Transcript Highlights:

• have adopted site plan review locally as a process to outline requirements of a plan for development
• In my previous role as Planning Director and as a member of the American Planning Association Mass Chapter
• In my previous role as Planning Director and as a member of the American Planning Association Mass Chapter
• So yes, to the site plan review, please support.
• We also support YIMBY and site plan review.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held a hybrid hearing on zoning, Chapter 40B, and related housing bills. Much of the testimony focused on the “Yes in My Backyard” bill (H. 1572/S. 962), which would expand by-right development of missing middle housing, reduce barriers such as minimum lot sizes and parking mandates, and support duplexes, triplexes, and other small-scale housing. Supporters included housing advocates, developers, local officials, and municipal leaders from places like Cambridge, Salem, and Braintree, who argued that state action is needed because local zoning often blocks needed housing and that the bill would help create more affordable, neighborhood-compatible homes. Several witnesses also backed a companion “Yes in God’s Backyard” bill (H. 2347), which would allow faith-based institutions to build housing on their property by right, with testimony emphasizing the potential for new units, added municipal tax revenue, and partnerships between religious organizations and housing developers. The committee also heard testimony on Senate Bill 1021 to modernize Chapter 40R incentives. Senator Pavel Payano and others said the program’s payments have not kept pace with inflation since 2004 and should be increased to better encourage smart-growth zoning near transit and town centers. Another major topic was H. 2298 on site plan review, which would codify and standardize the process in state law. Rep. Kristin Kassner and witnesses from MAPC and NAIOP said current site plan review practices vary widely across the state, creating confusion, delays, and litigation, while a uniform framework would give municipalities clearer tools to review by-right projects without undermining local oversight. The hearing also included testimony on Chapter 40B reform, including S. 1005 and H. 1537. One witness supported further review of 40B and stronger regional planning, while another backed a proposal to allow certain pre-2010 40B condominium owners to sell at market value under a framework that would recapture some of the subsidy benefits. Committee members asked several questions about local zoning changes, housing goals by county, and how the proposed bills would affect communities. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chairs indicated that written testimony would be welcomed for technical details and additional comments.

Transcript Highlights:

• As part of our work building this plan, I reviewed other states' systems plans, and nobody has collaboration
• The plan reports each institution's performance on the metrics in our strategic plan, along with our
• strategic plan.
• We track the progress of our plan through our university accountability plans, which come to our board
• Our plan through our university accountability plans, which come to our board every June for approval

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education heard a presentation on the State University System’s new strategic plan, SUS 30, and its legislative budget request. University officials described the plan’s five priorities: One SUS collaboration, elevating student success, operational excellence, world-class talent, and innovative research and economic development. They highlighted Florida’s continued status as the top higher education system in the nation, low tuition, strong graduation outcomes, rising median wages for graduates, and expanded use of the My Florida Future website to help students and families compare degree outcomes and earnings. Members asked for follow-up information on programs of strategic emphasis, mental health and social work workforce needs, wage data over time, and how the system supports innovation moving toward commercialization. The committee also discussed campus safety, prompted in part by recent events at FSU. System officials said universities and the Florida College System recently held a safety summit to share best practices on building security, threat assessment, and coordination with law enforcement, and they agreed to provide a report back to the committee after the Board of Governors reviews recommendations in November. Senators also raised questions about Pell student support, first-generation student success, and whether liberal arts graduates’ earnings catch up over time. Officials said Pell students are tracked through performance-based funding metrics and that the system’s accountability plans will continue to emphasize access and completion. A separate update covered line funding for nursing and health care partnerships. Officials said the $6 million appropriation was fully subscribed through 24 proposals from all 10 nursing programs, supporting scholarships, faculty recruitment, internships, simulation, and licensure preparation. They reported over 1,900 new nursing graduates, more than 200 new student slots, over 300 scholarships, and a 92% NCLEX pass rate. Senators asked about expanding eligibility for the program, and staff said that issue would be revisited this year. The Board of Governors’ legislative budget request totaled $634.5 million and included $295 million for performance-based funding institutional investment, a request to restore and increase the state investment portion to $400 million, $125 million for preeminence funding, $100 million for faculty recruitment and retention, $6.4 million for UF/IFAS extension workload, and $3.1 million for State Fire Marshal inspections. The chair noted that resources are limited and that difficult budget decisions lie ahead. No votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• . plan. plan.
• draft plan. draft plan.
• <04:08:24.479> for in the plan, but it's in the plan for in the plan, but it's in the plan
• Uh the plan the project was plan.
• Planning. Planning.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You spoke about free and short-term plans? Is that... ...and short-term plans?
• of their plan.
• to the plan sponsors.
• plan.
• plan.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• recommended by the plan actuary. recommended by the plan actuary.
• because this plan provides a richer plan because this plan provides a richer benefit<00:15:39.519>
• added to the correctional plan. added to the correctional plan.
• plan they were with.
• This plan is the correctional plan COLA.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• for plan year 2024.
• for plan year 2024.
• for plan year 2024.
• for plan year 2024.
• <00:52:59.079> that plan and the premium security plan that plan and the premium security

