Transcript Highlights:

• In observation number nine on page 36, we recommend DHHS evaluate its process We recommend DHHS evaluate
• Governor's Commission had its website content dispersed between two different websites, one operated by DHHS
• Before I conclude my prepared remarks, I'd like to thank the DHHS management and staff for their assistance

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Fiscal Committee opened by approving the May 15 minutes and then recognized Pam Ellis for her long service with the Legislative Budget Assistant’s office and upcoming retirement. The committee adopted the consent calendar with two items removed for separate consideration, then approved transfers for the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Environmental Services after questions about court benefit costs and dam project funding. The Department of Health and Human Services also received approval for a general fund transfer item. A major portion of the meeting focused on the Youth Development Center settlement fund. New administrator Jared Boyle, joined by the Attorney General, described the fund’s remaining caseload, the payment matrix, and the need for additional funding to begin hearings in August. Members raised concerns about administrative costs, attorneys’ fees, payday loans, structured settlements, and the long-term fiscal impact on the state. Boyle requested $55 million, but the committee ultimately approved a reduced appropriation of $20 million, with members noting the possibility of returning for more funding later depending on revenues and the October revenue review. The Department of Corrections then received approval for a smaller shortfall transfer and a larger overtime-related transfer, with officials citing a 52% corrections officer vacancy rate, ongoing recruitment, academy classes, and efforts to use civilian staff in some non-security roles. A late item from the Veterans Home was also approved to cover overtime, holiday pay, and indirect cost shortfalls within its existing budget. The committee then heard an informational presentation on implementation of Senate Bill 134 and the new federal Medicaid work-requirement rule. DHHS said it plans to submit a state plan amendment, seek approval for hardship exceptions, start with one eligibility check cycle, and use existing federal grant funding to make system changes. Finally, the committee received a performance audit of the Doorway opioid treatment program, which found weak written procedures, incomplete data use, reimbursement delays, and problems with the Governor’s Commission on Addiction Treatment and Prevention. Members discussed follow-up reporting, and the next Fiscal Committee meeting was scheduled for August 21 at 11:00 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• And does DHHS have a credentialing process for this, or is... 20 visits is an average well that's not
• <00:13:36.600> have<00:13:37.600> a and and do you does DHHS have a and and do you
• does DHHS have a credentialing<00:13:39.079> process<00:13:39.680> for<00:13:40.079>
• former representative Neil Kirk and DHHS former representative Neil Kirk and DHHS to<01:58:43.400
• DHHS<02:08:44.400> morning DHHS morning DHHS morning morning<02:08:47.920> it<02:08:48.040

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thanks to the DOI and the DHHS for all the work. Okay. Now, back to 490 498.
• liaison for behavioral health at DHHS. liaison for behavioral health at DHHS.
• Like our mission as DHHS is the health and well-being of all of our residents.
• Like our mission as DHHS is the health and well-being of all of our residents.
• Like our mission as DHHS is the health and well-being of all of our residents.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• She noted that although those programs are licensed at DHHS, this office oversees the food portion of
• 00:05:55.639> they're<00:05:55.840> licensed<00:05:56.319> at<00:05:56.520> DHHS
• <00:05:57.520> this although they're licensed at DHHS this although they're licensed at DHHS
• That is a program that's operated through DHHS, Department of Health and Human Services.
• So, summer EBT is fully operational at DHHS? If I think I said the other one, okay.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Committee Division II met with the New Hampshire Department of Education to review school nutrition programs and related funding. Department staff Melissa White and Kelly Rambo walked through a packet covering the National School Lunch Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Community Eligibility (CEP), After School Snack Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Summer Food Service Program, explaining that these are federally funded USDA programs, with some state supplemental funding in certain areas. They also reviewed reimbursement rates for lunch, breakfast, child/adult care, and summer meals, noting that summer rates follow calendar-year timing while most others follow the state fiscal year. Members asked several questions about how the funding works, especially the difference between federal reimbursements and the state match. Staff explained that the state lunch line in the budget is a fixed match amount tied to federal participation, while breakfast funding is broken out by meal type and reimbursement category. They also discussed why FY 2022 federal spending was much higher during COVID, when USDA covered meals at the free rate for all students, and why FY 2023 and FY 2024 dropped as normal income-eligibility rules returned. A committee member also asked about the “severe need lunch” two-cent rate, and staff said they did not know USDA’s formula. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on summer meals and the distinction between the Summer Food Service Program and Summer EBT. Staff explained that SFSP provides meals at approved sites, which can be open or closed sites, while Summer EBT is a separate DHHS-operated benefit program that provides funds to families. They said some schools or sites may not qualify under USDA rules, but eligible children can often use another nearby open site, and the department posts an interactive map and phone line to help families find locations. The committee also discussed the Community Eligibility Provision. Staff said New Hampshire currently has three CEP schools, that the eligibility threshold had recently been lowered from 40% to 25% identified students, and that the program allows participating schools to offer free meals to all students while the local district covers the non-federal share. Members asked whether any districts in the 25% to 40% range had joined; staff said no. The department offered to provide the eligibility report in Excel and noted that the CEP intent is to reduce application burden, though the lower threshold can make the local cost share harder for some districts to absorb.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this is largely based on the information that was shared with us by DHHS, kind of laying out what
• That is the program that DHHS has already explored and is looking at potentially submitting an application
• constraints are there. uh and that is the the program that um uh and that is the the program that um DHHS
• 32:05.360> explored<00:32:05.919> and<00:32:06.320> is<00:32:06.480> is DHHS
• has already uh explored and is is DHHS has already uh explored and is is looking<00:32:07.039> at

