Transcript Highlights:

• As we discussed at our last hearing, we have additional hearings scheduled and we'll continue to have
• :10.080><c> should</c><00:10:10.320><c> an</c> after hearing this testimony, should an after hearing
• I'm glad to hear that been said already.
• Thanks so much for letting me speak today. the league hears from its members every the league hears from
• Um but we already scheduled hearing.

Summary: The committee approved the October 15, 2025 minutes and then held a broader discussion on current challenges with data retention and government transparency. Judy Randall of the Office of the Legislative Auditor said historical data is essential for post-audits, which often look back three to five years, and that retention decisions must balance audit needs with the burden of separating public and nonpublic data. She described the records-retention panel process as informal and largely based on individual judgment, noting she had objected to a proposed 60-day email retention period and generally uses a three-year guideline, though she said that standard is not grounded in a formal rule. Members discussed whether auditing standards should set retention periods, with Randall saying auditing is a good starting point but other offices, including the attorney general, also have needs, and that some agency discretion is unavoidable because of the gray area between official records and non-records. Representative Elkins raised the related principle of data minimization, arguing that government should not keep data longer than needed and citing a University of Minnesota legacy data warehouse breach as an example of the risks of retaining unnecessary sensitive information. Randall agreed that data no longer needed is a liability and said her office purges workpapers after five years. Representative Scott pressed whether three years is enough for fraud investigations and financial records; Randall responded that a reasonableness standard is needed and that longer retention can produce diminishing returns, though she said she would follow up on whether financial records should be treated differently. Tanya Tacker of the Rum River Special Education Cooperative testified in support of updating Minnesota’s data-retention laws for schools. She said districts want to protect student information and maintain transparency, but the current general retention schedule dates to 1985 and 2000 and does not reflect digital records, modern systems, or the volume of special education data. She urged modernizing the schedule, clarifying what must be kept in paper versus digitized form, aligning state rules with IDEA and other federal requirements, and providing practical guidance and tools. Members praised the specificity of her recommendations. Dr. BB Newman testified that retention failures in St. Anthony Village have made it difficult to obtain routine municipal and police data, with records delayed, missing, or inconsistently produced and no clear explanation of what systems were searched or whether records were destroyed. Newman argued these gaps undermine statutory access rights and force residents into costly litigation, and recommended stronger retention auditing, documentation of destruction, mandatory disclosure of systems searched, and consequences for noncompliance. In response to questions, Senate counsel said there is generally no direct penalty, but affected parties may seek mandamus, Data Practices Act claims, or informal mediation/opinions from the Data Practices Office. The discussion closed with calls for clearer standards and possible legislative updates to improve compliance and transparency.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would also note for committee members to hear about the lived experience that Minnesotans have had
• I would also note for committee members to hear about the lived experience that Minnesotans have had
• I would also note for committee members to hear about the lived experience that Minnesotans have had
• Because I think hearing about these impacts for these services is really important, and especially if
• </c><01:31:44.040><c> um</c> more people request um uh a hearing um more people request um uh a hearing

Committee: Senate Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't hear necessarily a question, but I don't hear necessarily a question.
• I don't hear necessarily a question, but I don't hear necessarily a question.
• I don't hear necessarily a question, but I don't hear necessarily a question.
• I don't hear necessarily a question, but I don't hear necessarily a question.
• I don't hear necessarily a question, but I don't hear necessarily a question.

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd like to welcome you all to the 21st hearing of the Joint Committee on Public Service in the 194th
• I want to thank the folks behind me who you're going to hear from in a minute.
• We have Chelmsford Fire Chief hearing Lyons there. Can you hear me now? Yeah, great, thank you.
• Committee hearing is adjourned. I don't see anyone else to sign up.
• Committee hearing is adjourned.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Public Service

