Transcript Highlights:

• All BRS services must be medically necessary and medically appropriate.
• All BRS services must be medically necessary and medically appropriate for the youth.
• necessary and medically appropriate.
• necessary and medically appropriate.
• All medically necessary services must also be medically appropriate.

Transcript Highlights:

• Gender-affirming care is a covered Medi-Cal benefit when medically necessary.
• Maintaining access to medically necessary, lifesaving care is critical.
• Puberty blockers are not medically necessary.
• This care is medically necessary, evidence-based, and recognized by every major U.S. medical and mental
• It's left our community members scrambling to find medically necessary care.

Transcript Highlights:

• companies declare that the procedures are not medically necessary and refuse coverage.
• It's safe, effective, and medically necessary. And in my...
• Um, it's safe, effective, and medically necessary.
• to necessary medical care, regardless of their personal journey or their decisions.
• Political spectrum while ensuring that no one is left without necessary medical support.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Financial Services

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a wide range of health insurance and public health bills, with most speakers focused on expanding coverage for specific treatments and services. Bills discussed included H. 1187/S. 792 on rehabilitation counselors, H. 1173/S. 692 on patient navigation, S. 2600 on scalp cooling for chemotherapy patients, S. 2599 on medically necessary treatment for port wine birthmarks, H. 1164 on licensed educational psychologists for child and adolescent mental health services, S. 754/H. 1254 on autism diagnosis and treatment by nurse practitioners and psychiatric nurse mental health clinical specialists, S. 714/H. 1137 on infectious disease response and coverage, and S. 791 on making nature a prescriptive therapeutic intervention. Speakers generally argued these bills would improve access, reduce out-of-pocket costs, and address gaps in current insurance reimbursement rules. Testimony in support emphasized personal stories and clinical evidence. Cancer patients and providers described the benefits of patient navigation and scalp cooling for dignity and quality of life during treatment. Boston Children’s Hospital staff and families said port wine birthmark treatment is medically necessary, can prevent complications, and should not be denied as cosmetic. Rehabilitation counselors and school psychologists argued their services are effective, cost-saving, and underused because they cannot bill insurance. Autism advocates said current insurance statutes are outdated because nurse practitioners and psychiatric nurse mental health clinical specialists already provide evaluations and should be recognized for reimbursement to avoid delays in early intervention. Public health and GLAD Law testimony supported stronger infectious disease coverage to remove barriers to testing, treatment, and PrEP access. The hearing also included extensive testimony on H. 1172, a bill requiring insurance coverage for detransition-related care. Supporters said it would ensure coverage for medically necessary care for people who regret or reverse gender transition, while opponents argued it would legitimize anti-trans narratives or, conversely, that detransition care is needed because transition procedures can cause harm. The committee also heard strong support for S. 791 from advocates who described nature access as a health intervention that could help with trauma, anxiety, substance use recovery, and environmental justice, with claims that insurance coverage and reduced park fees would improve access. No votes were taken during the transcript, and the chair repeatedly thanked speakers and moved through the long list of public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• write medically necessary and the plan would cover it, meaning we have an open formulary or no formulary
•    226 COULD JUST WRITE MEDICALLY NECESSARY AND THE PLAN  WOULD COVER IT MEANING WE HAVE
• PRESCRIBE MEDICALLY NECESSARY AND IT WILL  BE COVERED THAT WILL HAVE SOME TREMENDOUS  
• So the doctor will have to do more paperwork and send in why that particular medication is necessary
• IS A NECESSARY  AND OTHER MEDICATIONS WILL NOT WORK.