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee approved the previous meeting minutes and then reviewed a draft preliminary report on long-term managed care. The chair explained the report is intended to frame issues and outline legislative options, not make a final recommendation, especially given unresolved questions about the federal One Big Beautiful Bill (OB3). The report’s key issues included the current financing of county and private nursing homes through Medicaid rates, ProShare, MQUIP, and related funding mechanisms, and the concern that those payments could be affected or eliminated under a managed care model. Members also discussed managed care organizations’ role in Medicaid and cited other states’ experiences, noting examples of savings in Florida and Tennessee but higher costs in California. One member raised Indiana as another important comparison, and the committee agreed to add it to the report’s state examples. The committee also reviewed sections on dual eligibility, D-SNP, PACE, and CFI waivers. The chair raised concerns about whether OB3 creates incentives for states to move toward D-SNP and whether federal changes could affect provider taxes, state-directed payments, and intergovernmental transfers. Henry Litman, the state Medicaid director, said he would confirm details on D-SNP incentives and explained that ProShare is based on certified public expenditure rather than an IGT, while county cap financing is the relevant intergovernmental transfer issue. He said IGTs are not going away and that the main risk is whether current financing mechanisms could be preserved if the state later changed course. Members discussed the possibility of a waiver not being granted or renewed and the high fiscal impact that could have on counties and property taxes. The committee then discussed the population that any long-term managed care model should cover. Members agreed that there is no appetite to move developmental disability or acquired brain disorder populations into long-term managed care at this time, and the chair changed the report’s terminology from “elderly” to “aging population.” The chair also noted that the status quo option should reflect the recent shift toward home and community-based services and reduced nursing home utilization since earlier county reports. The report’s four policy options were summarized as: maintain the status quo; pursue D-SNP for dual eligibles, with DHHS potentially submitting an application as early as 2027; adopt an HCBS carveout; or move fully to managed care for the aging population. No final policy recommendation was made, and the committee discussed making edits to the draft before circulation, including adding Indiana, clarifying OB3-related issues, and changing the report title from “final” to “preliminary” or “interim.”

Transcript Highlights:

• 11.959> of<00:03:12.120> Public<00:03:12.360> Health You have heard a lot about DHHS
• So today, we're talking about $24 million of $1.1 billion, so we're around 2.2% of the total DHHS.
• budget briefing book for public DHHS budget briefing book for public health<00:19:35.960> that
• That is done within the Department of Environmental Services, not DHHS.
• I contacted DHHS, and to my surprise was told, no, not us—you contact the Department of Education.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Division III work session focused on the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Public Health Services budget. Department staff said Public Health has a relatively small budget compared with other DHHS divisions, is supported mostly by federal and other non-General funds, and contains nearly 100 accounting units and more than 50 federal grants. They emphasized that the governor’s budget did not include significant cuts, but that federal funding uncertainty and the winding down of pandemic-era resources were major factors affecting the division. The division also explained that some apparent budget growth reflects reorganizations, including moving the Bureau of Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery and some programs from other DHHS divisions into Public Health. The presentation described Public Health’s mission as serving the entire state through food and water safety, disease surveillance, emergency response, maternal and child health, chronic disease prevention, WIC, community health center support, and public health data collection. Members asked about bird flu, and staff explained that human-health response would involve Public Health’s lab, infectious disease, and emergency preparedness units, while animal-health issues are handled with the Department of Agriculture; they also noted ongoing milk testing requested by FDA and USDA. The division said its organizational structure includes bureaus for Family Health and Nutrition, Infectious Disease Control, Public Health Protection, Emergency Preparedness, Prevention and Wellness, Statistics and Informatics, and Public Health Laboratories, with about a 15% vacancy rate. Committee members questioned whether the division’s budget and staffing had really grown since pre-COVID, and staff responded that full-time authorized staffing is about the same as in 2018, with the increase largely due to federal pandemic funding that has since receded and to program transfers between divisions. They said Public Health’s General Fund share is about $24 million out of roughly $1.1 billion in DHHS General Fund spending, or about 2.2% of the department total. Members also asked about the 3,000-position cap and unfunded positions; staff explained that the cap remains in chapter law through June 30, 2025, that 394 positions were unfunded in the governor’s budget, and that the division expects flexibility to move money from personnel lines and fill unfunded positions to manage changing needs. No votes or formal actions were taken in this portion of the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, because, um, apparently there were some tweaks that DHHS came in and we have DHS here if you want
• ><02:05:41.760> some<02:05:41.920> tweaks<02:05:42.239> that<02:05:42.480> DHHS
• <02:05:43.440> came<02:05:43.679> in there were some tweaks that DHHS came in there
• were some tweaks that DHHS came in and<02:05:44.480> we<02:05:44.719> have<02:05:44.880

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Summary: The committee of conference first met on Senate Bill 221, which concerned annual voter roll verification and the lookback period for checking voter registration lists. The Senate favored looking back to presidential elections to reduce the number of voters removed, while the House argued for annual verification with a one-year lookback because the voter roll database now makes the process easier and because of population mobility and student turnover. Members discussed possible refinements to the 30-day letter process and agreed to recess and return Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. to continue negotiations. The committee then took up Senate Bill 213 and Senate Bill 218, both involving absentee voting and public employee electioneering restrictions. On SB 213, the discussion focused on clarifying identification/documentation requirements for absentee ballot-related applications and on a House amendment to preserve the ability of certain public employees to provide factual information to the public about official matters without violating the bill. On SB 218, the Senate wanted to remove outer envelopes from absentee voting materials, while the House supported keeping the bill but clarifying that only applicable documentation is required. Members raised concerns about voter access, clerks’ procedures, and whether the electioneering language was too broad; both bills were held over and recessed for further work. The committee also considered Senate Bill 287, which dealt with public employee electioneering and a related carve-out for factual responses by appointed public employees. The House and Senate discussed combining amendments, but the House member said the underlying bill was needed to curb partisan electioneering while still allowing factual public information. The committee then moved to Senate Bill 118, which would adjust a personal needs allowance for nursing home residents, address Hampstead Hospital employee bonuses, and create a maintenance fund for the hospital. The Senate objected to a House-added cannabis cultivation provision, saying it was unrelated to the bill and could jeopardize the measure because of the Senate’s and governor’s opposition to cannabis language; the committee recessed to revisit the issue later, with the House noting the base bill’s importance to nursing home residents and Hampstead Hospital.

Transcript Highlights:

• That was a request from DHHS. Well, that then doesn't require that there's a form?
• That was a request<00:22:55.840> from<00:22:56.559> DHHS.
• request from DHHS. request from DHHS.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that a DHHS grant?
• If they're not done by DHHS, what are some of those services?
• I would think DHHS might be able to provide that information.
• DHHS if they're not done by DHHS then DHHS if they're not done by DHHS then that<05:23:55.760> would
• <05:27:14.400> might worth of work I would think DHHS might worth of work I would think DHHS

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first discussed HB 443, which would change terms and vacancy language for members of a higher education commission. Members raised concerns that the bill was too narrow to address broader issues with commission membership, including expired appointments, attendance expectations, and whether the Department of Education could replace the commission’s role. Several members suggested the bill was not ready for action and favored holding it for further work, possibly through a subcommittee or work session. One member suggested that if attendance standards were added, no more than two unexcused absences should trigger removal, given the commission’s meeting schedule. The chair said he would defer action and form a small subcommittee to report back before the committee deadline. The committee then moved to HB 484, dealing with repurposing Career and Technical Education classroom space after 20 years of exclusive use. The chair explained that the bill was aimed at the Milford CTE project, where shared use of space could allow a school to repurpose part of a CTE facility while still using it for CTE-related instruction. Members discussed other possible situations around the state, including Claremont, North Conway, and Jaffrey/Rindge, and whether the bill should be limited to Milford or broadened to allow local districts more flexibility. Some members favored passing the bill now to help CTE projects move forward, while others argued for an amendment removing the requirement that the space be vacated specifically to expand the CTE program occupying it. Testimony and discussion emphasized that the Milford project had state approval but reduced funding, requiring a smaller scope and repurposing of existing space. Supporters said the bill could help preserve CTE programs while also benefiting general education space needs, and that local districts should have flexibility after 20 years. Opponents or cautious members noted that the language might not fit every district situation and asked for feedback from Director Beard and Steve Rothenberg before final action. The committee did not take a final vote in the portion provided, and instead discussed waiting for an amendment and additional input before acting.