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard a reinsurance overview from Deputy Commissioner Julia Dryer of the Minnesota Department of Commerce on the Minnesota Premium Security Plan. She explained that reinsurance helps stabilize premiums in the individual market by reimbursing insurers for high-cost claims, and said Minnesota’s program has lowered premiums, preserved carrier participation, and helped maintain consumer choice. She warned that without continued funding, the program would be depleted and individual-market premiums could rise by about 25%, with potential losses in coverage and access to care. She also described the program’s structure under a federal 1332 waiver, the role of MCHA in administering the program, and the state’s receipt of more than $650 million in federal pass-through funds to date. Dryer said the current program is funded through the end of 2025, though the federal waiver authority runs through 2027. The governor’s proposal would create a new assessment on insurers, estimated at roughly 2% to 3%, to fund the state share of the program and avoid another full waiver submission. She noted that the proposal assumes MinnesotaCare funding would be held harmless and that the program would be reduced if federal basic health plan funding were negatively affected. She also said projected costs changed because individual-market enrollment has grown and enhanced federal subsidies were removed from the estimate. Members raised concerns about the proposal’s impact on premiums and the history of the fund. Senator Rasmusson argued the new assessment amounts to a large tax increase on health insurance and questioned who would be assessed and whether the surcharge would be capped. Dryer responded that the assessment would be based on annual claims experience and market conditions, with final amounts determined at the end of each year, not monthly. Senator Duckworth and Senator Frentz supported reinsurance as a way to keep premiums lower, while also questioning how the program should be financed. Senator Green asked about the mechanics of the assessment and the role of the department in setting it, and Senator H questioned why the fiscal note assumed 12% annual growth for program costs when general premium growth was lower. No vote or formal action was taken in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, coverage is less consistent in the commercial market, where enrollees can be subject to plan-by-plan
• Yeah, they're in the Knox-Keene Act that regulates health plans.
• But when my husband's employer switched plans in January, we discovered that the new plan has a copay
• And we heard from the plans that there's sometimes no communication between the pharmacy and the plan
• Planned Parenthood has been in California for nearly a century.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard several measures, beginning with SB 331 by Sen. Menjivar, which would require large-group health plans to cover hearing aids for children. The author and supporters described the bill as a long-running effort to address a developmental emergency and reduce out-of-pocket costs for families, while opponents were absent. Testimony from parents, advocates, medical experts, and organizations emphasized the importance of early access to hearing aids; committee members voiced strong support, and the bill was moved on a do-pass basis to Appropriations, with several members requesting to be added as coauthors. The committee then heard SB 608, also by Sen. Menjivar, to expand access to condoms in school-based health centers and related settings and to prevent barriers such as ID checks. Supporters, including students and school health advocates, argued the bill would improve sexual health and reduce stigma, while opponents from family and faith groups argued it would undermine parental authority and normalize early sexual activity. The bill was supported by committee members and moved forward on a do-pass basis to Appropriations. Next, SB 971 by Sen. Choi proposed community-based healthy aging partnerships for older adults, with testimony from the California Senior Legislature and supporters from aging and dementia organizations. The measure was described as voluntary and focused on connection, independence, and local collaboration; there was no opposition, and the committee moved it on a do-pass basis to Appropriations. The committee also heard SB 869 by Sen. Weber Pierson, which would require warning icons and statements on chain restaurant menus for beverages with very high added sugar content. Supporters framed it as a transparency and public health measure, while restaurant and beverage industry representatives opposed it unless amended, citing cost and menu-space concerns; the bill was nevertheless moved on a do-pass basis to Appropriations after a roll call vote, with some members voting no and the measure placed on call. The committee also considered SB 950 by Sen. Weber Pierson, aimed at ensuring timely coverage of FDA-approved, medically necessary treatments for early-onset Alzheimer’s disease on commercial plans. Supporters, including the Alzheimer’s Association and a patient advocate, said the bill would reduce delays and barriers to care, while health plan representatives opposed it over step therapy and utilization-management concerns. Members discussed the limited treatment window and the need for early access, and the bill was moved on a do-pass basis to Appropriations. In addition, SB 490 by Sen. Umberg would set timelines for DHCS investigations of unlicensed sober living homes and allow counties to assist if the department cannot act in time; supporters from Anaheim and a patient-brokering survivor described serious abuse and oversight gaps, while county behavioral health representatives opposed the county role as an unfunded and potentially liability-creating burden. After discussion, the bill was also moved on a do-pass basis to Appropriations. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 1037 by Sen. Weber Pierson on health insurance affordability and rate review, with supporters arguing it would tie premium increases more closely to affordability targets and public reporting; the transcript cuts off before the committee completed action on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• But reality had other plans.
• Have a legitimate evacuation plan. Know the plan. Practice the plan.
• I have for you, plans not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."
• These are the plans.
• How many don't have a plan, or did everyone inspected have to have a plan?

