, HB 5606, HB 2333, HB 4630, HB 4701, HB 2583, HB 2983, HB 4924, HB 3339, HB 3793, HB 3631, HB 4882, HB 5509, HB 5499, HB 5430, HB 5561, HB 5611, HB 5043, HB 5064, HB 3733, HB 3781, HB 3219, HB 32, HB 4515, HB 5348, HB 3902, HB 4420, HB 3269, HB 469, HB 336, HB 316, HB 5396, HB 993, HB 1342, HB 5216, HB 2046, HB 2188, HB 2450, HB 2813, HB 2857, HB 4075, HB 2911, HB 4682, HB 3117, HB 3253, HB 3442, HB 4820, HB 4336, HB 5356, HB 3669, HB 3428, HB 5465, HB 3662, HB 2590, HB 2288, HB 1886, HB 3458, HB 5603, HB 5620, HB 1489, HB 4101, HB 4990, HB 5685, HB 4950, HB 4980, HB 5684, HB 3507, HB 3566, HB 4487, HB 4462, HB 4876, HB 4915, HB 4663, HB 5570, HB 2929, HB 5261, HB 2920, HB 4642, HB 4746, HB 1609, HB 5403, HB 5453, HB 3844, HB 2336, HB 1572, HB 1226, HB 2806, HB 2617, HB 2827, HB 3948, HB 3945, HB 4266, HB 4542, HB 3319, HB 1772, HB 2496, HB 1970, HB 3434, HB 5545, HB 5577, HCR 76, HCR 127, HCR 9, HCR 40, HCR 118, HR 559, HCR 59, HCR 135

Keywords: Medicaid, reimbursement, nursing facilities, ownership change, healthcare policy, mental health, psychiatric beds, inpatient psychiatric treatment, acute psychiatric care, bed availability, bed capacity, hospital reporting, HHSC, Health and Human Services Commission, state hospitals, private mental health facilities, civil commitment, competency restoration, not guilty by reason of insanity, jail diversion

Summary: The Florida House passed Senate Bill 2510 relating to prekindergarten through grade 12 education funding and policies. Speaker Perez delivered remarks criticizing the Senate for breaking a budget deal and outlined the House's position on reducing state spending and revenue. He emphasized that the state has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and proposed various tax cuts including sales tax, business rent tax, and communication services tax eliminations. The House also passed a concurrent resolution extending the 2025 legislative session until June 30, 2025. Perez stressed that property tax relief and state revenue reduction are separate issues, highlighting the House's tourist development tax reform proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• The appraisal process does not determine tax rates.
• No, it's the people who set the tax rates.
• But at the end of the day, this is about the tax rate.
• They get to say that, "Hey, your tax rate went down," when, in fact, the effective rate went up.
• The taxing jurisdictions set the tax rates.