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Service held its 21st hearing and took up late-filed bills, with testimony focused mainly on firefighter and police personnel matters. The committee heard strong support for H.5429/H.6138, Governor Healey’s bill to provide injured-on-duty compensation and full pay and benefits to Chelmsford firefighter Nicholas Spinelli after he was seriously injured while instructing at the Massachusetts Firefighting Academy. Testimony from Rep. Simon Cataldo, Rep. Rodney Elliott, PFFM leaders, Chelmsford Fire Chief Gary Ryan, and others emphasized that Spinelli was performing public service training work, that the incident exposed gaps in coverage for firefighters serving in academy roles, and that the bill should be a prompt, statewide fix. Several speakers also urged future legislation to address broader policy gaps for DFS support-branch and part-time personnel. The committee also heard testimony on a Topsfield home rule petition, H.54435, to allow Police Chief Neil Hovey to continue serving until age 68 or retirement. Rep. Kristen Kasner and local officials praised Hovey’s leadership, training, regional coordination, and management of public safety at the Topsfield Fair, and asked for favorable passage. In addition, Sen. Ryan Fattman and Rep. Joe McKenna testified for S.3051, a bill to provide certain retirement benefits to the surviving spouse of fallen Uxbridge Police Officer Stephen LaPorta, describing his death while assisting a stranded motorist in a snowstorm and the town’s support for honoring his family. PFFM and other police/fire union representatives generally supported the firefighter and LaPorta bills, while PFFM also stated opposition to H.5389, a separate bill authorizing continued employment of the Upton police chief. After testimony concluded, the committee adjourned without taking a recorded vote during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd like to welcome you all to the 21st hearing of the Joint Committee on Public Service in the 194th
• I want to thank the folks behind me who you're going to hear from in a minute.
• We have Chelmsford Fire Chief Hearing Lyons there. We go. Can you hear me now?
• Committee hearing is adjourned. I don't see anyone else to sign up.
• Committee hearing is adjourned.

Bills: S3051 , H5380 , H5384 , H5389 , H5420 , H5428 , H5427 , H5429 , H5435

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Public Service

Keywords: retirement benefits, police officer, surviving spouse, pension, public service, police chief, deputy police chief, civil service exemption, local governance, Medford, H5384, Craig Riley, Haverhill, firefighter, fire department, civil service, civil service examination, maximum age requirement, age waiver, age exemption

Transcript Highlights:

• If the committee would like to hear a procedural history of this claim, I'm happy to provide it.
• Anyone else you want to hear from today?
• Okay, let's hear your motion.
• Anyone else you want to hear from today?
• Okay, let's hear your motion. Okay. We have a motion and a second.

Committee: All JBC-CLAIMS REVIEW/LITIGATION REPORTS OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE

Summary: The Joint Budget Committee’s Claims Review and Litigation Reports Oversight Subcommittee met to consider two proposed Department of Corrections litigation settlements and one appealed claim from the Claims Commission. The first settlement, Caroline Arnett v. Larry Norris et al., involved allegations of long-term sexual abuse by a corrections employee. Committee members asked about PREA audits, facility practices, and whether the inmate had been placed at the proper facility. The department said audits and other safeguards were underway, and the committee approved the settlement. The second settlement, Latasha Ridgel v. Arkansas Department of Corrections, also involved sexual harassment/assault allegations. Members questioned the seven-year delay in the case and whether the issue was systemic; the department cited attorney turnover, COVID delays, and legislative changes making inmate exposure a felony. The committee approved that settlement as well. The committee then heard an appeal in Sharon Greer and Deanna Hayes v. Commissioner of State Lands, a denied and dismissed claim involving a tax-delinquent sale of family property in Crittenden County. Staff and the Commissioner of State Lands’ office said the property was certified in 2000, sold in 2009 after notice was sent, and that excess proceeds were available for a limited period before escheating to the county. The claimants argued they were not properly notified of the sale or the excess proceeds and only learned of the matter in 2025 after receiving the deed at a family funeral. Committee members discussed the notice process, statute of limitations, and the handling of excess proceeds, with several noting the issue may call for legislative review rather than relief in this case. After debate, the committee voted to affirm the Claims Commission’s dismissal of the Greer/Hayes claim. Members also discussed broader concerns about how excess proceeds from tax sales are handled and whether the current statutory process should be revisited in future legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• And before we begin, I wanted to make a quick statement on providing testimony at this hearing.
• In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we
• This hearing of Military and Veterans Affairs is our first one of the year. Welcome back, everyone.
• So we will open the hearing as a subcommittee to allow bill presentations.
• So we will open the hearing as a subcommittee to allow bill presentations.

