Transcript Highlights:

• They don’t set the price. Gas sets the price, and gas is a volatile thing.
• The price of gas sets the price of electricity statewide.
• The price of gas sets the price of electricity statewide, and it's true nationally as well.
• They don't set the price. Gas sets the price, and gas is a volatile thing.
• We talk about the price of energy, and you were talking about the price of energy set by gas.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Standing Committee on Energy and Telecommunications met under Chair Senator Kevin Parker and considered several bills related to clean energy, transmission, storage, schools, and microgrids. Bill 1456, which would require certain watercraft, aircraft, and trains to be zero-emissions and direct NYSERDA studies and incentives, was discussed as technology-neutral and advanced with one no vote to the Finance Committee. Bill 286, increasing statewide energy storage capacity, drew concerns about battery safety, fire risk, and volunteer fire department training, but was advanced to the floor with two no votes. Bill 2482, the Go Green Schools Act, would let schools convert to renewable energy and keep savings for school operations; it advanced to the floor despite concerns about siting solar on school grounds. Bill 2485 on expanding electric transmission lines and Bill 5510 directing NYSERDA to develop microgrid recommendations were both advanced to the Finance Committee, each with one no vote. The committee then heard testimony from Marguerite Wells, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York. She argued that wind, solar, storage, and transmission have made New York a leader in clean energy and said renewable energy is increasingly cost-competitive, with much of recent bill increases driven by grid upgrades and gas prices rather than renewables. She also said clean energy helps hedge against volatile fossil fuel prices, pointed to community solar and offshore wind as savings and reliability tools, and said the state’s permitting and interconnection processes have improved. Members questioned Wells about farmland use, decommissioning, recycling of solar and wind equipment, battery storage safety, local control, and misinformation. Wells said utility-scale projects require decommissioning plans and financial assurances, farmland must be restored under agricultural guidelines, and recycling capacity is developing. On battery storage, she said New York has rigorous codes and monitoring requirements, that not all storage is lithium-ion, and that state-level permitting is appropriate for large facilities. Several senators raised concerns about fires, contamination, winter performance, and siting projects in densely populated areas or on farmland, while others emphasized farmland protections and the value of renewable projects to host communities.

Transcript Highlights:

• can price your premiums. can price your premiums.
• It's really the prices.
• It's really the prices. So, in words. It's really the prices.
• And so the VA gets the best price out of anybody in terms of drug pricing.
• terms of drug pricing. terms of drug pricing.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It might be internal reference pricing, or it may be external. reference pricing.
• . of prices.
• If you do not have those different pricing models, you can't price them effectively.
• If you do not have those different pricing models, you can't price them effectively.
• He's talking about European pricing.

Transcript Highlights:

• how closure affects commercial prices how closure affects commercial prices being<00:47:10.800><
• > for<00:48:11.680> patients Higher prices are important for patients Higher prices are
• /c><00:48:58.240> about<00:48:58.640> 4% their prices. prices go up by about 4% their prices
• Because if prices go up at surviving hospitals, everyone pays those higher prices, not just people who
• Part of that is pricing.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Select Subcommittee first took up adoption of three previously prepared nonpartisan committee summary reports dated October 15, November 13, and November 21. Senator Rasmusson objected to the lack of advance notice about the day’s testifiers and criticized the practice of having nonpartisan staff summarize what he described as a partisan agenda. The chair responded that the committee’s purpose is to gather information, not hear bills, and that the summaries were intended as neutral resources for the Senate. Senator Coopek moved adoption, the motion was opposed by Rasmusson and another member, and the motion passed. The committee then turned to the day’s hearing on federal impacts on Minnesota, with the chair focusing on federal funding threats and the effect of congressional budget actions on health care, especially in greater Minnesota. The first presentation came from the Minnesota Department of Health on the state’s rural health transformation work. Assistant Commissioner Carol Broom introduced the team and described the rural hospital transformation program as a major opportunity to invest in rural health, while acknowledging longstanding challenges such as demographics, transportation barriers, and the financing of care. Nitha Moibi outlined the state’s rural health chart book and data showing an aging population, workforce shortages, and many health professional shortage areas, and described proposed strategies including workforce pipelines, bridge payments for low-volume birth hospitals, telehealth access points, mental health urgent care, and chronic disease prevention. Acting Assistant Commissioner Anna Ashby of the Minnesota Management and Budget office explained the state’s application to CMS for the Rural Health Transformation Program, which was created in federal law and awarded Minnesota just over $193 million for federal fiscal year 2026. She said the application was shaped by public comments, stakeholder meetings, and legislative outreach, and included initiatives on preventive care, workforce, care access, behavioral health, and provider financial stability. She also reviewed implementation constraints, including a January 30 revised budget deadline, limits on administrative spending, restrictions on using funds to offset Medicaid losses, and the need to show measurable progress to remain eligible for future funding. The presentation noted that most year-one funding would go to rural hospitals, with additional support for federally qualified health centers, community mental health centers, tribal partners, and technical assistance.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is not a free market; this is price fixing by monopoly power. prices for the same procedure not
• based prices for the same procedure not based on<02:05:57.679> lawful<02:05:58.079> price
• in Canada and four times for one price in Canada and four times that<02:06:32.599> price<02:06
• today that are increasing the price today that are increasing the price arbitrarily<02:16:43.040
• model is relevant to changing the price model is relevant to changing the price and<02:23:46.920