Bills: HB3902, HB4420, HB3269, HB469, HB336, HB316, HB5396, HB993, HB1342, HB5216, HB2046, HB2188, HB2450, HB2813, HB2857, HB4075, HB2911, HB4682, HB3117, HB3253, HB3442, HB4820, HB4336, HB5356, HB3669, HB3428, HB5465, HB3662, HB2590, HB2288, HB1886, HB3458, HB5603, HB5620, HB1489, HB4101, HB4990, HB5685, HB4950, HB4980, HB5684, HB3507, HB3566, HB4487, HB4462, HB4876, HB4915, HB4663, HB5570, HB2929, HB5261, HB2920, HB4642, HB4746, HB1609, HB5403, HB5453, HB3844, HB2336, HB1572, HB 1226, HB2806, HB2617, HB2827, HB3948, HB3945, HB4266, HB4542, HB3319, HB1772, HB2496, HB1970, HB3434, HB5545, HB5577, HCR59, HCR135, HB4, HB46, HB3221, HB1403, HB3892, HB4234, HB722, HB4105, HB4413, HB170, HB551, HB3053, HB3142, HB3180, HB3722, HB1794, HB1784, HB1581, HB2530, HB4308, HB1896, HB2974, HB3359, HB4580, HB2458, HB2215, HB3332, HB2278, HB3015, HB3151, HB1368, HB40, HB 101, HB 112, HB146, HB214, HB413, HB1523, HB493, HB521, HB594, HB557, HB305, HB549, HB854, HB 1057, HB 1052, HB842, HB3174, HB3196, HB824, HB 1039, HB2529, HB2713, HB4936, HB4995, HB4830, HB4864, HB5219, HB5263, HB5154, HB2674, HB5525, SB529, SB541, SB2004, SB1012, SB2269, SB1886, SB1236, SB693, SB2308, HB2486, HB4862, HB4689, HB4520, HB2225, HB168, HJR218, HB4921, HB5623, HB2494, HB2545, HB2587, HB2625, HB5520, HB5436, HB4926, HB1573, HB5165, HB4811, HB5081, HB4755, HB3179, HB4310, HB4611, HB2159, HB4626, HB3637, HB3153, HB3066, HB2786, HB2966, HB638, HB640, HB876, HB497, HB5539, HB4809, HB5308, HB4687, HB4070, HB4421, HB4412, HB3284, HB3369, HB3420, HB3449, HB4098, HB4281, HB4120, HB4504, HB4370, HB 1106, HB2370, HB2404, HB3863, HB2407, HB2253, HB2273, HB2040, HB1586, HB3788, HB3993, HB4690, HB4309, HB4696, HB2308, HB 1142, HB1533, HB1621, HB2242, HB2012, HB2193, HB2442, HB2464, HB2348, HB2313, HB2289, HB1942, HB2011, HB1629, HB2993, HB3592, HB3824, HB4076, HB4535, HB4623, HB4773, HB 1091, HB5115, HB5515, HB3372, HB5659, HB 127, HB386, HB 115, HB2868, HB 1249, HB4766, HB3720, HB4656, HB4879, HB 105, HB5383, HB4621, HB5431, HB5678, HB5534, HB4174, HB4212, HB3954, HB3966, HB3636, HB3918, HB1422, HB4765, HB4732, HB4742, HB5122, HB4518, HB5084, HB3986, HB4045, HB4144, HB3911, HB3976, HB4473, HB3425, HB3641, HB3642, HB3475, HB3509, HB3424, HB3383, HB4744, HB4531, HB4539, HB3159, HB5228, HB5370, HB4359, HB4398, HB4443, HB4466, HB3861, HB3849, HB4240, HB4706, HB4685, HB5354, HB5141, HB5686, HB3629, HB3554, HB3567, HB2015, HB3575, HB5381, HB1431, HB3514, HB4614, HB4546, HB4683, HB5681, HB5673, HB5663, HB4271, HB4350, HB4035, HB3807, HB3812, HB3552, HB3540, HB3715, HB3710, HB3664, HB4196, HB4233, HB4173, HB1998, HB3333, HB3510, HB4222, HB2070, HB2854, HB2347, HB 113, HB983, HB4847, HB1449, HB3833, HB5151, HB265, HB1845, HB782, HB 108, HB1960, HB158, HB1954, HB1955, HB2512, HB605, HB2581, HB2803, HB627, HB2667, HB1738, HB636, HB3679, HB2638, HB2655, HB871, HB2438, HB 1107, HB1765, HB1822, HB2153, HB4099, HB3732, HB3171, HB3178, HB3182, HB3749, HB2814, HB3977, HB4204, HB4207, HB4449, HB1820, HB1876, HB1939, HB1347, HB2593, HB2136, HB2132, HB2658, HB2413, HB2757, HB2080, HB3154, HB3063, HB3009, HB3448, HB3006, HB2844, HB3241, HB3680, HB3169, HB2078, HB2507, HB4559, HB3946, HB3460, HB3405, HB475, HB3463, HB3441, HB3520, HB2060, HB4731, HB4991, HB1991, HB5596, HB2014, HB2142, HB2673, HB2731, HB2417, HB2399, HB2301, HB3335, HB3234, HB3320, HB5573, HB4848, HB4748, HB4769, HB4795, HB2086, HB2234, HB2203, HB4916, HB5624, HB4505, HB139, HB5093, HB5302, HB5402, HB5606, HB2333, HB4630, HB4701, HB2583, HB2983, HB4924, HB3339, HB3793, HB3631, HB4882, HB5509, HB5499, HB5430, HB5561, HB5611, HB5043, HB5064, HB3733, HB3781, HB3219, HB32, HB4515, HB5348, HB3902, HB4420, HB3269, HB469, HB336, HB316, HB5396, HB993, HB1342, HB5216, HB2046, HB2188, HB2450, HB2813, HB2857, HB4075, HB2911, HB4682, HB3117, HB3253, HB3442, HB4820, HB4336, HB5356, HB3669, HB3428, HB5465, HB3662, HB2590, HB2288, HB1886, HB3458, HB5603, HB5620, HB1489, HB4101, HB4990, HB5685, HB4950, HB4980, HB5684, HB3507, HB3566, HB4487, HB4462, HB4876, HB4915, HB4663, HB5570, HB2929, HB5261, HB2920, HB4642, HB4746, HB1609, HB5403, HB5453, HB3844, HB2336, HB1572, HB 1226, HB2806, HB2617, HB2827, HB3948, HB3945, HB4266, HB4542, HB3319, HB1772, HB2496, HB1970, HB3434, HB5545, HB5577, HCR76, HCR127, HCR9, HCR40, HCR118, HR559, HCR59, HCR135