Summary: The Assembly Military and Veterans Affairs Committee heard four bills, with AB 1616 (Davies) and AB 1638 (Ta) placed on consent and later approved unanimously. The committee then heard AB 1775 (Ward), which would provide state support for veterans affected by the federal executive order targeting transgender service members, including prioritizing them for discharge-upgrade assistance, housing support, and expedited professional licensing. Supporters described the bill as a response to abrupt separations, loss of benefits, housing instability, and employment harm; there was no formal opposition. Members raised questions about how the state would verify eligibility and avoid unintended coverage of discharges based on other reasons, and the author said applicants would need a DD-214 and supplemental documentation showing the discharge was solely due to the executive order. AB 1775 was passed on a due-pass motion and referred to the Committee on Business and Professions. The committee also heard AB 2022 (Gonzalez), which would provide a full property tax exemption for the primary residences of veterans who are 100% service-connected disabled, and extend the exemption to unmarried surviving spouses. The author and supporters said the bill is intended to prevent homelessness and help severely disabled veterans remain in their homes amid California’s high housing costs. Committee discussion focused on the size of the eligible population and the fiscal impact, with the author noting the measure applies to a much smaller group than all disabled veterans and that he would provide more cost information later. AB 2022 was approved as amended and referred to the Committee on Revenue and Taxation. By the end of the hearing, all bills on the agenda were reported out 8-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you hear me? >> Yes, please proceed. >> Perfect. Uh, co-chair Tab Key and co-chair Cosnik.
• Can you hear<00:02:21.599><c> me?</c> hear me? hear me?
• It's kind of like we were just hearing about the Whimo and the Uber lift thing that we're competing,
• It's kind of like we were just hearing about the Whimo and the Uber lift thing that we're competing,
• It's kind of like we were just hearing about the Whimo and the Uber lift thing that we're competing,

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll go into House Bill 369 in public hearing.
• Thank you, committee, for agreeing to hear this bill.
• Because when they hear from their teachers, they realize that this is something that's important, and
• Because when they hear from their teachers, they realize that this is something that's important, and
• Seeing none, that will conclude the hearing on House Bill 3069.

Committee: House Legislative Review

Summary: The Committee on Legislative Review met with five members present and took up two public hearings: House Bill 369 and House Bill 3465. On HB 369, Representative Simmons said the bill would let school employees join or leave teachers’ unions at any time and would prohibit school districts from automatically deducting union dues from paychecks, citing the Janus decision and arguing members should pay directly rather than through payroll deduction. Committee members questioned why the bill was needed, whether unions and school districts had been consulted, whether current law already allows opt-in/opt-out at any time, and whether the bill would affect other payroll deductions. Opposition testimony from Missouri NEA, Missouri State Teachers Association, and the Missouri AFL-CIO said the bill was unnecessary, targeted unions, could create administrative burdens, and might raise constitutional concerns; they emphasized that payroll deduction is already voluntary and that members can cancel membership at any time. No vote was taken on HB 369 during the hearing. The committee then heard HB 3465, a severability bill sponsored by Representative Keithley. He explained that it would create a broader severability standard so that if part of a legislative act is found unconstitutional, the rest could remain in effect unless there is clear and convincing evidence the legislature would not have passed the act without the invalid provision. He said the bill is intended to give courts clearer guidance and preserve the remainder of legislation when possible. Questions from members focused on how this differs from existing severability law and whether it would improperly direct the courts; Keithley responded that it clarifies legislative intent and applies to procedural as well as substantive constitutional issues. Supporters, including Campaign Life Missouri, said the bill would apply to bills, joint resolutions, and concurrent resolutions and would give courts a clearer standard. There was no opposition testimony on HB 3465, and the hearing concluded with no further business and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you hear us okay? Good morning, Chairman and committee members. My name is Valerie Hall.
• Hear so we can just keep going. Thank you.
• Speak really loud into the mic so the people can hear you online, please. Okay? Absolutely.
• Speak really loud into the mic so the people can hear you online, please.
• During the 2025 legislative session, we did hear from the department about their goal to increase the

Committee: Senate Health and Welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, we're going to hold the motion until we hear some testimony. Mr. Chair. Second.
• So next up we're going to hear from IACTE and Dr.
• So next up, we're going to hear from IACTE and Dr. Blevins, did I get it right?
• I did not hear a question again, Doctor. So thank you.
• I did not hear a question again, Doctor, if you want to respond to that? Mr.

Committee: House Education

Transcript Highlights:

• Once you get to public hearing, it's a reasonable cause determination.
• Because that's not really what it is once you get to public hearing.
• Same change in conduct of hearings just to make it clear what that is.
• Rather than complaint, also clarifies the hearing may be conducted by either the board or an ALJ at the
• But unless I hear to the contrary, we won't issue this opinion. Is that correct? Correct at all?