Summary: The State Administration Budget Subcommittee met to consider four conforming committee bills tied to the proposed 2026-27 House General Appropriations Act. Rep. Maggard presented PCB SAB 26-04, the annual retirement bill, which updates Florida Retirement System contribution rates based on the annual actuarial study and was said to produce a $31.7 million state savings. He also presented PCB SAB 26-02, which addresses collective bargaining impasses for state employees by tying resolution to spending decisions in the appropriations act or implementing legislation. Both bills drew brief questions, mainly from Rep. Gantt, and both passed favorably on roll call. Rep. Miller presented PCB SAB 26-03, which reorganizes state audit functions and creates the Florida Accountability Office, consolidating legislative audit work into four divisions and adding whistleblower protections and reporting requirements. Rep. Gantt asked whether the bill changed the use of outside auditors and whether it had a fiscal impact; Miller said the work would be absorbed within existing resources and that the Legislature would retain responsibility. A taxpayer witness supported the bill and urged stronger local-government audit standards and broader whistleblower coverage. The bill passed favorably. Rep. Abbott presented PCB SAB 26-01, a broader appropriations conforming bill focused on the State Employee Health Insurance Trust Fund, prescription drug formulary changes, a health insurance assessment on agencies and vacant positions, the $3 traffic violation surcharge for the State Law Enforcement Radio System, Capitol complex space management, and changes to the Office of Supplier Diversity. Much of the discussion centered on whether a closed formulary would make medications harder to obtain, with Abbott saying prior authorization would still allow access and that the change was needed to control costs and protect the trust fund. Rep. Gantt and Rep. Robinson raised concerns about employee health benefits and the repeal of supplier diversity provisions, arguing the committee lacked data on the impact to minority- and women-owned businesses; Abbott said the changes would still allow small businesses to compete and that the bill was intended to save money and modernize procurement. PCB SAB 26-01 also passed favorably, and the meeting adjourned after all agenda items were reported out.

Transcript Highlights:

• It ensures that treatment decisions are made in a timely manner, and it provides for medically necessary
• L&I is statutorily responsible for ensuring injured workers receive proper and necessary medical care
• Yeah, I welcome the conversation you're having with L&I here, but I do know that medically necessary
• And this bill ensures they're not cut off from medically necessary care simply because their claim closes
• This can leave the necessary medical needs unaddressed during recovery, creating gaps in treatment at

Bills: SB5847 , SB6067 , SB6136 , SB6014 , SB5972 , SB5869 , SB5874 , SB6058 , SB6039 , SB5944 , SB6188

Committee: Senate Labor & Commerce

Keywords: workers' compensation, industrial insurance, injured workers, medical provider network, occupational health, occupational medicine, medical care access, L&I, Department of Labor and Industries, self-insured employers, state fund claims, utilization review, provider credentialing, provider network, treatment guidelines, evidence-based medicine, claims management, claims managers, temporary total disability, permanent partial disability

Transcript Highlights:

• not</c> medically necessary that would not medically necessary that would not change<00:20:18.240><c
• </c><00:33:27.600><c> necessary</c> would expand it to medically necessary would expand it to medically
• necessary by two medical providers.
• are</c><02:34:09.200><c> um</c> medically necessary that they are um medically necessary that they are
• medically necessary, say by Medicaid, that are not considered medically necessary or are not covered

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• It ensures that treatment decisions are made in a timely manner, and it provides for medically necessary
• L&I is statutorily responsible for ensuring injured workers receive proper and necessary medical care
• Yeah, I welcome the conversation you're having with L&I here, but I do know that medically necessary
• This bill ensures they're not cut off from medically necessary care simply because their claim closes
• This can leave the necessary medical needs unaddressed during recovery, creating gaps in treatment at