Keywords: Medicaid, reimbursement, nursing facilities, ownership change, healthcare policy, mental health, psychiatric beds, inpatient psychiatric treatment, acute psychiatric care, bed availability, bed capacity, hospital reporting, HHSC, Health and Human Services Commission, state hospitals, private mental health facilities, civil commitment, competency restoration, not guilty by reason of insanity, jail diversion

Transcript Highlights:

• We calculated that rate to be $885, so again, that rate is more than what the benchmark rate would have
• We calculated that rate to be $885, so again, that rate is more than what the benchmark rate would have
• We calculated that rate to be $885, so again, that rate is more than what the benchmark rate would have
• I want to reiterate that the rate study results are the rates reported, the rates that it would take
• rates you know each rate study for each rates you know each rate<00:52:47.200><c> so</c><00:52:47.400

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Health and Family Services met with a quorum still coming together and first handled roll call and minutes. The main presentation came from the Department for Medicaid Services, with Commissioner Lisa Lee and CFO Steve Beckle giving an overview of Kentucky Medicaid, its federal-state financing structure, and the department’s 1915(c) home- and community-based waiver programs. They explained FMAP funding levels for traditional Medicaid, administration, IT, expansion adults, and CHIP, and noted the size of the program, including more than 600,000 Kentucky children eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, about 485,000 expansion adults, over 69,000 enrolled providers, and $18.5 billion in 2024 expenditures. A major focus was the waiver system, including the acquired brain injury waivers, model waiver, independence waiver, Michelle P. waiver, and Supports for Community Living waiver. The department said these waivers are intended to keep people with physical or developmental disabilities in home and community settings rather than facilities, and that many services are not covered by Medicare or commercial insurance. Officials described participant-directed services, interagency administration, and eligibility rules, including that some waiver programs use the child’s income only rather than family income. They also reported an unduplicated waiver wait list of 13,930 people and said the General Assembly had added waiver slots in the last budget, including 650 ABI slots and 1,275 more to be allocated July 1, 2025. The department also discussed a waiver rate study conducted by Guidehouse, explaining that CMS requires a defensible rate methodology because there is no Medicare or commercial benchmark for many waiver services. They said the study used cost and wage surveys, provider and stakeholder input, and aimed to improve transparency, provider stability, and rate parity. Officials reviewed prior COVID-era Appendix K rate increases and budget-driven increases, and said the budget ultimately funded rates at about 70% of the benchmark study, while preserving higher existing rates where needed so no provider would be cut. They highlighted larger differences in behavioral support and case management rates, and said a public report is available. Members asked several questions about the potential impact of federal FMAP changes, especially possible reductions in the enhanced match for expansion adults and Medicaid IT/admin activities. DMS said any FMAP reduction would require more state general fund dollars, estimating about $75 million for each 1% drop in the expansion match, while impacts on administrative IT funding would depend on the systems being built or implemented in a given year. Members also pressed for clarification on waiver wait-list procedures, funded versus filled slots, and what happens when someone on the wait list is later found ineligible. DMS said people on the wait list may not yet have been assessed, can be reevaluated if conditions change, and are still eligible for regular Medicaid state-plan services if they qualify, even if they are waiting for waiver services.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and gave future rate-setting authority to the Pension Funding Council. ...and gave future rate-setting
• rates on the prior slide.
• rate column, the PERS employer rate reflects an underlying minimum rate of 4.6%.
• We saw that for PERS, where the combination of the minimum rate... ...2027-29 biennium rates.
• This would invite a motion to adopt the rates. I make a motion to adopt the rates. Thank you.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the actuarial contribution rates.
• rates on the prior slide.
• rate column, the PERS employer rate reflects an underlying minimum rate of 4.6%.
• We saw that for PERS, where the combination of the minimum rate... ...2027–2029 biennium rates.
• This would invite a motion to adopt the rates. I make a motion to adopt the rates. Thank you.