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , and shops will charge different prices.
• Talk about the pricing strategy? Yeah, I'll talk now about our pricing strategy. So our pricing...
• The pricing strategy? Yeah, I'll talk now about our pricing strategy.
• They do a price per pass so that they can pass that cost on for each of the schools. ...do a price per
• And so that's fixed pricing.

Keywords: 985, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There are two separate pricing.
• <00:42:02.079> and agreed to both lower pricing and agreed to both lower pricing and specific
• <01:01:29.280> versus If we had that type of pricing versus If we had that type of pricing
• If it's making us prices.
• >> and then the price goes up or what? >> and then the price goes up or what?

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board met on February 23, 2026, approved the January 12 minutes, and then focused primarily on Kentucky Medicaid’s coverage and potential expansion of GLP-1 drugs, especially for weight loss. Department for Medicaid Services Commissioner Lisa Lee explained that Medicaid currently does not cover drugs for weight loss, anorexia, or weight gain, but the department had filed a regulation to remove that blanket exclusion so GLP-1s could be covered when used for an underlying health condition. She said the administrative regulation review subcommittee found the regulation deficient, and the co-chairs wanted the board to discuss the policy and financing implications before any change. DMS also said it would be open to adding caveats to ensure coverage would not extend to cosmetic weight loss alone. The department provided several data points on current utilization and spending. In 2025, Kentucky Medicaid paid for appetite-stimulating drugs such as Megestrol, Dronabinol, and Marinol, but did not pay for weight-loss drugs. For GLP-1s, DMS said coverage began in 2025 and is limited to FDA-approved medical conditions, with prior authorization requiring a type 2 diabetes diagnosis code and A1C documentation. DMS reported $234.6 million in GLP-1 spending in 2025 before rebates, about 240,931 prescriptions, and said GLP-1s accounted for 7.3% of pharmacy spend in 2024 and 8.3% in 2025. It also said there were 24,844 expansion members and 13,638 non-expansion members using GLP-1s, with spending of about $156 million and $78.5 million respectively, and that 10 pediatric weight-loss prescriptions were covered under EPSDT. The department said outcome analyses, including whether GLP-1 use reduces insulin or other diabetes treatment, are underway and should be completed in a couple of months. Members asked about cost, rebates, and whether the state should wait for more outcomes data before expanding coverage. DMS said average reimbursement to pharmacies was $975 per prescription and the average dispensing fee was $109; it also said 2025 rebate invoices totaled $90.8 million, with $7.6 million collected so far. Several members expressed concern about the high cost and the need to evaluate whether the drugs improve health outcomes before expanding access, while others noted the potential benefits for obesity and diabetes treatment. Some members also discussed whether GLP-1s are effectively being used for weight loss in diabetic patients and whether broader data collection should be used to assess long-term value. After the Medicaid discussion, Eli Lilly executive Tracy Sims presented on obesity as a chronic disease and the economic burden it creates in Kentucky. She said Kentucky’s adult obesity rate is a little over 37%, that obesity is linked to about 200 diseases, and that untreated obesity costs the state billions in GDP and hundreds of millions in state budget impact. She highlighted recent federal access programs for GLP-1s, including a Medicaid-related program that she said could lower the state share of a Zepbound prescription to about $71 per month after federal matching. No votes were taken on the GLP-1 policy question during the meeting, and the main action was the receipt of testimony and discussion of the department’s proposed regulatory change.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, so I'm small portion of pricing.
• > calculators there's still price calculators there's still price calculators available.<00:38
• <00:40:37.040> There prices on our website, right? There prices on our website, right?
• Um, so pricing is available.
• I think that the whole process of price I think that the whole process of price transparency<00:

Bills: HB1853, HB1591, HB1961, HB1854, HB1965, HB1962, HB1959, HB2505, HB2576, HB1801, HB1804, HB1864, HB2319, HB2314, HB2115

Keywords: HB1853, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, cognitive impairment, memory care, memory clinic, Hanai Memory Network, Executive Office on Aging, aging services, kupuna, caregiver support, long-term care, elder care, geriatrics, public health, dementia screening, care coordination, referral network, neighbor islands, rural health

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 2047, relating to pharmacy benefit managers. The Insurance Division said the bill would require new enforcement resources and estimated an appropriation of about $1.5 million and five positions. Kaiser Permanente asked for an amendment to exclude HMOs from the definition of third-party PBMs, saying the bill should not interfere with integrated care models. PCMA and the Hawaii Pharmacist Association supported narrowing amendments, with pharmacists objecting to section 3 and warning the bill as amended could create major operational burdens and a significant general fund cost. No vote was taken in the portion provided, and the chair moved on to the next measure after questions. The committee then took up SB 2080, which would allow Hawaii to join the psychology interjurisdictional compact. Supporters, including DCR, the Hawaii Association of Health Plans, the Hawaii State Association of Counties, the Grassroot Institute, and others, said the compact would expand access to psychology services, especially for people in rural areas or those needing continuity of care while traveling. Opponents, including the Board of Psychology and a Shamanad University psychology professor, raised concerns about client safety, crisis-response procedures, enforcement costs, FBI background checks, and possible loss of state control over training and specialization standards. The board said Hawaii’s current 1,900-hour internship/postdoc requirement is higher than the compact’s standard and that the state is still implementing a separate provisional licensing law that may address some access issues. The discussion focused on whether the compact would meaningfully reduce shortages and whether Hawaii should instead pursue changes within its existing licensing system. Finally, the committee heard SB 2277 on hospital price transparency. The Office of Consumer Protection initially noted the bill could require significant staffing, but later testimony from SHIP suggested the measure could be handled more simply by working with the Healthcare Association of Hawaii and publicly posting violations. The Healthcare Association of Hawaii opposed the bill, arguing hospitals already must comply with federal CMS transparency rules and that adding state requirements would increase costs and legal exposure, especially if violations were treated as unfair or deceptive trade practices. Steve Fenberg testified in support, saying the bill would simply codify existing federal requirements in state law and that he was open to amendments removing state enforcement and the unfair trade practice language. No final action was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And as I was just maybe belaboring the point, oil prices and production and gas prices and production
• A $1 change in the annual price, average price of oil, we estimated has a $50 million impact on revenues
• OK, this is our best price comparison for oil prices. Yeah, no, absolutely.
• Um, these are, are sort of like wholesale prices. These are the prices you can fetch at market.
• So I believe that's probably based upon futures prices or spot prices or, or whatever.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so what we're seeing in rates is that contract price and getting the price at the right place to
• And wherever the last resource is, that's what sets the price of the market.
• Prices on the wholesale market averaged $250 per megawatt hour.
• on permitting counterparties who require BLL lines or pricing.
• Prices on the wholesale market averaged $250 per megawatt hour.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 1026 by Assembly Member Wilson, which would require investor-owned utilities to provide clearer front-end information and follow more consistent timelines for post-entitlement energization applications tied to housing projects. The author and supporters from the Housing Action Coalition and Mission Housing said utility delays can hold up approved housing, add costs, and create uncertainty, and they argued the bill would align utility processes with recent state efforts to streamline local permitting. PG&E and Southern California Edison opposed the bill, saying existing CPUC timelines and the ongoing energization rulemaking already address the issue, that the bill could be duplicative or premature, and that some proposed timelines were too short. The committee discussed the bill’s relationship to the CPUC’s September 2024 decision, and AB 1026 was ultimately approved on a 15-0 vote, with the consent calendar also passing. The second half of the hearing was the committee’s annual oversight hearing on electric reliability. Representatives from the CPUC, CEC, CAISO, and DWR reviewed lessons from the 2020 and 2022 heat emergencies, emphasizing that California has since added significant resources, improved planning, and created backstop programs such as the strategic reliability reserve. They said the summer 2025 outlook is cautiously optimistic, with no expected shortfalls under traditional planning conditions and a projected surplus, though wildfire and extreme heat remain risks. The agencies also described major changes in planning and operations, including more battery storage, updated resource adequacy rules, expanded transmission planning, and reforms to the interconnection queue. Members asked about data center load, Diablo Canyon’s future, the strategic reliability reserve, demand response, wildfire mitigation costs, affordability, and regional market expansion. Witnesses said data center demand is a major variable but can be managed through better forecasting, flexible service arrangements, and siting in areas with existing capacity; they also said firm clean resources remain valuable while planning continues around Diablo Canyon’s scheduled retirement. On affordability, they said the agencies try to balance reliability with least-cost procurement, and that new resources can lower market prices even as they require upfront investment. CAISO also highlighted the value of the Western Energy Imbalance Market and the planned day-ahead market, saying regional coordination improves both reliability and cost savings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Price, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Ore, Mr. Price, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Ore, Mr. Price, Mr. Roberts, Mr.
• Price, Mr. Price, Mr. Price, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Stuts, Mr.
• Price, Mr. Price, Mr. Price, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
• Price, Mr. Price, Mr. Price, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
• Price, Mr. Price, Mr. Price, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Sessions, Mr.