Transcript Highlights:

• their cost is for setting that up and administering it compared to what is in the fiscal note that DHHS
• <00:11:10.600> on would also ask that you question DHHS on would also ask that you question
• DHHS on alternatives<00:11:11.800> to<00:11:12.279> the<00:11:12.560> increased
• liaison for Behavioral Health in DHHS liaison for Behavioral Health in DHHS and<02:07:50.280>
• 3 which is the DHHS 3 which is the DHHS resource<03:57:45.159> committee<03:57:45.520>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The DHHS position has changed, and so the bottom line to all of that is that I want to take HB 547 FN
• okay and so we know how to get hold DHHS okay and so we know how to get hold of<00:44:43.000> you
• > because they accept Medicaid of those because they accept Medicaid of those the<00:50:15.480> DHHS
• 16.960> eight<00:50:17.200> of<00:50:17.359> them<00:50:18.280> uh the DHHS
• Higgins, Legislative Liaison for Behavioral Health at DHHS.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: Division 3 Finance held a work session to move through five bills before noon, noting one member’s early departure and adjusting the order of bills accordingly. The first item, HB 54, would allow some alternative treatment centers in the medical cannabis system to operate for profit. Members discussed a fiscal note showing a one-time $133,000 cost, which was described as a Division 1 budget item to be handled through HB 2 rather than directly in Division 3. After discussion about keeping Division 1 informed and the distinction between retaining a bill versus funding it, the committee voted unanimously to retain HB 54 for further finance work and conversion into HB 2. The committee then took up HB 547, concerning reimbursement to counties for enhanced FMAP funds during the COVID period. The chair summarized the issue as federal enhanced Medicaid matching funds that were received by the state before authority existed to pass them through to counties, creating a disputed amount owed to counties. County representatives said the money should have gone to counties and clarified the relevant time period, while the department did not take a position. The chair proposed retaining the bill and moving it into HB 2, with discussion of a possible four-year repayment structure in equal annual installments. The committee agreed to retain the bill for continued work in the budget process. During the HB 547 discussion, members also clarified the fiscal and accounting details, including that the fiscal note had not been widely available and that some figures in the note should be treated as county revenue rather than county expenditure. Testimony explained that the enhanced FMAP increased from 50 percent to 56.2 percent, and that the state’s and counties’ shares of claims were affected by the timing of the federal change and the later state authorization. The committee emphasized that the issue was complex and budget-dependent, and that retaining the bill would allow further negotiation and incorporation into HB 2 rather than immediate final action.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're also looking at reduction of some burdens on DHHS.
• <01:23:43.040> just<01:23:43.239> because call up here is DHHS just because call up
• here is DHHS just because Senator<01:23:43.800> Rosenwald<01:23:44.800> uh<01:23:45.400
• Trisha, can you let DHHS know? Can you ask them not to get too far? Thank you very much.
• know can you ask Trisha can you let DHHS know can you ask them<01:48:57.320> not<01:48:57.440

