Transcript Highlights:

• rate.
• all be taxed at a residential rate.
• the residential rate.
• ...safeguard by capping the non-residential rate at no more than 1.85 times the residential rate.
• It is accurate to say that any changes to our tax base are going to have an impact on how the tax rate

Bills: HB371

Keywords: HB371, Delaware Agricultural Lands Preservation Act, farmland preservation, agricultural lands, agricultural preservation district, Farmland Preservation Advisory Board, county advisory board, Delaware Foundation, Department of Agriculture, DNREC, planning and zoning, growth zone, open space, land use, farmland protection, rural land preservation, agribusiness, active farmers

Summary: The Senate Executive Committee met in hybrid format, approved the minutes from its June 17 and June 18 meetings, and considered several nominations and bills. The committee heard testimony from Michael T. Skeuse for the Delaware Thoroughbred Racing Commission and Jay Eric Fearwald for the University of Delaware Board of Trustees; both nominees described their backgrounds and qualifications, and no objections were raised. The committee then moved to legislation focused largely on property tax reassessment and related school-tax issues, along with a technical constitutional corrections bill, an agricultural lands preservation cleanup bill, and a child-safety/service-letter bill. A major portion of the meeting centered on Senate Bill 350, which would create a third multifamily residential tax classification at 1.2 times the residential rate. Supporters argued apartments are housing and should not be taxed as commercial property, emphasizing relief for renters and fairness after reassessment. Opponents, including county and school officials, warned the bill would reduce local revenues, complicate tax administration, and create unintended consequences for counties, municipalities, school districts, and agriculture. Similar themes carried into House Bill 462, which would make the split-rate school tax structure permanent and lower the nonresidential cap to 1.85, and House Bill 463, which would align New Castle County senior school-tax exemptions with county exemption rules; both bills drew discussion about shifting burdens, fiscal impacts, and timing. The committee also heard House Substitute 1 for House Bill 320, a technical corrections bill to the Delaware Constitution, with one public commenter objecting to charter-related changes being included in a correction bill. House Bill 371, which removes the requirement for county farmland preservation advisory boards under the Delaware Agricultural Lands Preservation Act, was presented as a streamlining measure and had support from the Department of Agriculture and public comment in favor. House Bill 438, expanding service-letter requirements to a broader set of child-serving facilities and requiring reporting when employers fail to respond, was described as a cleanup bill closing a safety loophole. After public comment and committee discussion, the meeting ended with a motion and unanimous adjournment; no recorded votes on the bills were taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Presumably, their rating would be impacted based on the performance of their schools, and it is the job
• I, presumably their rating would be impacted based on the performance of their, of their schools, and
• Tim, explain to me, isn't a rating a rating of a school?
• These ratings are not punitive.
• These ratings are not punitive.

Bills: HB8

Keywords: HB 8, Texas public school accountability, school accountability, public school transparency, STAAR, state assessments, instructionally supportive assessment program, Student Success Tool, Texas Education Agency, TEA, accountability ratings, A-F ratings, through-year assessment, benchmark testing, norm-referenced assessment, college career military readiness, CCMR, local accountability plan, school district performance, campus turnaround