Summary: The Pension Funding Council met on June 23, 2026, for a work session that began with an overview of the Higher Education Supplemental Retirement Plan (SRP) and a 2025 accounting valuation of that plan. Staff explained that the SRP is a closed defined benefit supplement for higher education employees hired before the 2011 closure, with employer contributions currently pre-funding benefits in institution-specific trusts while institutions still pay benefits on a pay-as-you-go basis. The State Actuary’s office reported that the plan’s accounting position has improved, with combined market assets of about $245 million against $377 million in accrued liability, and that strong market performance since 2022 has increased the asset-to-liability ratio. The office emphasized that this was an educational accounting valuation, not a funding valuation for rate-setting. The council then received the 2025 actuarial valuation report for the state retirement systems. Actuaries reviewed the recent demographic experience study, noting updated assumptions for mortality, retirement, termination, and salary growth, and said the net impact on most plans was small. They reported that most plans’ funded ratios improved, with all plans at least 94% funded and several at or above 100%, and that contribution rates for the 2027–2029 biennium are generally lower than current rates. They also noted that future rates could be affected by market volatility as deferred gains are recognized over the next few years. During public comment, a representative of the Association of Washington Cities urged the council to consider rate reductions to help local governments facing budget pressures. In executive session, the council first approved a motion directing the Office of the State Actuary to perform an actuarial evaluation and analysis of each institution’s Higher Education Supplemental Retirement Plan, including institution-specific contribution rates, asset sufficiency, and funding policy options, due by July 1, 2028. The council then adopted the 2027–2029 pension contribution rates based on the 2025 actuarial valuation report. Both motions passed 5-0, with one member excused. The meeting concluded with no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• rate add-ons and rate cutbacks different rate add-ons and rate cutbacks which<00:07:01.599><c> again
• So these are rates that are not currently cost-based rates.
• were</c> but um these rates these sud rates were but um these rates these sud rates were mostly<00:19
• rate?
• </c><00:40:11.040><c> and</c> mental health rates and sud rates um and mental health rates and sud rates

Bills: HF1005

Keywords: health insurance, medical assistance, behavioral health, reimbursement rates, primary care services, physician fee schedule, managed care, residential services, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• for rates of retirement.
• So we have rates.
• but that DROP crediting rate is based on the market rate of return of 11.7%.
• That's the latest rate, the rate being paid at this point in time.
• rate currently of 13.5%.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The Public Retirement System Actuarial Committee met on February 23, 2026, approved the December 18, 2025 minutes, and heard no public comment. The committee then reviewed actuarial valuation reports and, for most systems, accompanying experience studies. The actuaries reported generally favorable investment and demographic experience across the systems, with funded ratios improving and employer contribution rates declining in several plans. They also explained the role of funding deposit accounts, frozen unfunded liabilities in some plans, and how recent legislative changes, especially the move to five-year DROP periods in some systems, affected assumptions and costs. For the Louisiana Clerk of Court Retirement Relief Fund, the committee adopted the valuation and experience study, recognizing a fiscal 2027 minimum recommended employer rate of 14.75%. For the District Attorney’s Retirement System, it adopted the valuation and experience study and recognized a fiscal 2027 minimum rate of 3.00%. For the Firefighters’ Retirement System, the committee adopted the valuation and experience study, recognized a fiscal 2027 minimum rate of 25.5%, and noted that DROP balances left on deposit will earn the market rate of return of 11.7%. The committee also adopted the Municipal Employees’ Retirement System valuation for both Plan A and Plan B, recognizing fiscal 2027 minimum rates of 20.75% and 8.75%, respectively. It adopted the Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System valuation and experience study, recognizing a fiscal 2027 minimum rate of 26.5%, a DROP crediting rate of 7.4%, and a policy range up to 29.35% for future contributions. For the Registrars of Voters Employees’ Retirement System, the committee adopted the valuation and experience study, recognized a fiscal 2027 minimum rate of 0%, and noted a $207,683 allocation to the Member Supplemental Savings Fund for fiscal 2026. Finally, it adopted the Sheriff’s Pension and Relief Fund valuation and experience study, recognizing a fiscal 2027 minimum rate of 7.75%. All motions passed without objection, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• our assumed rates?
• DROP crediting rate is based on the market rate of return of 11.7%.
• That's the latest rate, the rate being paid at this point in time.
• rate currently of 13.5%.
• Savings from DROP rates.