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's correct, within the DHHS budget, right? Right. Is that a big shift?
• budget right right is that a the DHHS budget right right is that a big<01:09:23.239> shift no
• Litman and the DHHS team does that sort of input in kind of a nonpartisan way.
• <01:49:29.199> team I I I think Mr Litman and the DHHS team I I I think Mr Litman and the
• White, you've got a lot of leadership here from DHHS.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first recessed briefly, then took up HB 570, the prescription drug affordability board (PDAB). The chair and several members discussed the House amendment to repeal the board, which removed the fiscal note. The main concern raised was that the PDAB had not yet produced a clear business case showing value for the taxpayer investment, despite several years of work and four annual reports. Supporters of the repeal said the board’s recent report was largely redundant and that the board should either demonstrate a strong return on investment or be shut down; others cautioned against discarding the program too quickly and urged more time to refine the mission and legislative language. No vote was taken, and the committee appeared to agree to retain the bill for further work, with the possibility of revisiting it in a formal executive session on Tuesday. Members also shifted into discussion of HB 2, beginning with Section 85 on opioid abatement trust fund dollars for shelter programs. Department of Health and Human Services officials explained that the provision would provide $10 million from the opioid abatement trust fund, replacing general funds in the governor’s budget, while also noting an additional $2.5 million prioritized needs request for shelter care that was already fully funded. Committee members asked about shelter bed capacity, job placement efforts, and the remaining balance in the opioid fund; DHHS said there are 934 contracted beds and that case management includes help with housing and employment. Officials also said the current proposed budget includes another $1 million later in HB 2 from the opioid fund. The committee then began discussion of Sections 86 through 87, which would preserve the department’s ability to transfer funds between personnel lines. DHHS said the provision is operationally critical and that losing it would make it extremely difficult to manage the department, though it would not have a direct fiscal impact. The next item introduced was Section 88, extending a suspension related to eligibility for services until July 1, 2027; DHHS indicated that if the suspension were not continued, it would likely increase expenditures for Community Mental Health Centers and potentially others. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a different approval through DHHS that allows them to take subacute, or they have, I don't know
• would have to incur the cost for, and you didn't know about it when that approval is given through DHHS
• So those 10 students that DHHS approved that program for, there was never an intention that they would
• Should it be DHHS? DHHS is approving the program for those students. I would say DHHS.
• They're not here to defend themselves, but I would say DHHS.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The commission met to approve the May 18, 2026 minutes and then focused on how SB 57’s special education cost study should inform HB 1099, which creates a separate study committee on residential placements and related education costs. Members discussed sending the commission’s minutes and findings to that new committee, noting the short timeline for its work and the need to be specific about unresolved issues so the new group does not duplicate the same questions. A major topic was the cost and responsibility for students placed at Spalding and similar residential programs, especially transportation and whether costs are paid through the Department of Education’s episode-of-treatment (EOT) fund, local districts, DHS, or Medicaid. Staff explained that for students with disabilities, EOT funds cover special education and transportation costs tied to the placement, while students without disabilities are handled through DHS care-management and best-interest meetings. Members raised concerns about whether some students at Spalding are receiving no schooling, whether transportation costs are substantial, and whether Medicaid reimbursement could offset some expenses. The commission also discussed confusion over district responsibility when students placed in residential programs attend school in another district, using Winnisquam as an example. Several members said the receiving district was not notified that DHHS-approved programs could bring in additional students and costs, and they suggested DHHS or its care-management entity should notify both the district of residence and the receiving district when a program is approved. The group agreed this notification issue, along with transportation funding, privacy concerns in Medicaid-to-schools billing, and the distinction between special education placements, EOT placements, and other voluntary residential placements, should be passed to the HB 1099 study committee for further work.

Transcript Highlights:

• That was what to use the DHHS form.
• How much federal funding does DHHS receive to operate their agency?
• How much federal funding does DHHS receive to operate their agency?
• How much federal funding does DHHS receive to operate their agency?
• <01:57:34.000> receive much federal funding does DHH receive much federal funding does DHH

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The New Hampshire Mom Hub recently contracted with New Hampshire DHHS and will offer a central access
• And also the peer support piece of it is actually just a study at DHHS.
• going to ask you to come up DHHS going to ask you to come up DHHS Courtney<01:27:10.639> Keane
• I’m legislative liaison for Behavioral Health at DHHS.
• I'm the director for the Division of Economic Stability at DHHS.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But then DHHS also asked me to put in an amendment and make an appropriation to DHHS to fund some issues
• But then DHHS also asked me to put in an amendment and make an appropriation to DHHS to fund some issues
• So DHHS wanted to fulfill their obligation, so this covers that as well.
• DHHS also asked me to put in an amendment and make an appropriation to DHHS to fund some issues at Hampstead
• So DHHS wanted to fulfill their obligation, so this covers that as well. Okay.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 41:43.599> of<00:41:43.880> the<00:41:44.200> division<00:41:45.200> is DHHS
• uh the mission of the division is DHHS uh the mission of the division is to<00:41:45.800> enhance
• The response was that public benefits, including Medicaid or other benefits from DHHS, can be affected
• Those are more community-based facilities, and they go through a certification process under DHHS to
• we also are considered subject DHHS we also are considered subject matter<01:36:06.679> experts