Summary: The House Committee on Public Education met to hear House Bill 8, which would replace STAAR with a new assessment and accountability system beginning in the 2027-28 school year. The chair described the bill as reducing testing time, limiting benchmark tests, adding beginning-, middle-, and end-of-year assessments, requiring faster score turnaround, involving Texas teachers in test development, and tightening accountability timelines and transparency rules. Members also discussed provisions on A-F ratings, cut scores, CCMR, local accountability plans, and TEA reporting requirements. Committee members and invited witnesses split sharply on the bill’s approach. Supporters, including the chair, TEA Commissioner Mike Morath, and Ed Trust’s Nicholas Munyon Penny, argued the bill would reduce high-stakes pressure, provide quicker and more actionable data, limit over-testing, and better align assessments to Texas standards while preserving criterion-referenced accountability. They said the new system would help teachers and parents intervene sooner and would improve transparency, including parent access to student responses and automatic rescoring in some writing cases. Opponents, including Rep. Hinojosa and student witness Ella Moran, argued the bill still increases testing and replaces one high-stakes test with multiple TEA-created tests. Moran testified that STAAR creates anxiety, disrupts instruction, and does not reflect real learning, while Hinojosa said the House had previously passed a better bill based on a nationally norm-referenced model and criticized the new proposal as a concession to the Senate. Questions also focused on AI scoring of writing, rescoring rates, and whether the bill’s new accountability rules would be reliable and fair. The committee did not take a final vote during the portion provided, but the chair said a vote on HB 8 would be called after public testimony later in the day.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our strong credit rating of triple A, which is the highest possible credit rating that the rating agencies
• that the rating possible credit rating that the rating agencies<00:42:07.880> can<00:42:08.040
• <00:55:05.760> the rating agencies do continue to rate the rating agencies do continue to
• Established based on some criteria that, in 2009, we realized this is how the rating agencies are looking
• back from those the AAA um ratings back from those rating rating rating agencies<01:26:42.600> oh

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Capital Investment held its first meeting of the 2025 session with members and staff introducing themselves and describing their priorities. Senators from both parties repeatedly emphasized the goal of passing a strong bipartisan bonding bill this year, with several members noting that local projects were delayed after no bonding bill passed the previous year. Chair Housley also said the committee would not meet later that week and previewed an upcoming presentation from MMB on federal funds. The committee then heard a presentation from MMB’s Leah Corey and Anna Ming on Minnesota’s federal funding efforts. Corey explained that MMB’s federal funds team coordinates state efforts to maximize funding from IIJA, IRA, CHIPS, and related federal programs. She said Minnesota has secured about $12.3 billion in federal funding so far, including roughly $3 billion more since the last presentation, supporting about 1,800 projects statewide. Most of the funding is going to transportation, roads, and bridges, with other major areas including clean energy and weatherization. She also highlighted an interactive public dashboard showing projects by region and noted that much of the data reflects funds flowing through the state enterprise. Corey also discussed state match programs that helped unlock federal dollars, including the IIJA discretionary match fund, the State Competitiveness Fund, and the Forward Fund. She said $180 million in state match has unlocked about $1 billion in federal investment through the IIJA discretionary match fund, nearly $17 million in state investment has unlocked nearly $90 million in federal funding through the State Competitiveness Fund, and $124 million for the Forward Fund has unlocked nearly $1 billion in federal and private investment. Members asked whether more state dollars could have brought in more federal funds; Corey said she was not sure, but noted the IIJA match fund is expected to run out in the coming months. The presentation also focused on direct pay tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, which allow tax-exempt entities such as governments, nonprofits, school districts, and tribal nations to receive payments for eligible clean energy projects after they are completed. Corey said the state is building awareness and technical assistance around direct pay, including educational sessions and a tax expert resource. She also described Minnesota’s Green Bank, the Minnesota Climate Innovation Finance Authority, which is beginning to issue loans for projects such as community energy, nonprofit geothermal systems, and solar-plus-battery installations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Community-based care.
• payment error rate.
• The national error rate was about 10.29%, while Texas had an error rate.
• The error rate is based on only the staff errors, or is it also combined with the applicant errors as
• It's an estimate based on what we see with the eligibility and uptake rates on the different waivers,

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Rates on medical care in the country.
• the same rate as Medicaid.
• Vacancy rates range from 20% to over 50%, while our better-funded CBHCs with higher reimbursement rates
• This bill would help stabilize our clinics, including the implemented 5% rate increase, the regular rate
• These things come at a significant cost to the community-based system, yet are not evident in the rates