Bills: SCR 13, SCR 24, SB 1, SB 12, SB 15, SB 17, SB 24, SB 57, SB 65, SB 213, SB 371, SB 372, SB 378, SB 379, SB 388, SB 400, SB 402, SB 427, SB 495, SB 499, SB 502, SB 509, SB 535, SB 583, SB 610, SB 621, SB 650, SB 706, SB 740, SB 840, SB 854, SB 856, SB 875, SB 893, SB 918, SB 925, SB 974, SB 995, SB 1006, SB 1018, SB 1025, SB 1061, SB 1073, SB 1106, SB 1121, SB 1194, SB 1252, SB 1253, SB 1268, SB 1300, SB 1343, SB 1362, SB 1447, SJR 36, SJR 12, SJR 57, SCR 25, SCR 22, SCR 12, SCR 24, SCR 8, SB 565, SB 372, SB 765, SB 62, SB 666, SB 707, SB 888, SB 687, SB 847, SB 1248, SB 740, SB 14, SB 1006, SB 504, SB 925, SB 1121, SB 995, SB 857, SB 305, SB 296, SB 284, SB 815, SB 1379, SB 1300, SB 1497, SB 1499, SB 1498, SB 1061, SB 65, SB 241, SB 304, SB 402, SB 499, SB 621, SB 974, SB 1023, SB 1024, SB 1025, SB 1106, SB 686, SB 112, SB 371, SB 204, SB 400, SB 609, SB 1447, SB 670, SB 502, SB 427, SB 850, SB 854, SB 413, SB 1555, SB 1362, SB 1346, SB 1033, SB 1220, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 987, SB 1539, SB 893, SB 447, SB 875, SB 406, SB 509, SB 985, SB 965, SB 1119, SB 1505, SB 24, SB 57, SB 1194, SB 1253, SB 1215, SB 1532, SB 1268, SB 1302, SB 856, SB 650, SB 583, SB 673, SB 840, SB 213, SB 681, SB 1172, SB 1252, SB 378, SB 610, SB 918, SB 1343, SB 608, SB 487, SB 955, SB 957, SB 988, SB 990, SB 1019, SB 1021, SB 1120, SB 251, SB 958, SB 535, SB 761, SB 1, SB 541, SB 315, SB 379, SB 1018, SB 1737, SB 266, SB 1415, SB 57, SB 499, SB 974, SB 1025, SB 1061, SB 1268, SR 302, SR 303, SR 304, SR 305, SB 30, SB 1333, SB 1666, SB 30, SB 1333, SB 1666