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on Senate Bill 6136, which would require Labor and Industries to publish actuarial indicated workers’ compensation rates for each risk class and disclose when rate increases are capped below those indicated levels. The sponsor and supporters from the hospitality, retail, business, and construction sectors said the bill would improve transparency about how rates are set and how reserve funds and investment earnings are used to hold down premiums. L&I testified that the bill would require publication of a large amount of rate-setting information, but said it was already developed in the normal process and that the bill had no fiscal impact. Questions focused on reserve use, advisory committee involvement, and how the actuarial calculations interact with investment returns. The committee then moved to executive session and took action on several bills, adopting substitutes or amendments and advancing bills including SB 5292, 6014, 5972, 5869, 5874, 6058, 6039, 5944, and 6180, with most sent to Rules and SB 5292 sent to Ways and Means. The committee then heard Senate Bill 5847, which would expand injured workers’ access to medical care by allowing treatment outside the L&I provider network when no provider is available nearby, limiting employer steering to specific providers, shortening utilization review timelines, allowing provider deviation from L&I guidelines when medically appropriate, and expanding continued treatment and cancer monitoring. Labor and worker advocates argued the bill would better reflect the Murray decision and reduce delays in care, while L&I and employer groups said the current evidence-based guideline system works for most claims and warned the bill could weaken quality controls, create vague standards, and increase costs. Testimony also raised concerns about the 15-mile access rule, the employer communication restrictions, and the appeal process for provider removal. The sponsor said the goal was to improve individualized care and continue working with stakeholders. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 6067, which would change workers’ compensation time-loss calculations so that 100% of the employer-paid health insurance contribution is included in the benefit calculation instead of the current partial inclusion. Supporters said the bill would help injured workers keep health coverage during recovery and reduce pressure to choose between medical care and income, while opponents argued it would not guarantee the money is actually used for health insurance, could be diverted to other uses or attorney fees, and would significantly increase costs for employers and the accident fund. L&I said the bill would require IT and administrative changes and estimated substantial ongoing benefit costs. The hearing ended without further action on SB 6067, and the chair closed the session after public testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• We support maintaining necessary guardrails, recognizing that the third leading cause of death is medical
• We would prefer that all of our patients come to us for all the services that are necessary in the medical
• medication.
• highest level of care. or if necessary, to an emergency room if they needed some sort of medical clearance
• So there are instances where medical personnel can force. Individuals to go get medical care.

Bills: HB3772 , HB1656 , HB4504 , HB1896 , HB4420 , HB4421 , HB4076 , HB3708 , HB2806 , HB3540 , HB1586 , HB5459 , HB4553 , HB4535 , HB3811 , HB3749 , HB4255 , HB4051 , HB5098 , HB3554 , HB4539 , HB5274

Committee: House Public Health

Keywords: e-cigarettes, health and safety, regulations, directory, penalties, regulation, certification, compliance, manufacturers, FDA, nicotine, mental health, emergency detention, paramedic authority, mental illness, healthcare facility, public health, covenants not to compete, health care practitioners, physicians

Transcript Highlights:

• According to the American Medical Association, 94% of doctors reported delays in providing necessary
• We do understand and share the goal of ensuring timely access to medically necessary services.
• AB 543 ensures that Medi-Cal members experiencing homelessness can access medically necessary services
• That primary care provider acts as a gatekeeper for medically necessary services.
• That primary care provider acts as a gatekeeper for medically necessary services.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee met on April 22 and took up a special order of bills focused largely on prior authorization and utilization management in health care. The chair framed the discussion as part of a broader legislative effort to reduce delays and barriers to care, especially in behavioral health, chronic disease management, cancer treatment, and rehabilitation services. AB 384 by Assembly Member Connolly would prohibit prior authorization for inpatient mental health or substance use emergency admissions and related physician care; supporters said it would prevent dangerous delays in crisis care, while insurers and health plans warned about fraud, abuse, and ambiguity around residential treatment facilities. The bill was moved on a due pass as amended motion and passed the committee on a party-line style vote, with Republicans largely absent or not voting. The committee then heard AB 510 by Assembly Member Addis, which would require health plans, upon request, to provide a peer reviewer of the same or similar specialty when a treating provider appeals a prior authorization denial or modification. Supporters argued that specialty-matched review would make appeals fairer and more clinically informed; opponents said the requirement was too rigid and that timelines and electronic submission rules needed changes. After discussion about the need for timely, specialty-specific review, the bill was approved on a due pass as amended motion and placed on call. AB 539 by Assembly Member Schiavo would extend prior authorization approvals to one year or the duration of the physician’s prescribed treatment for chronic conditions; supporters cited repeated denials and treatment interruptions, while opponents raised concerns about overbreadth, fraud, and the need for shorter validity periods. The bill was also passed as amended and placed on call. The committee next considered AB 669 by Assembly Member Haney, which would bar concurrent and retrospective review for the first 28 days of medically necessary substance use disorder treatment and limit prior authorization for related outpatient medications. The bill was presented with a powerful personal story from Ryan Matlock’s mother about her son’s death after an insurer cut off treatment early; supporters said the measure would keep patients in care long enough to stabilize, while opponents argued it would reduce oversight and could allow lower-quality or non-evidence-based care. The bill was moved on a due pass as amended motion and placed on call. Finally, AB 512 by Assembly Member Harabedian would shorten prior authorization response times to 24 hours for urgent requests and 48 hours for non-urgent requests; supporters said delays can worsen outcomes, while opponents warned the timelines were unrealistic and could increase administrative burdens and safety issues. The bill was approved as amended and placed on call. AB 574 by Assembly Member Mark Gonzalez was then heard; it would allow up to 12 medically necessary physical therapy sessions for a new episode of care without prior authorization, with supporters emphasizing stroke and neurological recovery and opponents warning of reduced oversight and unnecessary care. The transcript ends during testimony on AB 574, before final action is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• This happens even when the change is medically necessary and the medication itself is already covered
• necessary.
• necessary.
• Drug levels, and adjust the dose when medically necessary.
• necessary.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard several bills on June 9. SB 1023 by Senator Laird would require insurers that cover injectable HIV PrEP under the medical benefit to also cover it through the pharmacy benefit, with supporters saying the change would reduce reimbursement delays and expand access, while health plans opposed it as an unnecessary mandate that interferes with benefit design. SB 964 by Senator Smallwood-Quivas would limit prior authorization for certain dose or frequency adjustments to covered medications, especially for chronic complex conditions; medical supporters said it would prevent harmful delays in care, while insurers argued it weakens safety and utilization controls. SB 1323 by Senator Rubio, as amended, would strengthen protections for people in immigration custody receiving medical care by requiring hospitals and facilities to inform staff how to respond to requests and allowing patients to notify family members of their location; it passed with one no vote. SB 1099 by Senator Reyes would clarify local governments’ authority to provide state and local public benefits to all residents under federal PRWORA rules, with supporters saying it would reduce legal uncertainty for safety-net services; it passed, though one member later changed a vote to no on the add-on roll call. The committee also took up SB 895 by Senator Wiener, a proposed $12 billion science research bond for the November ballot that would create a California scientific research funding institute. Supporters from UC, UAW, hospitals, and advocacy groups said the measure would help offset federal cuts, protect research jobs, and sustain California’s leadership in biomedical and other research; there was no opposition, and the bill passed on a party-line style vote with two no votes. SB 944, also by Senator Wiener, would stabilize Medi-Cal coverage for acupuncture, which supporters described as a cost-effective, non-pharmacological treatment for pain and other conditions that has repeatedly been threatened in the budget process; it passed unanimously. The committee also approved consent items SB 918 and SB 1202, and later cleared the remaining measures on call after roll votes and add-on votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• According to the American Medical Association, 94% of doctors reported delays in providing necessary
• When the insurer says it's no longer medically necessary.
• We do understand and share the goal of ensuring timely access to medically necessary services.
• AB 543 ensures that Medi-Cal members experiencing homelessness can access medically necessary services
• That primary care provider acts as a gatekeeper for medically necessary services.