Summary: The Public Retirement System Actuarial Committee met on February 23, 2026, approved the December 18, 2025 minutes, and heard actuarial valuation reports and experience studies for several retirement systems. Presenters repeatedly noted strong investment performance, payroll growth, and generally improving funded ratios across the systems, with most plans showing lower minimum recommended employer contribution rates for fiscal 2027. The committee also received explanations of funding deposit accounts, frozen unfunded liabilities in some plans, and how recent legislative changes, including the move to five-year DROP periods in some systems, affected costs and assumptions. For the Clerk of Court, District Attorney, Firefighters, Municipal Employees (Plans A and B), Municipal Police, Registrars of Voters, and Sheriffs systems, the committee reviewed 2025 actuarial evaluations and, where applicable, 2025 experience studies. The actuarial reviewers reported no significant deficiencies and said the valuations were completed in accordance with applicable actuarial standards, generally accepted actuarial practice, and state statutes. The experience studies generally led to modest assumption changes, with some cost decreases from salary, mortality, withdrawal, and asset experience, while some plans saw offsetting increases from retirement or post-DROP behavior. The committee asked a brief question about mortality assumptions and was told the studies use separate male/female and safety/non-safety tables adjusted for Louisiana experience. The committee adopted each valuation and experience study without objection. Key fiscal 2027 minimum recommended employer contribution rates included 14.75% for Clerk of Court, 3.0% for District Attorneys, 25.5% for Firefighters, 20.75% for MERS Plan A, 8.75% for MERS Plan B, 26.5% for Municipal Police, 0% for Registrars of Voters with a $207,683 allocation to the Member Supplemental Savings Fund, and 7.75% for Sheriffs. The committee also recognized DROP crediting rates where applicable and adjourned after completing all agenda items.

Transcript Highlights:

• That kicks off our rate-setting process. So 2025 is the basis for 2027 rates.
• for 2027 rates.
• for 2027 rates.
• year 2027 rates.
• So for 2027 rates, OHA is moving to release the rate model on August 12th to provide 21 2027 rates.

Keywords: 907, all

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing focused first on Oregon Medicaid coordinated care organization (CCO) finances and rate setting. Oregon Health Authority staff explained how 2025 CCO financial results will inform 2027 capitation rates, including reserve requirements, subcapitation arrangements, and major cost drivers such as behavioral health, pharmacy, rural hospital costs, and dental directed payments. They said the Legislature’s added 2025 funding materially improved CCO margins and that, without it, the program would have been negative overall. Members asked about retained earnings, subcapitation, behavioral health utilization, ABA therapy, and whether outcomes are being evaluated; OHA said rate setting is actuarial and that CCOs, OHA, and other partners all play roles in monitoring efficacy and access. OHA also reviewed House Bill 4039 changes intended to increase transparency and give CCOs earlier access to rate information and reconciliation exhibits. CCO representatives then testified that the system is under significant financial pressure and that behavioral health state-directed payments, benefit changes, and federal uncertainty from H.R. 1 are reducing flexibility. CareOregon said it has lost more than $500 million over the last couple of years and is now making provider terminations and other network changes to align spending with available funding, while emphasizing that CCOs must make hard decisions about which services and providers can be sustained. Eastern Oregon CCO said rural and frontier factors, cost-based hospitals, air ambulance needs, and statewide efficiency adjustments are not fully reflected in rates, and that dental funding is especially strained. Trillium similarly warned that state-directed payments and benefit expansion pressures are constraining the global budget model and that H.R. 1 could worsen acuity and volatility. Members pressed the witnesses on who is responsible for evaluating treatment effectiveness, especially for ABA and psychotherapy, and on how utilization limits and reimbursement changes are being used to control costs. The committee then shifted to an overview of the Affordable Care Act and Oregon’s commercial insurance market. Department of Consumer and Business Services staff explained actuarial value, metal tiers, premium tax credits, medical loss ratio rules, and the main drivers of premium rates: cost trend, utilization trend, and administrative costs. They said mandates have likely added only a limited amount to premiums over the past decade, though the exact effect is difficult to isolate, and they gave examples of how high-cost, low-volume services versus broad, high-utilization services can affect rates differently. Staff also noted that Providence Health Plan and PacificSource Health Plans are withdrawing from the individual market, though consumers should still have at least three insurer options in every county and may have four in many counties. The division said it is in the middle of reviewing proposed 2027 rates and will continue its public rate review process, including hearings and written comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• So some amounts will roll off of rates even as other approved costs enter rates.
• rate base.
• Sustained increases in rate base place upward pressure on customers' rates and bills.
• rate base.
• That's not to say the rate case is not important. The rate case is vitally important.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications held an oversight hearing focused on electric rates, utility regulation, affordability, wildfire costs, and the California Public Utilities Commission’s role. Chair and members framed the discussion around the challenge of transitioning to a cleaner grid while maintaining reliability and keeping bills affordable. The hearing also served as the annual update from the CPUC and the Public Advocates Office, with testimony from Professor Severin Borenstein and CPUC President-designate Alice Reynolds. Borenstein gave a primer on utility regulation, explaining that generation is largely deregulated while transmission and distribution remain regulated, and that most rate-setting follows cost-of-service regulation. He emphasized that the hardest issue is setting the allowed return on equity: too high can raise bills and encourage capital-heavy spending, while too low can deter investment and harm reliability. He argued there is no silver bullet, said performance-based regulation and price caps have limits, and suggested some costs now charged through electric bills—such as climate programs, low-income subsidies, and wildfire-related public policy costs—might more appropriately be paid through the state budget. Reynolds described the CPUC’s oversight role, saying the commission reviews utility spending through general rate cases, balancing accounts, and other proceedings, and that affordability is addressed through front-end scrutiny, post-spend accountability, and legislative direction. She highlighted wildfire mitigation as a major driver of rate increases, noted recent progress on clean energy procurement and battery storage, and said the CPUC is working on return-on-equity decisions, FERC advocacy on transmission costs, and implementation of SB 254 and other statutes. Members pressed on a range of issues, including wildfire securitization, load growth from EVs and data centers, gas-system stranded assets, balancing accounts, and a water-service dispute in Keene involving Union Pacific. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with several follow-up commitments from the CPUC to provide data and updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• We can't recover that until we have a rate case. So you smooth out those rate increases.
• Those assets, the utility would get its rate of return on the rate base; that transmission rate base,
• Those assets, the utility would get its rate of return on the rate base; that transmission rate base,
• Look at the rates. If I'm looking at Ohio's rates, I'm going to look at the EIA rate.
• Look at the rates. If I'm looking at Ohio's rates, I'm going to look at the EIA rate.