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing on a large docket focused on primary care, workforce development, and medical debt. Chairs Cindy Friedman and John Lawn outlined hearing procedures and noted that testimony would be taken on 17 matters. The committee first heard testimony on bills to establish a community health center nurse practitioner residency program and to strengthen mental health centers. Senator Keenan, Rep. Keefe, and health center leaders described the Worcester nurse practitioner residency as a successful pipeline and retention strategy, citing workforce shortages, training needs in community health centers, and the cost of the program. Rep. O’Day also supported the mental health centers bill, saying it would raise payment rates, improve reimbursement for behavioral health services, and help clinics retain staff and expand access. The committee then took testimony on bills to address medical debt through hospital financial assistance reform. The Attorney General’s Office, Health Care for All, Health Law Advocates, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, and individual patients supported the measure, arguing that hospital financial assistance policies are inconsistent, hard to find, and difficult to navigate. Witnesses said the bill would standardize eligibility criteria, create a uniform application, improve notice requirements, and expand access to discounted care up to 400% of the federal poverty level. Several personal stories described medical bills being sent to collections, confusion over insurance billing, and the burden of debt on low-income and chronically ill patients. Committee members asked about hospital concerns, the role of the health safety net, and whether the bill addressed root causes of medical debt; testimony emphasized that the proposal was meant to improve transparency and access rather than replace broader insurance reforms. The hearing also focused heavily on “Primary Care for You” legislation, H. 1370 and S. 867, which would increase primary care investment and create a new payment model. Rep. Haggerty, physicians, a patient, community health center leaders, and the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers described a primary care crisis marked by low reimbursement, staffing shortages, long waits, burnout, and difficulty recruiting clinicians. Supporters said the bills would shift spending toward preventive, team-based care, improve access and equity, and reduce long-term costs. The Massachusetts Association of Health Plans said it was directionally supportive of increased primary care investment but warned that any new spending must stay within the cost growth benchmark and preserve existing contracting structures. The hearing ended with additional testimony on a community health center workforce and loan repayment grant bill from Rep. Stanley, and with further discussion from Dr. Alan Garo about the need for payment reform in primary care.

Transcript Highlights:

• The second phase starts in 2027 and increases rates for all other adult community-based mental health
• The second phase starts in 2027 and increases rates for all other adult community-based mental health
• > based<00:08:30.720> Mental<00:08:31.000> Health adult community- based Mental
• equivalent as well as increases rates equivalent as well as increases rates for<00:08:36.120>
• health reimbursement rate.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 105 was presented by Representatives Beerman and Baker and then laid over for possible inclusion in a future omnibus bill. The bill would implement the remaining mental health and physician service recommendations from DHS’s rate study, including raising certain Medicaid reimbursement rates to at least 100% of Medicare where a Medicare equivalent exists, increasing community-based children’s and adult mental health rates and behavioral health home rates, and phasing in additional increases over three years. The authors said the proposal also addresses master’s-level clinician reimbursement and fee-for-service hospital inpatient mental health services, and they emphasized that the changes are intended to improve access, transparency, and provider stability. Both authors argued that low MA reimbursement rates are driving access problems across Minnesota, especially for children, families, and rural communities. They said providers are struggling to hire and retain staff, clinics are closing or shrinking, and patients are facing long waits, boarding in hospitals, or delayed care. Representative Baker said the issue is personal and described the bill as a phased, long-term approach because of state budget limits and the size of the cost, which he said is in the hundreds of millions but still awaiting a fiscal note. Public testimony was strongly supportive overall. A family physician said higher rates would improve access, keep clinics open, and help patients avoid emergency care, while a Children’s Minnesota mental health leader described more than 1,200 pediatric boarding episodes in 2024 and said outpatient investment is needed to reduce pressure on emergency and inpatient services. A rural provider said her organization had to close an in-home children’s mental health program because of insufficient reimbursement, harming access in underserved counties. A psychologist testifying for the Minnesota Psychological Association supported the bill’s general direction but objected to repealing the pay differential for doctoral-level psychologists, arguing that doctoral training is more extensive and that eliminating the differential could worsen workforce shortages. After testimony and member questions about the bill’s scope and cost, public testimony was closed and the bill was laid over.