Committee: House Health

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard a special order of bills focused largely on utilization management and prior authorization in health care. Chair Bonta opened by explaining the committee’s rules and noting several consent items, then moved into bills aimed at reducing delays and barriers in coverage decisions for mental health, substance use disorder treatment, chronic care, and rehabilitation services. The committee also noted AB 1429 had been pulled from the agenda. AB 384 by Assembly Member Connolly would prohibit prior authorization for inpatient mental health or substance use emergency admissions and for physician care delivered during those inpatient stays. Supporters, including behavioral health groups, hospitals, emergency physicians, and patient advocates, argued that prior authorization delays crisis care and can worsen outcomes. Opponents, including health plans and insurers, warned about fraud, waste, abuse, and ambiguity around residential treatment facilities and review processes. The bill passed the committee on a do pass as amended vote and was sent to Appropriations, though it was placed on call. AB 510 by Assembly Member Addis would require health plans to provide a peer of the same or similar specialty when a treating provider appeals a prior authorization decision. Supporters said this would make appeals fairer and more clinically informed; opponents said the specialty-matching requirement and timelines were unworkable and could strain the system. AB 539 by Assembly Member Schiavo would extend prior authorization approvals to one year or the duration of the prescribed treatment, with supporters citing chronic illness and cancer care delays and opponents arguing the bill was too broad. AB 669 by Assembly Member Haney would bar certain utilization reviews for the first 28 days of in-network substance use disorder treatment and limit prior authorization for related outpatient medications; it drew strong emotional support from a parent who lost her son after treatment was cut short, while insurers and health plans opposed it as too restrictive. AB 512 by Assembly Member Harabedian would shorten prior authorization turnaround times to 24 hours for urgent requests and 48 hours for non-urgent requests, and AB 574 by Assembly Member Mark González would allow up to 12 physical therapy sessions for a new episode of care without prior authorization. Across these bills, supporters emphasized timely access and patient harm from delays, while opponents repeatedly raised concerns about oversight, medical necessity review, and cost. Several measures were voted out on call or held on call for later action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Insurers still determine what is authorized and what is medically necessary.
• Access to this medically necessary care saved my life.
• California law already requires that insurers cover medically necessary sex-rejecting treatments.
• California law already requires that insurers cover medically necessary sex-rejecting treatments.
• ...law in place that requires medically necessary gender-affirming care.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Health met in Room 2100 and first handled its consent calendar, which included several bills and resolutions with amendments. The committee established a quorum, approved the consent calendar 6-0, and placed it on call. AB 2233 by Assemblymember Taw was then heard; the bill would clarify that authorized ABA therapy for autistic patients should remain usable across the authorization period rather than being effectively reduced by weekly utilization caps. Supporters, including behavior analysts, family advocates, and health organizations, described missed sessions caused by provider shortages, scheduling conflicts, and family disruptions. Health plans and insurers initially expressed fraud and utilization-management concerns but said they would remove opposition after the amendments preserved utilization management. The committee voted 7-0 to pass AB 2233 as amended and re-refer it to Appropriations, placing it on call. The committee next heard AB 96 by Assemblymember Jackson, which would remove the high school diploma or equivalent requirement for Medi-Cal peer support specialist certification. Supporters from county behavioral health agencies, nonprofits, and local governments argued that lived experience, communication, empathy, and cultural competency are the key qualifications for peer work, and that the current education requirement excludes capable candidates and worsens workforce shortages. One opposition witness from the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals raised concerns, but the bill’s proponents explained that peer certification still requires 80 hours of training, testing, and recertification on core competencies. The committee voted 7-0 to pass AB 96 and re-refer it to Appropriations, placing it on call. AB 1876, the Fair Care for All Act by Assemblymember Addis, was then heard. The bill would codify federal nondiscrimination protections into state law to ensure people are not excluded from health care coverage or services based on a protected class. Support came from transgender health advocates, psychologists, county and state health groups, and other organizations, who said the bill would help protect access to gender-affirming and other medically necessary care. Opposition testimony argued the bill would force coverage of sex-rejecting interventions and weaken insurer safeguards, while the author responded that the measure simply mirrors existing federal nondiscrimination law and does not expand coverage. The committee voted 7-1 to pass AB 1876 and re-refer it to Judiciary, placing it on call. After the roll was reopened for absent members, the committee also finalized votes on the earlier bills and adjourned after concluding its business.

Transcript Highlights:

• when those medications are medically necessary.
• when those medications are medically necessary.
• debt be deemed medically necessary. that the medical debt be deemed medically necessary, but the staff
• It says the opposition also argues that SB 1061 required medical debt to be deemed medically necessary
• entirely having to parse through what is medically necessary and what is not medically necessary at