Summary: The committee first met in executive session, laying over H.J.R. 153 and H.J.R. 119, then unanimously advanced HB 2904 after adopting a committee amendment and substitute. HB 2904 passed 13-0. The committee also adopted a substitute for HB 2933 and sent that bill do pass by a vote of 11-3. The committee then moved into regular session and heard HB 2266, which would add the attorney general and staff, or as members suggested possibly assistant attorney generals, to the list of officials authorized to concealed carry while performing duties. The sponsor and an assistant attorney general testified that the bill was intended to protect AG staff who travel and work in courthouses and hotels; some members raised concerns about the breadth of the term “staff,” and one witness urged clearer limits and identification safeguards. No vote was taken on HB 2266 in the portion provided. The committee then heard HB 2207 and HB 2233 together, both aimed at restructuring Missouri’s electric industry to allow competitive generation while keeping transmission and distribution regulated. The sponsors argued that competition would lower costs, improve reliability, spur innovation, and let customers choose suppliers, while preserving PSC oversight of the grid and default service. Supporters, including a market think tank and retail energy advocates, said competitive states have seen more generation investment and that private generators bear their own risk rather than ratepayers. Opponents, including Evergy, argued deregulation has not delivered promised savings, can increase fraud and consumer confusion, and would force divestment of utility generation assets without clear guardrails. Members pressed witnesses on comparisons to Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, legacy costs, divestment mechanics, and whether the PSC would still set generation-related rates; witnesses disagreed sharply on the likely effect on residential prices and on whether the bill’s structure was sufficiently specific.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any questions on the rates, committee? Any questions on the rates, committee?
• How do you establish a rate, a leave day rate that might be different than the full rate?
• It's different than the flat rate. It's a little more complicated than the flat rate.
• We work on their rates in December for a January 1 rate year. And just, Mr.
• One flat rate would be preferable if you're going to do a flat rate. One flat rate.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 2399, concerning therapeutic leave days for psychiatric residential treatment facilities (PRTFs). Sarah Aker from the Department of Health and Human Services explained the current Medicaid rate-setting methodology, how occupancy affects rates, and why paying the full rate for leave days would create additional fiscal impact. Members debated whether the bill should pay the full Medicaid rate, a flat reduced rate, or a tiered rate, and discussed whether a cap or department authorization should be used to control use of leave days. The department said it was not supporting the change as it was not in the governor’s budget, though it supported family engagement in care. After discussion, the committee settled on a compromise motion to set therapeutic leave days at a $500 daily rate and require department authorization of the number of leave days. The motion passed 6-2, with Representative Anderson voting no and the rest of the recorded members voting yes. The committee then moved on to Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation budget materials, where Michelle Zander walked through detailed population and rate calculations for women’s and men’s facilities, county holds, deferred admissions, transitional facilities, work release, and proposed reentry, man camp, and Grand Forks-related costs. Members asked about the county jail reimbursement rates and the overall pool of funds, and Zander explained the calculations and noted the proposal was roughly break-even depending on assumptions. The committee also heard an overview of DOCR IT requests from Amy and NDIT staff, including data processing, medical modules, a new client management system, body scanners, data management tools, facility management software, medical software upgrades, college solutions, and body cameras/tasers. Staff explained that the new client management system would likely be a multi-phase project with a wide cost range based on vendor selection and scope, and that the current request was for phase one. Members emphasized the importance of better data tracking, staff safety tools, and information that could help explain programming and release outcomes to the public. The committee planned to continue with Veterans Affairs the next day and then return to Senate Bill 2015.