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Restating some of the intent: reducing the extent to which the plans and the programs within the plans
• In approving the storm protection plans, the Commission determines whether the programs in the plans
• plans and implement those plans.
• You're not actually looking at the plan itself to determine whether the plan was prudent, whether the
• You're not actually looking at the plan itself to determine whether the plan was prudent, whether the

Summary: The committee met to hear invited presentations on storm recovery and storm protection from the Florida Public Service Commission, Florida Power & Light, Duke Energy, Tampa Electric, Chesapeake Utilities, and the Office of Public Counsel. The PSC reviewed the history of storm restoration financing and utility hardening efforts after major storms such as Hurricane Andrew, the 2004-05 hurricane seasons, Irma, and Michael, explaining storm reserve funds, storm recovery bonds, and the current three-year storm protection plan process. The commission’s role in approving plans and later reviewing prudence of actual costs was emphasized, along with the types of work included in the plans such as vegetation management, pole replacement, undergrounding, feeder hardening, and substation flood protection. The utilities described their own storm-hardening investments and recent storm performance. FPL said it has spent about $4.9 billion on storm protection and recovery-related efforts, highlighted improved restoration times during Helene and Milton, and said it is expanding undergrounding, feeder hardening, and smart-grid technology. Duke Energy reported more than 40,000 hardened poles and structures since 2021, major gains from self-healing grid technology, and faster restoration during recent storms. Tampa Electric described a roughly $200 million annual storm protection effort, including vegetation management, undergrounding, substation hardening, and new storm surge protections, and Chesapeake Utilities discussed its smaller-scale hardening program, vegetation work, pole replacement, and rapid restoration after Helene in Nassau County. Committee members asked about how utilities prioritize neighborhoods for lateral hardening, whether maps of planned projects could be shared, how much each utility has spent on undergrounding and hardening, and how reliability comparisons are normalized against the national average. Public Counsel Walt Trierweiler argued that storm recovery and hardening costs fall too heavily on investor-owned utility customers, said the current framework lacks a meaningful cost-benefit or prudence check at the planning stage, and urged broader sharing of storm costs because the benefits extend to the whole state. Senators also discussed whether the commission can review the reasonableness of approved programs and whether future reports or recommendations from Public Counsel would be helpful. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Written emergency plans posted in cabins.
• plan is needed.
• But a plan that existed only in Dick Eastland's head is not a plan that satisfied the state's rules for
• So the lack of an adequate plan...
• So the lack of an adequate plan.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This plan really helped our local communities.
• At the close of the planning process, we were able to leverage funds to go on the road and test the plan
• and specific strategies within those plans.
• and specific strategies within those plans.
• This plan is meant to be actionable.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on the Arts held an informational hearing on California’s first sector-specific creative economy strategic plan, “California’s Future: Creative Strategies for Cultural Resilience, Economic Growth, and Global Leadership.” Chair Allen opened by framing the creative economy as a major state asset and urged support for arts funding in the May Revision, including California Humanities, museums, public media, cultural districts, LA28 arts programming, and AB 2319, which would create a $100 million post-production incentive. He also emphasized the need for next-step funding to implement the strategic plan and noted concerns about federal headwinds and declining creative-sector jobs. California Arts Council Director Danielle Brazel, Institute for the Future’s Rachel Hatch, CDE’s Allison Frenzel, and Workforce Development Board representative Michael Weoff described how the plan was developed through AB 127 and related legislation, a 30-plus-member work group, and an interagency process. They outlined the plan’s phased approach and six priority areas, including preparing the workforce, stabilizing businesses, increasing revenue through cultural tourism, leveraging state incentives, defining and tracking ROI, and building state capacity. Testimony highlighted workforce pipelines, apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs, digital badging, and cross-agency coordination, with speakers stressing that the sector is shaped by AI, climate change, affordability, capital access, and social cohesion. A second panel of artists and advocates described on-the-ground implementation and the need for better data and support. Ricarlo Handy discussed the Handy Foundation’s apprenticeship pipeline into film and TV jobs and the difficulty of capturing freelance and 1099 creative work in state data. Joanna Reynolds described Arts for LA’s Creative Jobs Collective, which aims to create 10,000 living-wage creative jobs in Los Angeles County by 2030. Alejandro Gutierrez Chavez urged the state to embed artists in health, aging, behavioral health, and climate resilience systems, and Roxanne Messina Kaptur spoke about the need to treat arts careers as viable professions and expand residency and school-based artist programs. Senator Rubio, who joined the hearing later, shared her own background in teaching and the arts, supported arts education and small theaters, and raised concerns about AI, asking how schools and educators can adapt. In the final panel, Rebecca Ratzkin reported on 26 town halls across eight regions, where more than 1,100 people attended and generally affirmed the plan while asking for better access to information, new financial models, clearer definitions and data, and stronger networks. Julie Baker of California for the Arts and California Arts Advocates argued the plan is an urgent blueprint for a sector that generates $288 billion and more than 820,000 jobs, but remains below pre-pandemic employment levels and is losing market share. She and others called for funding, statewide definitions, better data collection, and cross-agency implementation, while committee members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized that the plan will require political will and resources to move from strategy to action.