Keywords: water rights, treaty compliance, Rio Grande, agriculture, drought, international water, Texas water supply, Texas, Israel, trade, investment, partnership, economic ties, technological innovation, bilateral relations, appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare

Transcript Highlights:

• It forced CenterPoint to purchase gas in an environment in which the price spiked, and you know there's
• <00:10:00.480> spiked in an envir in which the price spiked in an envir in which the price
• or whether it's on, you know, fuel price or, uh, it looked like there's also an opportunity to find
• or whether it's on, you know, fuel price, or, uh, it looked like there's also an opportunity to find
• Swanson continued: A big bus agency bought some futures and locked in some low prices, uh, those sorts

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , where there's no current downward pressure on home prices.
• This forced upsizing effect is proven to increase prices.
• This forced upsizing effect is proven to increase prices.
• I don't have the average home price of home sales in 2025, but we do know that the median home price
• And they don't have the same median sales price as the rest of the state.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-03, House Bill 5000, which would allow single-family homes on small lots in areas with adequate infrastructure. Committee chairs outlined the Article 48 process and the hearing format, then heard first from two subject-matter experts. Under Secretary Chris Clutchman of Housing and Livable Communities explained that the proposal would amend Chapter 40A’s Section 3 (the Dover Amendment) to require most municipalities, except Boston, to allow single-family homes on residentially zoned lots of at least 5,000 square feet with 50 feet of frontage and access to public water and sewer, while still allowing reasonable local regulations on setbacks, height, bulk, and short-term rentals. He distinguished the proposal from Chapter 40Y starter-home zoning, said implementation would likely require regulations to address issues such as wetlands, infrastructure capacity, and nonconforming lots, and answered committee questions about lot subdivision, MBTA Communities, and the relationship to existing zoning tools. Attorney Susan Murphy testified that the petition would significantly override local zoning and could create conflicts with existing statutes, including Chapter 40A Section 6 protections for certain nonconforming lots, subdivision control law, and other residential zoning districts. She raised concerns about how “access” to water and sewer would be defined, whether the measure could apply in business or industrial districts where residential uses are allowed, and whether the proposal could allow large homes on small lots without any affordability limits. She also warned that the measure could have significant infrastructure impacts and argued that the Legislature should consider broader, more comprehensive housing legislation rather than expanding exceptions to the zoning framework. Committee members asked both experts about frontage, lot size, infrastructure capacity, and how the proposal would interact with 40Y and MBTA Communities. The proponents, led by Andrew McCulla of the Legalized Starter Homes Coalition, argued that Massachusetts faces a severe housing shortage and affordability crisis, citing high home prices, high rents, declining listings, and outmigration of younger residents. They said the measure would legalize modest single-family homes on smaller lots, increase housing supply, and help first-time buyers and downsizing seniors, while leaving most other local rules in place. Other proponents, including representatives from Abundant Housing Massachusetts, the Charles River Regional Chamber, and individual residents, emphasized workforce retention, the need for more starter homes, and the view that large minimum lot sizes are a major barrier to production. Committee members pressed the panel on the lack of any home-size or affordability requirement, possible effects on 40B compliance, the number of new lots and homes that might result, and the fact that the ballot initiative would not be amendable by the Legislature. The hearing then turned to opponents from the Massachusetts Municipal Association, who urged the committee to take no action. MMA leaders said zoning should remain a local decision made by residents and elected local officials, and argued that the proposal would preempt local control with a one-size-fits-all mandate. They also said the measure is impractical because many communities with water and sewer are already at or near capacity, so infrastructure availability does not necessarily mean development capacity. The hearing ended during the MMA’s testimony, with no vote or final committee action taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• tax up until the point where the prices tax up until the point where the prices get<00:16:14.160
• So we have seen um the price of off.
• about the affordable home price, right? about the affordable home price, right?
• rates are so high they're being priced rates are so high they're being priced out<00:55:06.079><
• price prices remaining high largely by price prices remaining high uncertainty<01:20:42.400> resulting