Transcript Highlights:

• When it comes to recurring rates, most jurisdictions adopt a rate formula to set a cap.
• We publish the rate, give them the rate which is $12.50 is what we charge. OK, OK.
• rate of return.
• With the PUC to raise rates, then we were raising rates and I'm not exaggerating.
• where a rate may not exceed either the existing pole attachment rate.

Transcript Highlights:

• That history shapes rates today.
• So some amounts will roll off of rates even as other approved costs enter rates.
• rate base.
• Sustained increases in rate base place upward pressure on customers' rates and bills.
• That's not to say the rate case is not important. The rate case is vitally important.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications held an oversight hearing focused on electric rates, utility regulation, affordability, reliability, and wildfire-related costs. The chair framed the discussion around the challenge of transitioning to a cleaner grid while keeping bills affordable and the system reliable, and noted the hearing also served as the annual update from the CPUC and Public Advocates Office. Professor Severin Borenstein gave a primer on utility regulation, explaining the split between deregulated generation and regulated transmission/distribution, the basics of cost-of-service regulation, and the role of return on equity. He argued that high allowed returns can encourage capital-intensive spending and that many public policy costs now embedded in rates would be better funded through the state budget, while warning that price caps or performance-based regulation are not silver bullets. CPUC President-designate Alice Reynolds described the commission’s role as economic regulator of investor-owned utilities and said affordability is being addressed through rate case scrutiny, reasonableness reviews, and legislative direction. She said wildfire mitigation and insurance costs have been major drivers of rate increases, but some wildfire-related costs are time-limited and will roll off rates over time. She also highlighted progress on clean energy procurement, battery storage growth, and integrated resource planning to meet climate goals while maintaining reliability. Reynolds said the CPUC is reviewing utility spending, disallowing imprudent costs where appropriate, and litigating at FERC to challenge transmission costs. Members pressed both witnesses on several issues, including whether rates are being inflated by legislative mandates and balancing accounts, whether utility returns are too high, and whether the state should shift more public-policy costs off electric bills and into the General Fund. Senators also raised concerns about load growth from data centers and ports, gas-system stranded assets as electrification advances, and whether the CPUC is over-regulating or discouraging innovation. Reynolds said the CPUC is working with the Energy Commission, CAISO, and the Air Resources Board on a holistic planning process, and pointed to tools such as interconnection reforms and demand flexibility. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with several follow-up requests for reports and data.

Transcript Highlights:

• On the rate issue, I'm happy to address that. We're using a blended rate.
• We don't have that many, and our rates are way below the FCC rate.
• No attacher actually has used that rate; they've negotiated a different rate.
• As far as the FCC rate being a good enough rate for the IOUs, remember, values have a guaranteed rate
• Support this rate anymore.

Bills: HB3445, HB3448

Keywords: telecommunications, electric cooperative, rights-of-way, infrastructure, provider access, right-of-way, pole attachment, regulatory access, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• than 10% from a previously filed rate.
• than 10% from previously filed rate.
• Right now, it's a process where they get to file the rates, use those rates, and then they are scrutinized
• And yes, rates have continued to go up, but just because rates are going up does not mean that the system
• rates for their policies.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• So some amounts will roll off of rates even as other approved costs enter rates.
• Rates down substantially.
• rate base.
• Sustained increases in rate base place upward pressure on customers' rates and bills.
• Rates.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• HOURLY RATE?
• THE RATES ARE STANDARDIZED.
• THE RATES?
• WHEN YOU FACTOR IN THE RATES? WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RATES?
• AND DOES THIS RATE DO THAT?