Transcript Highlights:

• Change from origination-based taxation for grocery seats versus destination-based.
• With the provider rate increases, we're going to pay you more money at a higher rate to attract you,
• Have we done anything on that federal reserve rate? Royalty rate? Yes, Mr. Chair.
• Lower royalty rate, and in the feds reducing that royalty rate, we can think of that as more foregone
• Salek, of reducing the error rate.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's the base.
• Their matching rate would be higher.
• The state has provided a minimum wage rate on rate add-on for and in June. 25 with the funding without
• of those who are... response rate.
• So if employees choose to pay the higher rate and it goes back to January, that will be reinvested based

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• > and<02:39:39.680> the that base rate percentage off, and the that base rate percentage
• And each class has its own base rate, and the base rate is the average for that class.
• what we call the base rate. what we call the base rate.
• <02:52:08.960> rate, And each class has its own base rate, And each class has its own base
• the base rate is for the average. the base rate is for the average.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the disability waiver rate system.
• rates, and administrative costs.
• the disability waiver rate system.
• rates, and administrative costs.
• rates, and administrative costs.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This just gives a little bit of the trend and the rates based on region of the state.
• And so using our base fare rate, we can come to an amount for that.
• That's based on our group pass rate.
• And so from there, we apply the base rate and then a discount, which is standard.
• . ...and then we project future, and we apply the base fare rate of $2.50.

Keywords: 985, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Rates are based on historical claims.
• A single capitated rate is established for each individual region based on the makeup of the members
• <00:14:29.600> Rates<00:14:29.920> are<00:14:30.079> based<00:14:30.240>
• Rates are based on to use them. Rates are based on historical<00:14:31.360> claims.
• <01:10:22.000> based<01:10:22.320> on produce initial incidence rates based on produce

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Health and Family Services met in person, approved the October 15 minutes, and began with a moment of silence following a Louisville UPS plane explosion that was described as a local tragedy affecting many families and first responders. The main presentation was an overview of Kentucky’s Medicaid non-emergency medical transportation (NMT) program from the Department for Medicaid Services and the Transportation Cabinet. Witnesses explained that NMT is a federally required Medicaid benefit, administered by the Transportation Cabinet under a risk-based capitated model, with eligibility limited to Medicaid members traveling to medically necessary, Medicaid-covered services and who lack access to other transportation. They also described exclusions, including certain KCHIP, QMB, and PACE members, and outlined the brokered regional structure, call center operations, scheduling rules, vehicle and driver oversight, complaint handling, and rider surveys. The presenters reported that NMT handled more than 3.1 million trips in state fiscal year 2024, with over 1.38 million trips already recorded in October, and said customer satisfaction surveys were high. They said the FY 2025-26 contract total is about $360.6 million, with monthly per-member capitation rates set by region through an actuarial process and approved by CMS. They emphasized that payments are tied to monthly Medicaid enrollment and that the state draws down federal funds for the exact amount paid, with no leftover balance. They also said most NMT use comes from adult day centers and rehabilitative care such as dialysis. Members questioned the witnesses about how quality metrics and contract standards are set, whether the state had explored alternatives such as Uber Health or other integrated models, and how utilization was calculated. The witnesses said contract requirements are developed collaboratively by Medicaid Services, the Transportation Cabinet, and other agencies, and that studies of other models generally found higher costs and lower approval ratings, with additional research on a hybrid model expected by the end of the year. They clarified that one figure reflected the share of Medicaid members with registered vehicles, while another reflected actual NMT users, and they defended the capitated structure as shifting financial risk to brokers rather than the state. Representative Fleming also raised concerns about oversight, reporting, and the apparent gap between budgeted and contracted amounts, asking whether any unused funds would return to general funds; the discussion ended before a final answer was given.

Transcript Highlights:

• So would it be fair to say that we base our budget on the rate of inflation and population growth and
• Witness: So would it be fair to say we base our budget based on the rate of inflation and population
• We have performance measures based on clearance rate in the sense of the number of case filings that
• We have performance measures based on clearance rate in the sense of the number of case filings that
• We have performance measures based on clearance rate in the sense of the number of case filings that