Summary: The Legislative Ethics Board met to reorganize its agenda, elect officers, approve prior minutes, review employment disclosure forms, consider rule changes, and discuss a draft annual report. Larry Hoff was nominated and elected chair/president, and Lori was nominated and elected vice chair. The board then approved the December 8 minutes and approved two employment disclosures involving Senate and House security employees whose spouses also work in legislative security roles. Jennifer presented proposed rule updates, described as mostly technical, clarifying procedures for continuances, answers to reasonable-cause determinations, hearings before either the board or an ALJ, and discovery in adjudicative proceedings. The board moved to approve the rule amendments, and the motion passed. The draft annual report was also discussed, with members suggesting edits to bios and noting the report’s reference to 478 ethics inquiries. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on a draft advisory opinion about whether attorney-legislators may represent clients in matters against state agencies. Members debated whether the opinion should emphasize the constitutional reality of a part-time legislature and the need to distinguish legislative duties from private legal work, or whether it would create unnecessary special treatment for attorneys. Several members raised concerns about conflicts of interest and using legislative status to gain advantage, while others argued the existing ethics rules already cover those situations. In the end, the board decided not to issue the proposed advisory opinion. Jennifer also mentioned Advisory Opinion 2019-5 regarding citizen members of the board and their restrictions, including limits on lobbying. No public testimony was offered, and the board adjourned to executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Once you get to public hearing, it's a reasonable cause determination.
• Same change in conduct of hearings just to make it clear what that is.
• Also clarifies the hearing may be conducted by either the board or an ALJ at the board's discretion,
• So, but unless I hear to the contrary, ...at least.
• But unless I hear to the contrary, we won't issue this opinion. Is that correct? Correct? Okay.

Summary: The Legislative Ethics Board met to reorganize its agenda, elect officers, approve prior minutes, review employment disclosure forms, consider rule amendments, and discuss a draft annual report. Larry Hoff was nominated and approved as chair, and Lori was nominated and approved as vice chair. The board then approved the December 8 minutes and found no ethics issues with two employment disclosure forms involving Senate and House security employees who are married to each other. Jennifer presented proposed rule changes, described as mostly technical updates, including clarifying that either party may request a continuance for good cause, replacing references to a “complaint” with a “reasonable cause determination,” allowing the board to use an ALJ to hear matters and prepare an initial order, and clarifying discovery authority. The board moved, seconded, and unanimously approved the rule amendments. Members also reviewed a draft annual report and discussed updating biographies and other details. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on a draft advisory opinion about attorney-legislators representing clients in matters against state agencies. Jennifer explained that the draft concluded such representation is not automatically an ethics violation, but cautioned about special privileges, appearances of impropriety, and the need to keep legislative and private legal roles separate. Members debated whether the opinion should be broadened to emphasize that all legislators, regardless of outside employment, must avoid using their office for private advantage. Several members argued the issue is highly fact-specific and that a broad opinion could create unnecessary complexity or special treatment for lawyers. By the end of the discussion, the board appeared to decide not to issue the proposed opinion. The chair also noted a prior advisory opinion on citizen members of the board and reminded members of restrictions on lobbying and related activities. No public testimony was offered, and the board moved toward executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will begin by opening public hearing on House Bill 1662.
• Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, great.
• That closes the public hearing on House Bill 1662, and we will open the public hearing on House Bill
• Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, good morning, Madam Chair and committee members.
• And that closes the public hearing on House Bill 1683.

Summary: The House Education Committee held public hearings on two bills. House Bill 1662 would move several education-related boards and commissions—the State Board of Education, the Professional Educator Standards Board, the Financial Education Public-Private Partnership, and the Charter School Commission—toward operational independence from OSPI by July 1, 2027, including separate administrative services, asset and employee transfers, and transition planning by OFM. The prime sponsor and supporters said the bill would improve transparency, fiscal accountability, and agency flexibility, while OSPI-related testimony emphasized that small agencies need more nimble administrative support. No one testified in opposition; the hearing record noted 2 pro, 1 con, and 5 other sign-ins, and members were told the bill was substantively the same as the version passed the prior year except for date changes. The committee then heard House Bill 1683, which would require most school districts with 2,000 or more students to elect at least some school board members from director districts rather than entirely at-large, with larger districts needing more district-based seats and districts under 2,000 students exempt. The sponsor and supporters argued the change would improve geographic and demographic representation, especially for lower-income communities and communities of color, and would help ensure school boards reflect the students and families they serve. Opponents, including a school directors association representative, said the bill would be an unfunded mandate, reduce local control, and create added election costs and recruitment challenges; one witness also suggested the bill should consider broader proportional-representation options. Staff noted that 23 districts would currently be out of compliance, and the hearing record showed 12 pro, 163 con, and 2 other sign-ins. No executive action was taken on either bill during this portion of the meeting. At the end of the hearing, the chair reminded members that several bills heard that week would be on next Thursday’s executive session agenda, urged prompt amendment requests, and announced that the committee would adjourn to caucuses.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it's good to hear the governor mentioned affordability in his speech, but I would say he just fails
• Republicans were completely unable to get hearings for bills to hire more police officers, unable to
• get hearings for bills to fix the CCA for farmers.
• And you'll hear that from any officer in any given department in any jurisdiction.
• Are you hearing any support across the aisle from Democrats who say...