Transcript Highlights:

• So, my question is: if you don't know the rates for National Grid, then how do you say that the rates
• Most people have no idea what a good rate is or what is not a good rate.
• service rate.
• rate-making study.
• pump rates across the utilities.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several energy-related bills, with the main focus on H. 3534/S. 2255, which would ban or sharply restrict residential third-party electric suppliers, and on related reform proposals. Supporters included the Attorney General’s office, municipal and regional planning officials, environmental justice groups, consumer advocates, and city officials from Boston and Chelsea. They argued that the residential competitive supply market has produced higher bills, deceptive sales tactics, auto-renewals into higher rates, and disproportionate harm to low-income residents, seniors, communities of color, and people with limited English. Witnesses cited AG reports estimating hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharges over time, described door-to-door and storefront marketing abuses, and said municipal aggregation programs have saved residents money while offering more stable rates. Several supporters said the Legislature should either ban residential competitive supply or adopt strong guardrails such as ending automatic renewals, banning incentive-based commissions, and capping rates relative to basic service. Opponents or industry representatives from the Retail Energy Advancement League, Vistra, and Constellation argued that the market can provide savings, longer-term price stability, and value-added products such as renewable options and time-of-use offerings. They said Massachusetts has already improved consumer protections through DPU proceedings, that complaints are relatively few compared with the size of the market, and that a ban would eliminate consumer choice. They also defended direct sales and commissions as normal features of a retail market, while saying they would support additional protections, licensing, bonding, and stronger oversight of bad actors. Committee members pressed both sides on whether the market truly saves money, whether automatic renewals should be banned, and whether the AG’s proposed reforms would be enough. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3972, a bill to extend utility shutoff protections during extreme heat, with Rep. Mindy Domb arguing that Massachusetts should treat extreme heat like extreme cold and protect customers facing financial hardship. Rep. Barrett also testified for H. 3450, a municipal broadband/right-of-way bill, arguing that communities need easier and cheaper access to utility poles and public rights of way to build municipal broadband. In addition, Senate Majority Leader Creem testified for S. 2239, which would bar utilities from recovering ratepayer funds for lobbying, promotions, trade association dues, and similar expenses. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• get a handle on rates. rate increases of the last five years is increased utility spending.
• Utilities that implement decoupling can keep water rates lower than other rate mechanisms by creating
• Decoupling can keep water rates lower than other rate mechanisms by creating tiers for water use that
• But it wasn't a rate increase. The rate was approved by the commission.
• What we do, what the CPUC does, is set our test year rates and our next two years' rates.

Summary: The committee heard several energy and water affordability bills, with extensive testimony on SB 254 by Senator Becker, SB 541 by Senator Becker, SB 453 by Senator Stern, SB 292 by Senator Caballero, and SB 473 by Senator Padilla. SB 254 was presented as a broad utility affordability package addressing short-term climate credits, a Power Fund, tighter scrutiny of rate increases and utility profits, wildfire spending, securitization of future utility costs, and streamlining. Supporters, including TURN and several environmental and public power groups, said it could lower bills and reduce long-term costs; opponents from investor-owned utilities, labor, business, and local government raised concerns about market impacts, insufficient analysis, and the breadth of the bill. The committee approved SB 254 on a 6-3 vote and placed it on call. SB 541 focused on load flexibility and using existing grid capacity more efficiently. Senator Becker described it as a transparency and planning measure to identify cost-effective load shifting and reduce peak demand, while supporters said it could improve resiliency and save money. Several CCAs and utilities opposed the bill in print or unless amended, arguing that some language implied a mandate and that the concept needed more cost-effectiveness analysis; the author said amendments would remove language dividing the state goal among retail suppliers and clarify that the bill is not a procurement mandate. The committee passed SB 541 as amended to Appropriations on a 9-1 vote and left it on call. SB 453 by Senator Stern would return unspent ratepayer-funded microgrid program dollars and was described as a way to keep the lights on and redirect unused funds. It drew support from local government and environmental groups, with PG&E expressing concern about how the bill would affect its ability to spend awarded funds. The committee passed SB 453 as amended to Appropriations on a 12-0 vote. SB 292 by Senator Caballero would require more granular outage and reliability reporting, including census-tract-level data, to better inform resilience planning after PSPS events; utilities opposed unless amended, citing duplicative reporting and regulatory overlap, but the bill passed 12-0 to Appropriations. SB 473 by Senator Padilla would require or expand water utility decoupling to promote conservation and affordability. Supporters, including water utilities, labor, business, and local government groups, argued decoupling stabilizes revenue, supports conservation, and can keep rates lower for low-use customers. The Public Advocates Office opposed, saying prior pilot data showed no conservation benefit and about $1 billion in added costs, and that the CPUC had already rejected similar requests. Committee members questioned the conservation and capital-investment effects of the different rate structures; the author and supporters argued decoupling helps utilities fund infrastructure while allowing lower fixed charges for low-use customers. The transcript ends during that discussion, before a final vote on SB 473 is shown.