Bills: SB 1

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• base equity rate base.
• base equity rate base.
• base equity rate base.
• base equity rate base.
• base equity rate base.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint Senate hearing focused primarily on SB 1201, a wildfire measure that would create a wildfire recovery fund and allow securitization for electric utilities. Hawaiian Electric strongly supported the bill, saying it would help protect customers, property owners, insurers, and the broader economy from future catastrophic wildfire liability while improving the utility’s credit profile and lowering financing costs. Support also came from DCCA Consumer Advocacy, the Attorney General’s office on written comments, Ulupono Initiative, Clearway Energy Group, IBEW Local 1260, Par Hawaii, KIUC, the Chamber of Commerce Hawaiʻi, Plus Power, and numerous organizations and individuals. Opponents or commenters raised concerns about the liability cap, victim compensation process, and fund structure, including the Hawaiʻi Association for Justice, the Hawaiʻi Regional Council of Carpenters, and the Hawaiʻi Insurance Council; Henry Curtis of Life of the Land supported the concept of a fund but questioned the catastrophe threshold and whether the fund would be empty without a prudency finding. Much of the discussion centered on whether the proposed fund would actually help restore Hawaiian Electric to investment grade, with senators comparing the proposal to California’s wildfire fund. Hawaiian Electric said the bill was only one part of a broader process, alongside physical risk reduction and settlement finalization, and argued that without the bill the utility would not regain investment grade. Senators also questioned the proposed $1 billion fund size, the fairness of ratepayer contributions versus shareholder contributions, and whether customers should pay for consulting and administrative costs; Hawaiian Electric said its proposed amendment would remove those consulting-related charges. The company also said the fund would accrue interest and, if unused, could be returned to customers, and that there would be replenishment and supplemental contribution mechanisms if the fund were exhausted. The Attorney General’s office said it still had further amendments to discuss, and the departments had not yet resolved where the fund should reside administratively, though Hawaiian Electric said it believed DCCA was the appropriate place but was open to alternatives. KIUC requested two amendments. No vote or final committee action was taken during the hearing, and the measure remained under discussion with questions and proposed amendments still outstanding.

Transcript Highlights:

• The project submits rating materials, which we recently did, so we can be rated depending on the criteria
• a rating will allow the program to be rated by the FTA.
• So the CIG rating criteria: there are a number of different categories in which you're rated.
• And based on that assessment, they provide a rating, and you're targeting at least a medium rating.
• based on the analysis and that input, select a set of proposed toll rates and policies that will then

Summary: The committee met jointly with the Washington-Oregon Legislative Action Committee for an update on the Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement (IBR) program. Members first adopted the proposed committee rules, then received program updates from staff on environmental review, permitting, design, tribal consultation, and public engagement. Staff said the project remains in the supplemental EIS process, with a final supplemental EIS and amended record of decision expected in early 2026, which would allow construction to begin. They also described ongoing work on Coast Guard navigation clearance, Section 106 historic-property coordination, and architectural guidelines for the bridge and five-mile corridor, emphasizing that the visualizations shown were conceptual and that public and partner feedback has already influenced design considerations such as accessibility and shared-use path connections. Members raised concerns about schedule delays, rising costs, and whether the project is being designed to be functional, safe, and economical. Staff acknowledged that the timeline has slipped from earlier expectations and said the delay reflects the complexity of the environmental and federal review process, as well as the need to avoid redoing steps. They said the updated cost estimate is being prepared now that design has advanced to roughly 30 percent, and that it will account for inflation, risk factors, and both fixed-span and movable-span options. Staff estimated a movable span would add more than $400 million and said the first construction work after environmental approval would likely be preliminary freeway and retaining-wall work in late 2026, followed by the bridge procurement. The committee also received funding and tolling updates. Staff reported that major federal grants have been executed, including Mega and Bridge Investment Grant agreements, and that state STIP amendments are advancing to allow access to federal funds. The tolling team described Level 3 traffic-and-revenue work, a bi-state tolling subcommittee process, and possible toll scenarios aimed at supporting either about $1.24 billion or $1.6 billion in toll revenue. Members questioned low-income toll relief timing, truck toll rates, and the effect of tolls on freight users. Staff said low-income discounts are being analyzed for both revenue and operational feasibility, that tribal exemptions and other policy exemptions are under review, and that the commissions expect to move into public outreach on toll rates and policies in 2026, with tolling on the existing bridges currently projected to begin in spring 2027.