Summary: House and Senate Republican leaders held a session-opening media availability on the second day of Washington’s 60-day legislative session, criticizing Governor Bob Ferguson’s State of the State address and previewing their priorities. They said the central issue this session is affordability, and argued the state should respond with less spending, fewer taxes, and less regulation rather than new taxes or expanded government. They also said they expect a major fight over the operating budget, warned against using the rainy day fund or weakening the balanced-budget requirement, and said the state should look for savings in areas where caseloads are down but spending continues to rise, including reducing middle management in state agencies. A major focus was the governor’s proposal for a tax on high earners, which Republicans repeatedly described as an income tax and said they would oppose. They argued it would eventually expand beyond millionaires, said voters have rejected income taxes repeatedly, and said a constitutional amendment would not pass. They also criticized past tax increases such as the capital gains tax, death tax, document recording fees, and climate-related charges, saying Democrats have not provided meaningful tax relief for working families. Republican leaders said the Working Families Tax Credit is one area where they can support using existing Climate Commitment Act revenue, and they suggested other uses for those funds, including transportation and wildfire prevention. The leaders also discussed public safety and immigration, saying the governor and Democrats have been inconsistent on federal law enforcement and that coordination between agencies is essential. They said concerns about masked federal agents and immigration enforcement should be left to investigations rather than political conclusions. On child care and DCYF, they said allegations of fraud and waste should be investigated through audits or other oversight, and they rejected the idea that looking into possible fraud is offensive to honest providers. They also said they see potential bipartisan overlap on transportation and housing, but argued the governor’s housing plan relies too much on public spending and not enough on permitting reform, Growth Management Act changes, and energy code changes to increase supply.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, I think yes, and I hear I'm talking about this, but I also hear folks like, and this is the thing
• Well I think yes and I hear<00:02:36.640><c> I'm</c><00:02:36.800><c> talking</c><00:02:36.959><c> about
• I'm talking about this but I also hear I'm talking about this but I also hear<00:02:38.000><c> folks
• 02:38.800><c> this</c><00:02:38.959><c> is</c><00:02:39.040><c> the</c><00:02:39.200><c> thing</c> hear
• folks like and this is the thing hear folks like and this is the thing about<00:02:39.519><c> that.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do I hear a second? Thank you. I got a motion and a second for a favorable report.
• It was passed out of a separate committee last year after a public hearing.
• It came back this year through that same committee, and then, of course, we had a public hearing here
• I just can't hear you. I know my mic wasn't on. Oh, thank you. I'm sorry.
• There's no public hearing that I believe was called by them.

Bills: SB210 , SB176 , SB167 , SB244 , SB218 , SB9 , SB153 , SB9

Committee: House Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, someone says they can hear. They can hear it in the Zoom. Deputy, you want to try again?
• </c> &gt;&gt; Can you hear me? &gt;&gt; Can you hear me?
• </c> &gt;&gt; Thank you for hearing this bill. &gt;&gt; Thank you for hearing this bill.
• </c> or when not to hear cases. or when not to hear cases.
• But we can still have hearings. &gt;&gt; Yes. But we can still have hearings.