Summary: The committee heard several health-related bills. AB 1825 by Krell would clarify California’s offenders with mental health disorders program by tightening the standard for determining “substantial danger of physical harm,” improving exit planning, and expanding Medi-Cal access for people released after a successful challenge. Supporters, including psychiatrists, prosecutors, and medical groups, said the bill would close gaps in care and protect public safety; county behavioral health directors and Disability Rights California registered concerns. AB 1696 by Stephanie would state that nurse midwives do not need physician supervision when providing care within their existing scope, including EMTALA-related evaluation in labor and delivery settings. Nurse midwives and nursing groups supported the bill, while emergency physicians opposed it unless amended, arguing emergency department screening should remain under physician supervision; the author said she would keep working on the issue. AB 1949 by Lee would make acupuncture a separate Medi-Cal benefit and allow up to 24 visits per year. The author and supporters from acupuncture, health access, and integrative medicine groups said the current monthly cap is too restrictive and that acupuncture is an effective, cost-saving alternative for pain management and other conditions. There was no opposition. AB 2330 by Patterson would create a distinct regulatory category for cold spas, with standards for construction, operation, and disinfection. Fitness and wellness groups supported the bill, environmental health administrators had no formal position but thanked the author for amendments, and a committee member raised concerns about local officials interpreting the bill to require separate enclosures from saunas; the author said she would continue working on the language. AB 2000 by Aguirre-Curry would limit mid-year changes to prescription drug formularies and add notice, exceptions, reporting, and enforcement provisions. Family physicians, chronic care advocates, nurses, pharmacists, and patient groups supported the bill, citing non-medical switching and treatment disruptions; health plans and insurers opposed it, warning of higher costs, reduced flexibility, and premium increases. AB 1929 by Ortega would require health plans to disclose investments, including in private prisons and immigrant detention centers. Supporters framed it as a transparency measure tied to patient premiums and public values, while opponents argued the bill was duplicative, burdensome, and potentially harmful to investment confidentiality. AB 2746 by Schiavo would classify medical credit card debt as medical debt so it would not appear on credit reports. Consumer advocates and legal aid groups supported the bill, describing abusive marketing and housing harms; banks, debt collectors, and industry groups opposed it as unworkable and privacy-invasive. The committee took roll on AB 2746 and passed it on a due pass motion to Banking and Finance, with several members voting aye and a few no votes recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• when those medications are medically necessary.
• when those medications are medically necessary.
• debt be deemed medically necessary.
• That the medical debt be deemed medically necessary, but the staff analysis clearly states that they
• entirely having to parse through what is medically necessary and what is not medically necessary at

Committee: House Health

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, we do provide for medically necessary CGMs. Yes, we do provide for medically necessary CGMs.
• Yes, we do provide for medically necessary CGMs. Okay.
• </c><00:37:59.800><c> necessary</c> already if they're medically necessary already if they're medically
• <00:38:39.560><c> necessary</c> medically necessary medically necessary and<00:38:41.040><c> provided
• </c> medically necessary and are prescribing medically necessary and are prescribing them<00:39:35.320

Bills: SB2433 , SB2047 , SB2425 , SB3045 , SB2761 , SB3001 , SB2852 , SB2471

Committee: House Consumer Protection & Commerce

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 2433 SD1 relating to condominiums, which would direct the condominium education trust fund toward educational resources for unit owners and require the Real Estate Commission to ensure owners’ interests are represented in funded activities and related rulemaking. Supporters, including the Hawaii Real Estate Commission and a condominium owner advocate, said owners need a seat at the table in condo governance and education efforts. Committee discussion focused on whether the bill was necessary, with the Real Estate Commission indicating it could already use the trust fund for owner education and that owners are already considered stakeholders, though not through a specific commission seat. No vote was taken during the excerpted discussion. The committee then took up SB 2047 SD2 HD1 on pharmacy benefit managers, which would set requirements for maximum allowable cost reimbursement, allow reverse-and-rebill claims after successful appeals, and authorize fines for violations. The Insurance Division offered comments, the Hawaii Pharmacists Association supported the measure with amendments and suggested future PBM reform funding, and Kaiser Permanente requested a technical amendment. A committee question raised whether the staffing and resource request for implementation was too large for a bill focused only on MAC pricing, and the witness said he would provide more data to the next committee. No final action was shown. Next was SB 2425 SD2 HD1 on health insurance and substance use disorder treatment, requiring insurers to honor written assignments of benefits to SUD providers and prohibiting anti-assignment clauses. Supporters described patients being unable to access treatment because of high out-of-pocket costs and said direct payment would reduce harm for people in recovery. HMSA opposed the bill but said it would begin direct payments to non-participating SUD facilities effective March 27, while continuing to object to the assignment-of-benefits portion because of fraud and balance-billing concerns; the Hawaii Association of Health Plans also opposed. Members questioned HMSA about reimbursement mechanics and why the bill was needed if coverage policies were already changing. Finally, the committee heard SB 3045 SD1 HD1, which would require coverage of continuous glucose monitors and related supplies, including for Medicaid managed care, under certain conditions. DHS and the Insurance Division offered comments, while SHPDA, Hilo Benioff Medical Center Foundation, and others supported the bill, citing inconsistent access and a case in which a woman allegedly died after being denied a CGM. HMSA said it already covers medically necessary CGMs and had updated its policy in 2025 for type 1 and insulin-dependent patients, but it raised concerns about expanding mandated coverage to type 2 and gestational diabetes and about supply impacts. The committee also discussed whether the bill duplicated existing coverage standards and why it had been introduced repeatedly. No votes or final dispositions were included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Insurers still determine what is authorized and what is medically necessary.
• Access to this medically necessary care saved my life.
• California law already requires that insurers cover medically necessary sex-rejecting treatments.
• California law already requires that insurers cover medically necessary sex-rejecting treatments.
• ...law in place that requires medically necessary gender-affirming care.