Transcript Highlights:

• And family foster care was set at the same rate methodology as corporate foster care, which was based
• And family foster care was set at the same rate methodology as corporate foster care, which was based
• <00:20:58.160> rates, that we had to have cost-based rates, that we had to have cost-based
• What the governor proposed, and we ended up implementing, the flat tier is because a cost-based rate
• identifying cost-based rates for many substance use disorder services.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's a rate per 1000.
• And then our state's rate of repeat maltreatment also remains considerably higher than the national rate
• on a daily rate.
• So a daily rate of $20.91, Secretary: which is a monthly rate if it's a 31 day month of $648, we'll be
• We do see that yes, there is a differential between the school-based and the community-based, but overall

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll start with university-based alternative programs, followed by non-university-based alternative
• It required a minimum base salary of at least $50,000.
• It required a minimum-based salary of at least 50,000.
• Again, a survey is just based on who answers it.
• non-IHE-based programs.

Summary: The committee first approved the May 18 meeting minutes and then received a Legislative Audit presentation summarizing Arkansas Department of Education grant distributions for fiscal year 2025. Auditors said the department distributed about $4.6 billion in grants overall, including $3.2 billion from the Public School Fund, $1.1 billion in federal funds, and $268 million from other state and miscellaneous sources, across 56 Public School Fund programs, 14 other state programs, and 29 federal programs. Members asked about specific recipients and programs, including ClassWallet, master principal bonuses, Economics Arkansas, and CDC surveillance funding; audit staff and Department of Education representatives explained that the report was only a distribution summary and not a recipient-level audit. Members also questioned why many districts showed lower funding, and staff said the decline was largely due to reduced federal and one-time COVID-related funds. Senators and representatives also discussed whether some incentive programs, such as master principal and national board bonuses, were tied to student outcomes, and whether Economics Arkansas was the sole entity named in special language for financial literacy funding; department staff said they would follow up on several details. The committee then heard a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on consumer price index projections from Moody’s Analytics and S&P Global, with discussion of CPI-U and core CPI estimates for future fiscal years. Dr. Carlos Silva explained that the forecasts generally trend toward about 2 percent over time and that recent projections may have understated actual inflation because of recent shocks. Members asked about the accuracy of past projections, and he said he would provide more detail later if needed. The bulk of the meeting focused on the final adequacy report on teacher recruitment, retention, and salaries. BLR staff reported that Arkansas had about 32,800 teachers and 473,000 students in 2025, with a statewide student-to-teacher ratio of about 14 to 1, average teaching experience of 11.9 years, and a slight increase in National Board Certified teachers. The report found that districts with higher poverty and minority concentrations generally had less experienced teachers, and that teacher shortages remained widespread, especially in special education, math, science, and foreign language. Members asked about licensure exceptions, alternative preparation pathways, incentives for ESL and special education endorsements, and the cost and return on investment of traditional versus alternative routes. Staff said some licensure exceptions are being phased out under Act 304 of 2025 and that they would follow up on several requested details. The report also found that teacher retention averaged 87 percent statewide in 2025, with districts retaining teachers at higher rates than charters, and that 30 percent of surveyed teachers were considering leaving the profession. Principals and teachers identified school leadership as the strongest positive factor in recruitment and retention, while workload and salary were the strongest negative factors. On salaries, BLR reported a statewide average teacher salary of $60,254 in 2025, with districts averaging $60,458 and charters $55,724. Arkansas ranked 45th nationally on average teacher salary in 2025, though its cost-adjusted ranking improved to 36th; among SREB states it ranked 12th, and among neighboring states it ranked fourth. Members asked about starting salaries, salary compression, district step increases, and whether the report should be shared more broadly with educators and school leaders. Staff said they would provide follow-up information on several questions, and the committee took no formal action beyond receiving the presentations and asking for additional data.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is just the rate piece, doing the rate increase for those three populations.
• Yes, that's what you call a bifurcated rate. They would be the two different rates.
• They get 80% of the physician rate; that’s just their rate.
• rates.
• I mean, I think this is also like another example of a difference in rates, but it's also based on what's