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• c><00:59:33.520> who<00:59:33.760> is<00:59:33.920> currently commissioner of DHHS
• who is currently commissioner of DHHS who is currently Dr.<00:59:35.040> Ben<00:59:35.440>
• the division of public health<01:26:45.120> services<01:26:45.600> of<01:26:46.320> DHHS
• ><01:26:47.440> would<01:26:47.679> she<01:26:47.840> come health services of DHHS
• , would she come health services of DHHS, would she come back<01:26:48.239> and<01:26:48.400><

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first approved the draft minutes of its May 16, 2025 meeting, with one correction removing Representative Dry from the attendance list because she was present as a guest rather than an appointed member. The committee then received a Department of Health and Human Services update from Commissioner Lori Weaver, who focused on the rural health transformation grant process. She said the department has been gathering stakeholder input since July, issued a request for information on September 22, and is working toward an end-of-October draft and a November 3 deadline, with a grant writer request expected to go before Governor and Council at no cost to the state. The bulk of the meeting centered on federal changes affecting SNAP and Medicaid. Karen Heert explained that the federal law changes commonly referred to as the “Big Beautiful Bill” or HR1 will affect SNAP eligibility and state costs, including a shift in administrative cost sharing from 50/50 to 75/25 beginning in October 2026 and a possible state share of benefits if New Hampshire’s error rate is too high. She said the program affects about 43,000 households, that New Hampshire’s federal fiscal year 2024 error rate was 7.57% versus a national rate of 10.93%, and that the state must get below 6% to avoid liability. She also said DHS is preparing remediation steps, auditing cases, and seeking technology and staffing support, including a grant for automation and training. Henry Litman then described Medicaid changes under HB2 and the new federal law. He said New Hampshire returned to pre-pandemic eligibility verification rules on July 1, including a 10% income compatibility standard and reduced ex parte renewals, which has increased manual work and contributed to a drop in enrollment from about 185,000 in late June to about 178,000 in early September. He also reviewed new child premiums, pharmacy copays, Granite Advantage premiums, and possible Medicaid work requirements, noting that DHS is working with CMS on implementation details and may use a state plan option rather than an 1115 waiver because it would be less expensive and faster. Members asked several questions about the SNAP error-rate rules, the distinction between administrative and client errors, the effect of unpaid copays, and the timing and legal risk of the Medicaid work requirement; no votes were taken on those policy issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• DHHS currently has them from 0 to 3, and this part of their program was supposedly to be moved to the
• so that's when schooling starts DHHS so that's when schooling starts DHHS currently<03:29:04.560
• budget which DHHS has for this<03:29:18.760> which<03:29:18.880> includes<03:29:19.199
• All the work is being done, um, over in DHHS, or supposed to be being done over in DHHS.
• <04:36:17.561> um<04:36:17.760> what budget is being done is in DHHS um what budget

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Committee met to review Division One of a very large budget package, with the chair explaining that the budget was being analyzed in three divisions over multiple days. Members first discussed procedure, including when amendments and line-item votes would be taken, and agreed to proceed with the division’s presentation before questions. Representative Maguire then outlined the division’s approach as a series of tradeoffs to close a large budget gap, emphasizing cuts, some revenue changes, and a focus on overall spending levels as well as individual reductions. The presentation covered a wide range of agencies and policy areas. Major proposed changes included cuts or eliminations to several boards and commissions viewed as costly or duplicative, such as the Housing Appeals Board, Board of Tax and Land Appeals, Human Rights Commission, Commission on Aging, Office of the Child Advocate, and the Personnel Appeals Board, with some functions consolidated into other boards. The division also proposed back-of-the-budget cuts to the Information Technology Department, Judicial Branch, Justice Department, Retirement System, Corrections, and Environmental Services, along with fee increases in several areas. Other notable items included ending marketing for Paid Family Leave, reducing job advertising and tourism promotion, defunding the Arts Council, moving liquor enforcement functions out of the Liquor Commission, and shifting some funds such as the College Savings Commission money to Division Two. Several members questioned specific cuts, especially the elimination of the Council on Aging, the reduction in regional planning commission grants, and the large cut to tourism advertising. Maguire defended the choices as necessary budget tradeoffs, arguing that some programs duplicated work done elsewhere, that regional planning grants were not among the most essential items, and that tourism promotion was a form of spending he viewed skeptically. He also explained that the public defender’s budget was partially restored after a credible claim of a governor’s budget error, and that the committee would continue refining corrections-related cuts because the House was only halfway through the budget process and further changes could still occur in the Senate and conference committee.