Transcript Highlights:

• In 2025, they took some feedback, revised the plan, and submitted a final plan to the court in November
• In my humble opinion, we have the plan.
• There's some things that no plan carries out.
• What is the plan for sustainability? What is the plan to move forward?
• In addition, we will have a transition plan, and we will be able To help with that transition plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• Drafting the evaluation plan, I believe, for attendance. That's one area.
• you'll hear about the work plan.
• process for the development of the plan.
• Is there a plan for that in place? Uh, we are developing a plan.
• And the summary of plan components requested by the plaintiffs.

Transcript Highlights:

• are submitting their plans.
• Once all of those plan development phases are completed, plan submission will occur.
• of those plans.
• If submitted, we could get 13 regional plans with five priorities in each regional plan, and they would
• , and then a contingency plan to the contingency plans, as well as dealing with SNAP benefits—all of

Transcript Highlights:

• requires the plan to consider housing needs as a part of the plan update.
• The departments should report on these plans and their plan outcomes regularly to the Legislature.
• SB 375 is a planning law.
• the goals of the scoping plan after the scoping plan is updated.
• So we don't have any upcoming regulatory reforms planned or new regulations planned.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Regulatory Authority held its first hearing to examine how California’s regulatory framework affects housing production, affordability, and timelines. Chair Pacheco and Assemblymember Haney framed the discussion around the state’s housing shortage and the need to reduce costs while maintaining environmental, safety, and community protections. The first panel featured housing experts and industry representatives who argued that state regulations, code complexity, utility constraints, and agency review processes add substantial cost and delay to development. Bill Fulton described overlapping state and local land-use authorities and the tension among housing, coastal protection, climate, and wildfire goals. CBIA’s Chris Ochoa and California Apartment Association representative Bob Raymer said building codes, energy mandates, and agency processes have materially increased per-home costs, and they urged more centralized affordability analysis and greater scrutiny of regulatory impacts. The Bay Area Council’s Louis Marante called for a statewide cost target for housing and stronger timelines and accountability for state agency reviews. The second panel brought in state agencies to explain their roles. HCD said its housing element enforcement, streamlining laws, and technical assistance have helped increase production, shorten entitlement timelines, and improve compliance by local governments. CARB said SB 375 is a planning law that does not directly regulate land use, and argued that regional housing assumptions in sustainable communities strategies are not being fully implemented on the ground. The Coastal Commission said it works with local governments to balance coastal protection, sea-level-rise risk, and housing, and noted recent guidance and pilot efforts to streamline housing approvals in the coastal zone. The Energy Commission said its building energy standards are designed to be cost-effective and save consumers money over time, though they can add some design and documentation complexity. Fish and Wildlife and DTSC both emphasized early engagement and collaboration to reduce delays while protecting natural resources and public health; DTSC said it is refining vapor intrusion guidance and using brownfield grants to support redevelopment. The State Water Resources Control Board said it uses general orders and basin planning to provide predictable permitting while balancing water quality, water rights, and housing needs, and noted billions in grants and loans for water infrastructure and site remediation that can support housing affordability. In response to questions from Assemblymember Haney, several agencies described ongoing coordination across departments, including regular meetings among HCD, CARB, the Coastal Commission, and transportation agencies, as well as broader interagency efforts to reduce redundancies and identify pinch points in project delivery. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the main outcome was informational testimony and discussion of possible future reforms to improve coordination, predictability, and affordability in state regulatory processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I hope that helps. ...of the PERS plan.
• Okay, Plan 3 overview.
• Most of us choose our plans; everyone else gets to choose their plan these days, and we don't have issues
• Are there advantages in being in both plans? You know, no question. You can have a direct plan.
• Two related to COLAs for Plan 1 retirees.