Summary: The committee heard SB 2694 SD2, which would authorize the Public Utilities Commission to create automatic adjustment mechanisms for water carriers, including a water carrier inflationary cost index, and to waive certain requirements under the Hawaii Water Carrier Act. Testimony was sharply divided. The Department of Transportation, Young Brothers, and several shipping, harbor, labor, and business-related supporters argued the bill would modernize regulation, reduce the need for large catch-up rate cases, and help keep rates aligned with rising costs. Young Brothers said its current rate-setting process is expensive and delayed, and that annual adjustments with guardrails such as a 5% cap and periodic full reviews would support sustainable operations and the state’s supply chain. Some supporters also said the company’s less-than-container-load service and required inter-island routes create costs that are not fully covered by current rates. Opponents, including the Consumer Advocate, the Maui Chamber of Commerce, Hawaii Food Industry Association, restaurant and chamber groups, and other businesses, argued the bill would lead to higher costs for consumers and businesses and should not move forward. Several testified that shipping costs already significantly affect pricing and that automatic increases would worsen the cost of living. The Consumer Advocate said Young Brothers should focus on cost control and implementing its business plan rather than automatic rate increases. The Maui Chamber and others pointed to a recent PUC decision that imposed a two-year stay on rate increases and said the bill would undermine that protection. Some opponents urged the committee to defer to the PUC’s regulatory authority. The PUC explained that it regulates water carriers as public utilities under existing statute and said it had recently approved a temporary rate increase while imposing a two-year stayout period on further increases, with emergency relief still possible. PUC members said they were still examining whether they have authority to adopt the proposed WICI mechanism by rule and wanted legislative clarity. In response to questions, the PUC said it prefers the current two-year stayout as reflected in its order. Young Brothers also clarified that it serves less-than-container-load cargo, that some routes and services are cross-subsidized because they are not profitable, and that an independent observer is being put in place to monitor implementation of its updated business plan. The transcript ended with the committee still taking questions; no final vote or disposition on the bill was shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Now, we hear that maybe Now, we hear that maybe in<00:13:05.920><c> the</c><00:13:06.000><c> one
• And so, I definitely hear the heart behind it, and I hear the heart of our governor and the first lady
• And so, I definitely hear the heart behind it, and I hear the heart of our governor and the first lady
• I had a hard time hearing explanation. I had a hard time hearing it.<02:31:36.520><c> Sorry.
• , hearings, hearings, I<02:31:50.560><c> might</c><02:31:50.720><c> be</c><02:31:50.800><c> getting</

Committee: Joint Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm going to go ahead and open today's hearing on House Finance Division III.
• I never hear that.
• I never hear that.
• I never hear that.
• </c> and information about it and people hear and information about it and people hear it<01:21:00.000

Summary: The House Finance Division III held an informational hearing on Medicaid, Medicare, Choices for Independence, and related financing, while postponing nursing facility financing and the county cap discussion to a later date. DHHS officials Ann Landry, Jonathan Ballard, and Medicaid Director Henry Litman provided an overview of Medicaid’s role, noting it is a federal-state partnership with state-specific eligibility and benefits, and emphasizing that Medicaid is a major funding and programmatic support for other DHHS initiatives. They also distinguished Medicaid from Medicare and explained that Medicaid funding is not the same as grant funding, though some providers may also receive federal grants through other channels. The presentation focused on New Hampshire’s relatively small Medicaid program and why it differs from national averages. Officials said about 184,000 residents are covered, roughly one in seven Granite Staters compared with one in five nationally, and attributed the difference largely to the state’s higher per-capita income and older population. They highlighted that about 65% of Medicaid-enrolled adults in New Hampshire are working, that only 22% of births are covered by Medicaid versus 42% nationally, and that the state’s uninsured rate is lower than the national rate. Members asked about covered services, income limits, federal matching rates, and the names of optional eligibility groups; staff explained that New Hampshire offers the optional groups discussed, with matching rates varying by category, including 90% for Granite Advantage and certain other groups, and 65% for children above the required level. A substantial portion of the hearing covered eligibility rules and recent policy changes. Officials reviewed the history of Medicaid, including HCBS waivers, the CFI program, Katie Beckett, the Olmstead decision, the ACA, and the end of continuous enrollment after the public health emergency. They also discussed the 2023 legislative expansion of postpartum coverage from 60 days to 12 months and child eligibility changes. In response to questions, DHHS said it is tracking utilization and costs for the postpartum expansion and reported that many maternal deaths occur after the prior 60-day coverage period, often involving substance use disorder or suicide; they said the longer coverage is intended to improve access to treatment and prevention. The committee also walked through household-income examples, clarified that Medicaid eligibility is based on household income and categorical rules, and confirmed that Granite Advantage ends at 138% of the federal poverty level unless another categorical basis applies. No votes were taken, and the hearing remained informational.