Committee: Senate Health

Transcript Highlights:

• This happens even when the change is medically necessary and the medication itself is already covered
• necessary.
• necessary.
• necessary.
• necessary.

Committee: House Health

Transcript Highlights:

• Under current law, could doctors or nurses prescribe these medications or provide these medications in
• Under current law, could doctors or nurses prescribe these medications or provide these medications in
• I'm a naturopathic medical doctor. My name is Jason Porter.
• These are serious medications.
• That is the source of the current medical care ban.

Committee: House House Health & Human Services Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee heard several bills related largely to Arizona’s behavioral health and Access system, plus a fertility coverage mandate, a state hospital admissions bill, and a naturopathic scope-of-practice bill. SB 1114 would appropriate $1 million to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for investigations into behavioral health patient brokering; the sponsor described ongoing fraud involving vulnerable Native American patients, while some members questioned why the Attorney General was not handling the work. The bill passed 10-1 with one present. SB 1116 would require claim denials and appeal determinations for American Indian Health Program behavioral health services to be reviewed by someone with at least two years of relevant clinical experience; Access said it was neutral but raised concerns about vague language and added staffing needs, and the bill passed 7-4 with one present. SB 1346 would require Access to notify providers of claim deficiencies within 72 hours and approve or deny corrected claims within 10 business days; supporters said it would reduce long delays and unpaid claims, while Access said it would need more staff and system changes. The bill passed 7-5. The committee also approved SB 1347, which requires insurance coverage for fertility preservation services for cancer patients of reproductive age whose treatment is likely to cause infertility, with a religious-employer exemption. Supporters, including cancer survivors and an advocacy representative, said the bill protects patients who must make rapid decisions before treatment begins; insurers were neutral. The bill passed unanimously 12-0. SB 1813 would require the Arizona State Hospital to admit patients based on clinical need rather than county of residence, effectively ending the Maricopa County cap tied to the Arnold v. Sarn settlement. Supporters argued the cap leaves seriously ill patients waiting in other facilities for long periods, while ADHS warned of possible litigation and rural access concerns; the bill passed 9-2 with one present. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 1178, which would allow naturopathic physicians to administer certain antibiotics, antivirals, and antifungals intravenously. The sponsor argued naturopaths should be able to practice to the full scope of their training amid physician shortages, while the Arizona Medical Association and osteopathic representatives opposed the bill, saying IV antimicrobials are high-risk therapies that require hospital-level training, monitoring, and stewardship. Testimony focused on patient safety, appropriate setting, and whether the bill should be narrowed or amended; no vote on SB 1178 was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Speaker, we've been hearing from our constituents and our medical providers that medical malpractice
• They did not go to medical school for their medical degree.
• Normally for medical providers that have gone to medical school and residency, they get trained for 36
• I think it's reasonable to say that a medical physician, someone who's gone through medical school and
• issue or not, this person from the medical board or this input from the medical community should be