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• First, it protects consumers from fossil fuel price spikes.
• I want to, and I'm a victim of the price of fuel.
• I want to, and I'm a victim of the price of fuel.
• We saw that in the prices coming down. We’ve hit speed bumps.
• When distributed solar was going strong, real-time prices were about $100.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a wide range of energy bills, with much of the discussion focused on offshore wind, battery storage, solar, nuclear study proposals, and a bill to redefine clean energy. Several Barnstable-area legislators and witnesses raised concerns about offshore wind transmission infrastructure near neighborhoods, beaches, and drinking water supplies, and supported bills to create a special commission and increase local input and oversight. In contrast, environmental, consumer, labor, and clean energy groups strongly backed offshore wind expansion bills, arguing that offshore wind lowers long-term costs, improves winter reliability, reduces fossil fuel dependence, supports jobs and local supply chains, and should include wildlife protections, labor standards, and community benefits. Some witnesses and committee members noted that parts of the offshore wind legislation overlap with the Governor’s energy affordability bill, and asked for clarification on which provisions were new versus duplicative. The committee also heard testimony on battery storage and solar legislation. Two student witnesses and several industry representatives supported a bill to study grid battery storage, saying storage can reduce outages, lower peak prices, and improve grid resilience during extreme weather. Witnesses from solar and storage companies supported a broader clean energy transition bill that would expand storage procurement, create a retail-style storage program for distributed batteries, set a 10-gigawatt solar target by 2035, and streamline siting and interconnection. Committee members pressed witnesses on whether these provisions were already included in the Governor’s affordability bill and asked for a section-by-section breakdown of what was new. One witness also urged allowing developers to bond interconnection payments to reduce financing costs. Another major topic was a bill defining clean energy, especially whether existing pumped-storage hydropower should qualify for subsidies or be excluded. Supporters of the bill argued that existing pumped storage should not receive additional ratepayer subsidies because it is already built, can have environmental impacts on rivers and ecosystems, and could cost ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Opponents said pumped storage is an important reliability resource and should remain eligible. The committee also heard testimony on nuclear-energy study bills: some witnesses supported creating a commission to examine nuclear power as a reliable, carbon-free option, while others opposed nuclear study bills and argued that nuclear is costly, unsafe, and inconsistent with the state’s clean energy goals. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:45.519> and pressed because of soaring prices and pressed because of soaring prices
• seen some price points and um the price seen some price points and um the price point<00:20:05.840
• It shows that, across comparison of prices, community solar gardens don't raise the price.
• It shows that, across comparison of prices, community solar gardens don't raise the price.
• It shows that, across comparison of prices, community solar gardens don't raise the price.