Summary: The committee reviewed a series of Arkansas DHS and Department of Health rules, most tied to 2025 legislation. Early items covered Medicaid changes including presumptive eligibility application timing, adding a fictive kin definition for foster child eligibility, raising the able account disability onset age to 46, allowing continuous glucose monitors to be billed by both pharmacy and DME providers, increasing the RSV vaccine administration fee for children, a telemedicine exemption for ET3 ambulance services, and a physical therapy access rule that also included occupational therapy. Members generally asked limited questions and most rules were reviewed without objection. A major portion of the meeting focused on the dental rate increase rule under Act 1025. DHS said it implemented rate increases for certain pediatric, special-needs, and oral surgeon services, but not orthodontics, and it interpreted the act as applying only to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, not general dentists. The Arkansas State Dental Association and legislative sponsors testified that the intent was to cover general dentists performing oral surgery procedures for special-needs patients, estimating the broader interpretation would add about $1.5 million annually. Committee members debated the plain language of the act versus legislative intent, and the rule was reviewed, but with testimony noting the issue should be fixed in future legislation. Later items included the Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies rule adding doula and lactation consultant billing and remote monitoring benefits; an adverse decisions rule extending provider appeal time from 35 to 65 days; CNA training program updates; PASSE network-status disclosure rules; certification rules for community-based doulas and community health workers; cosmetology, massage therapy, lead-based paint, radiation, radiologic technology, and RV park rule updates. Most of these were described as technical, statutory, or federally driven changes and were reviewed without objection. The committee briefly reopened the CGM rule after a motion to expunge the prior vote, and Representative Wardlaw said he would hold the rule for further review because he believed the billing changes did not match the law’s intent. The meeting ended with no further business and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're awarding them based on what their success rate is and how good they're doing.
• So at the time, it was based on each district's local tax base.
• It's policy-based.
• So is it evidence-based?
• So is it evidence-based?

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the prior minutes and then shifted to an update from Department of Education Secretary Jacob Oliva and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Smith on early childhood education, especially the state-funded Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) program. They said Arkansas had received a federal Preschool Development Grant and described ABC as a large state program with about 23,800 funded slots and roughly $114 million in annual appropriations. Department officials said they are reviewing slot allocations because about 1,000 seats are funded but unfilled, while more than 2,000 families are on waiting lists, and they plan to reduce or reallocate slots from providers that have not filled them over several years. They also said they are examining whether income thresholds, curriculum expectations, daily rates, and summer programming should be updated, and members raised concerns about access, local control, transportation, and whether the program should better align with K-12 choice and school readiness goals. The committee agreed to form an early childhood subcommittee and asked the Bureau of Legislative Research to help gather historical data and other information for future discussion. The committee then received a legal presentation from BLR attorney Taylor Lloyd on the constitutional and statutory framework for education adequacy in Arkansas. She reviewed the Dupree and Lake View cases, explaining that the state must maintain a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools, and that adequacy and equity are distinct but related concepts. She emphasized that the General Assembly is responsible for defining adequacy, studying whether the system meets that standard, and reacting to the evidence, while the courts ultimately decide constitutional compliance. Lloyd also explained the current adequacy definition, the role of the matrix as a funding tool rather than a spending mandate, and the distinction between unrestricted foundation funding and restricted categorical funding. BLR’s Elizabeth Bynum followed with a historical overview of how Arkansas responded to the court cases and developed the current adequacy process. She traced major legislative actions from the 1980s through the Lake View litigation, including the creation of funding formulas, categorical aid, isolated funding, declining enrollment funding, and the 2003-2004 adequacy study that led to the Continuing Adequacy Evaluation Act and the matrix used to set foundation funding. She also described later changes to the adequacy statute, the financial reporting requirements for districts, and the ongoing use of surveys, stakeholder testimony, and consultant studies in the biennial adequacy process. Members asked questions about whether private or homeschool programs could use public funds for expenses like utilities, whether stakeholders should include those groups, the difference between average daily membership and attendance, and whether school board members are surveyed; staff said those issues would need further research or were outside the scope of the presenters’ role.