Bills: HB145 , HB164 , HR1 , HB20 , HB65 , HB66 , HB80 , HB306 , SB29 , SB37 , HB99 , HB206 , HB213 , HB270 , SB104 , SB193 , HB38 , HB254 , HB256 , SB58 , SB64 , HJM1 , HM7 , HM17 , HM4 , HM22 , HM23 , HM24 , HM26 , HM2 , HM16 , HM32 , HM13 , HM47 , HM20 , HM51 , HM1 , HM31 , HM35 , HM36 , HM46 , HM53 , HM54 , HM39 , HM29 , HM43 , HM59 , HM11 , HM14 , HM21 , HM34 , HM50 , HB253

Keywords: high-wage jobs, tax credit, job creation, New Mexico, economic development, lobbying, transparency, public records, government oversight, accountability, House Resolution 1, HR1, House investigatory subcommittee, special committee, legislative investigation, subpoena power, public corruption, criminal activity, Zorro ranch, Santa Fe County

Transcript Highlights:

• I know that even though I have a medical degree from Yale, it's really difficult.
• A quick example: a woman well known to our medical clinic was being seen for the usual medical problems
• If the DPH deems it as necessary for preserving access and health services.
• Deems it as necessary for preserving access and health services.
• By definition, essential means absolutely necessary. It's not a suggestion.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Public Health

Summary: The committee hearing covered a wide range of public health bills, with much of the testimony focused on two major themes: expanding access to care and stabilizing health-related workforces and services. On House 2364, an act relative to medical health and fitness facilities, representatives from Dedham Health and Athletic Club argued for a pilot program recognizing supervised exercise as medicine, saying it could improve outcomes for chronic disease, fall prevention, and mental health while reducing costs. On House/Senate bills concerning community health workers (H. 359/S. 251), multiple witnesses from MACHW, Health Care for All, MHA, Cambridge Health Alliance, Mass General Brigham, Boston Children’s Hospital, Asian Women for Health, and the City of Somerville described CHWs as essential for navigation, trust-building, language access, and addressing social needs, and urged reimbursement by MassHealth, the GIC, and private insurers, along with workforce development measures. One pediatric neurologist also told the committee that losing grant-funded CHW support led to more avoidable ER visits and threatened clinic operations. The committee also heard extensive testimony on hospital closures and essential services. Witnesses including Dr. Alan Sager, MNA President Katie Murphy, nurses from Brockton Hospital and Providence Behavioral Health, and local officials and legislators from Norwood described the loss of hospitals and service lines, especially maternity, pediatric, and behavioral health care, and argued current closure processes are too weak to protect communities. They supported bills such as H. 2460/S. 1503 and H. 2534/S. 1574, which would require earlier notice, community input, stronger state oversight, possible receivership, and limits on reopening or expanding after closures. Testimony emphasized the impact of Steward’s bankruptcy, the closures of Carney and Neshoba Valley, and the need to preserve access to essential services in underserved areas. Several end-of-life and professional regulation bills were also discussed. On H. 2436, Representative Omar Gomez and funeral industry witnesses supported eliminating Office of the Chief Medical Examiner fees for the removal of a child’s body in cases involving children five and under, describing the bill as a small but important relief for grieving families. On H. 2444 and related Senate bills, cemetery and consumer advocates supported legalizing alkaline hydrolysis and natural organic reduction as environmentally friendly after-death options, while cemetery representatives opposed H. 2360, which would allow funeral establishments to operate crematories, arguing cemeteries should retain that role. The committee also heard support for H. 2382, which would exempt dentists and oral surgeons from a new office-based surgical center framework, and for H. 2461, which would create hospital efficiency standards; employers and retailers backed that bill as a way to address rising health care costs. Finally, the committee heard testimony on autism services and hospital governance. On S. 1414, behavior analysts and school representatives said Massachusetts already licenses assistant-level ABA providers but MassHealth does not reimburse them, causing long waitlists and limiting school and family access; an actuary testified that a three-tier ABA reimbursement model could reduce MassHealth costs by up to 6% per child served. Senator Lovely also testified in support of S. 1572, which would require at least one registered nurse on each acute care hospital governing board, arguing nurses’ frontline perspective would improve quality and retention. No votes were taken in the hearing excerpt, but many witnesses urged favorable reports on their respective bills.