Bills: HF2103, HF2793

Keywords: energy, renewable energy, ammonia, hydrogen, certificate tracking, funding, environment, community solar, energy policy, sustainability, solar garden program, regulation sunset, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• They contract with those prices.
• Those prices are set for a specific amount of time and they have to hold those prices.
• They contract with those prices. Okay? They contract with those prices.
• Only at that price.
• <01:50:56.719> So determine your price. Okay? So determine your price. Okay?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 47, sponsored by Senator Regina Birdsell at the request of the Insurance Department. The bill would clarify that a birth mother’s health insurance is the primary policy for a newborn’s care unless the mother has no coverage or no employer-sponsored coverage. Birdsell and Insurance Commissioner DJ Benton Court said the measure simply codifies the department’s long-standing interpretation of existing law. Representative Miles asked whether the coverage would extend to a grandchild if a young woman on her parents’ plan had a baby, and Birdsell said it would. The hearing on SB 47 was then closed. The committee next heard Senate Bill 121, introduced by Grant Bosi for Senator Kevin Avard. The bill requires insurers to notify the Insurance Department when they stop writing an entire line of business or, in some cases, when they change Medicare Advantage offerings. Benton Court said the bill was prompted by disruption in the Medicare Advantage market, where consumers and the department were confused by carriers exiting, changing plans, or narrowing offerings. He said the department does not regulate Medicare Advantage itself, but does license the carriers, and the notice requirement would help the department advise consumers; he also said noncompliance could affect a carrier’s license and could lead to fines. Members discussed the notice period, and the department and AHIP indicated support for changing it from 120 days to 90 days to align with federal timing. The hearing was closed with plans to work on an amendment in subcommittee. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 247, introduced by Representative Brian Cole, which would prohibit network exclusion for pharmacies that refuse to dispense prescriptions when PBM reimbursement is below acquisition cost. Cole said the bill is meant to stop pharmacies from being forced to sell at a loss. Members questioned whether pharmacies voluntarily enter PBM contracts, whether the bill would raise consumer prices, and whether it would mainly affect independent pharmacies. Cole and others said the issue has changed over time because PBMs now control a much larger share of the market, and that the bill would let pharmacies refuse loss-making fills and direct patients to mail order instead. The discussion also noted that the bill excludes Medicare and Medicaid and that the current proposal does not create a middle-ground option for patients to pay a premium at the counter.

Transcript Highlights:

• from the solar developer and sell them on the market for this price?
• from the solar developer and sell them on the market for this price?
• FROM THE SOLAR DEVELOPER AND SELL THEM ON THE MARKET FOR THIS PRICE?
• That's all we talk about in this chamber is the high price of utilities.
• That's all we talk about in this chamber is the high price of utilities.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate opened with the Pledge of Allegiance, approved the prior day’s journal, and then recognized several guest groups, including the Shenendehowa High School girls varsity cross country team and tennis champion Jolie Chichak, as well as the Downsville Central School Student Council. Senator Tedisco introduced the Shenendehowa athletes, highlighting their state and federation championships and strong academic records, and Senator Oberacker introduced the Downsville students. The chamber extended courtesies to the guests. The Senate then moved through the calendar, passing a series of bills and resolutions. Among the measures approved were a bill designating Overdose Awareness Day, a real property tax bill, a public authorities bill, several education-related bills, a private housing finance bill, a workers’ compensation bill, and a labor law bill. Some items were laid aside before later being taken up, including the cannabis bill and the environmental conservation bill. Votes were largely unanimous or near-unanimous, with a few recorded negatives on certain bills. The most extensive debate centered on Calendar 261, Senator May’s environmental conservation bill concerning renewable energy installations and transmission on state reforestation lands. Senator Walczyk and others questioned whether the bill would allow solar, wind, battery storage, tree cutting, herbicide use, and reduced environmental review, while supporters argued the bill was mainly about transmission corridors, climate goals, and preserving flexibility for DEC oversight and mitigation. After debate, the bill was restored to the non-controversial calendar and passed 42-13. The Senate also passed Calendar 353, Senator Ramos’s labor law bill addressing class action wage recovery and statutory damages. Supporters said it would clarify the law so workers can recover full wages in class actions, while opponents warned it could encourage litigation against small businesses over technical payroll errors. The bill passed 47-8. The Senate then completed the calendar and adjourned until March 4, 2026, with intervening days as legislative days.

Transcript Highlights:

• And to be in compliance with the state's price disclosure laws, you see those two prices: cash, credit
• the prices for any item that you're doing.
• I think lowering prices would be a good thing for consumers, right?
• Finally, 28% of surveyed businesses planned price hikes in April.
• Finally, 28% of surveyed businesses planned price hikes in April.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Business held an informational hearing focused on the conditions facing small and micro businesses in Massachusetts and the state programs intended to support them. Chairs Andy Vargas and Adam Gomez opened by emphasizing equitable economic development, the importance of CDFIs, and the need to help underserved entrepreneurs, especially women, minorities, veterans, immigrants, and other groups facing barriers. Committee members noted the hearing would not take up bills, and testimony was limited to 10 minutes per organization. State and quasi-public agency witnesses described current programs and funding. Dico Gibral of the Executive Office of Economic Development highlighted the Business Front Door, multilingual access, small business office hours in Gateway Cities, and funding in the Mass Leads Act, including support for CDFIs, small business technology, and capital grants. Tom Hooper of Commonwealth Corporation described workforce training programs such as the Workforce Training Fund, Workforce Competitiveness Trust Fund, and Career Technical Initiative, saying they help small businesses train workers, fill labor shortages, and support returning citizens and people with disabilities. Committee members asked about federal funding uncertainty, workforce migration, training schedules, and program uptake. Business and advocacy groups focused on cost pressures and regulatory burdens. The Massachusetts Restaurant Association urged continuation of outdoor dining and takeout alcohol sales, and pressed for relief from high credit card swipe fees, support for surcharging, and streamlining municipal licensing. The Retailers Association of Massachusetts cited survey results showing inflation, utility costs, payroll taxes, health insurance, and interchange fees as major concerns, and said many members might sell or close within five years; it also backed ending the state prohibition on surcharging and creating an Office of Main Streets Massachusetts. MACDC, BECKMA, and the Coalition for an Equitable Economy emphasized the need for more technical assistance, CDFI and small business funding, and protections against rising costs, tariffs, supply chain disruptions, and immigration enforcement impacts on immigrant-heavy business districts. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, you can expect modest price increases.
• Um, you can expect modest price increases.
• First, price increases. Yes, minimum wage does drive price increases, but these prices aren't huge.
• But there is a price point. Once you hit that price point, our industry is very sensitive to that.
• But there is a price point once you hit that price point. you're Our industry is very sensitive to that

Summary: The committee held a study on the potential effects of living wage or minimum wage laws in Oklahoma, with the chair emphasizing that the discussion was not intended to advocate for or against State Question 832. The first panel focused on economic and workforce impacts. An Oklahoma Department of Commerce representative argued that living wage calculations vary by region and household type, that Oklahoma’s average wages are already near or above many living-wage estimates, and that higher mandated wages could lead employers to cut hours, reduce hiring, automate, or avoid expansion, especially in rural areas where childcare, healthcare, broadband, and infrastructure constraints also affect labor participation. Committee members asked about wage distributions, rural cost differences, training pathways, and whether higher wages might draw workers or businesses out of state; the witness said many low-wage workers move up over time and that Oklahoma has seen net in-migration. A State Chamber Research Foundation witness then testified that a $15 statewide wage floor would raise payroll costs substantially, especially for small rural employers, and cited examples from California and Seattle to argue that higher wages can reduce hours, jobs, and benefits while increasing consumer prices. She suggested alternatives such as expanding the state earned income tax credit and promoting upskilling through existing education and training programs. A Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry representative described Missouri’s recent voter-approved minimum wage increase to $13.75, rising to $15, along with paid sick leave provisions. She said the chamber opposed the measure because it would raise business costs, hurt rural communities and youth employment, and force some employers to cut hours, reduce hiring, or close. She cited examples from Missouri businesses facing significant added costs and warned that a future ballot initiative could create a patchwork of local minimum wages. In response to questions, she said Missouri’s law did not distinguish by age or industry, that businesses had raised concerns about union contracts and compliance, and that the chamber viewed the measure as harmful to competitiveness. Peter Hansen of NFIB presented the final major testimony, summarizing an NFIB study projecting that a higher Oklahoma minimum wage would produce some short-term GDP gains but longer-term losses, with GDP turning negative by the early 2030s and job losses growing over time. He said businesses respond to higher wage mandates by raising prices, trimming jobs, converting full-time positions to part-time, reducing benefits, and shifting investment toward automation or other capital. He argued that the burden falls most heavily on vulnerable workers such as young or marginal employees, who are less likely to be hired when labor costs rise. In questioning, he acknowledged that higher wages can improve pay for some workers and may have some short-term positive effects, but maintained that the long-term employment and investment effects are negative. No votes or formal actions were taken in the meeting.