Summary: The executive committee approved the May minutes by roll call vote, then received an actuarial update from Sarah Baker of the State Actuary’s Office. Baker explained the office’s annual work, including the DRS pension actuarial evaluation, support for state financial reporting, cash flow analysis, a six-year pension contribution outlook, interim support for GIT and WAL CARES, and an upcoming actuarial evaluation of the volunteer firefighters pension plan. She also responded to questions about bills allowing members to transfer into PERS, noting that such transfers have historically increased PERS costs and that any added cost would be borne by PERS members and employers depending on bill structure and affected demographics. Kate Adams of the Attorney General’s office reported no new developments in the cases the committee is monitoring. She said the Dawson case is still in its early stages, with a judge assigned and a discovery plan due at the end of July. The committee asked for continued updates on that litigation. The committee then discussed interim work planning, focusing first on animal control officers’ eligibility for PERS and asking staff to continue researching definitions, comparable treatment in nearby states, and the cost and service-credit implications for affected employees. Members also discussed Plan 3 issues, including comparisons of Plan 2 and Plan 3 membership and data, and possible future briefing topics. The largest discussion centered on Plan 1 COLAs: members and retiree representatives debated whether to pursue a permanent COLA or an ad hoc COLA, and whether budget language should require future budget writers to consider a COLA. Retiree groups said they preferred a permanent COLA but were open to further discussion; staff was asked to continue work on possible language and policy options. The committee reviewed correspondence on four topics: Plan 1 COLA requests, a request to study LEOFF 2-style medical reimbursements for Washington State Patrol survivors, and a request to allow certain members to change survivor option elections after the federal Social Security Fairness Act. The committee agreed to bring the State Patrol medical reimbursement issue and the Social Security Fairness Act issue back for July, with staff to gather more information and provide an informational briefing. The July agenda was approved and includes the OSA annual update, the LEOFF 2 Board annual update, a PERS/TRS Plan 1 ad hoc COLA item, and the two survivor-related topics.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's an insurance plan.
• The plan has to allow it. The plan has to allow it. The parent is not forced to do it.
• The plan will be in a premium. The plan is required to allow it, which increases the price.
• No, I've never seen a plan like that. Yeah. But. No, I've never seen a plan like that.
• Just the Medicare Advantage plan. Just the Medicare Advantage plan.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So when I come up with a plan, when I come up with that treatment plan in collaboration with the patient
• My health plan failed to recognize the medical needs.
• My health plan failed to recognize the medical needs.
• Those requirements are going into place for the Medicare plans and the plans that operate in the federal
• We helped this consumer file an appeal with her medical plan, arguing that because the plan could not

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard several bills focused on health care access, oversight, and affordability. The first major item was SB 306 by Senator Becker, a prior authorization reform bill. Becker and supporters, including the California Medical Association and California Hospital Association, argued that prior authorization delays care, adds administrative burden, and can lead to serious patient harm. The bill was substantially amended late in the process to have DMHC and CDI identify services and drugs to exempt from prior authorization based on utilization data, with safeguards for fraud, waste, abuse, and patient safety. Health plans and insurers opposed the measure as written, saying prior authorization remains an important utilization-management tool and raising concerns about the 90% threshold, drug inclusion, and how modifications are counted. The committee also heard SB 35 by Senator Umberg, which would let cities or counties inspect unlicensed sober living homes if DHCS does not act promptly on complaints. Supporters said the bill would address weak enforcement and protect residents, while one behavioral health directors group opposed it unless amended. Members generally supported the measure, citing problems with unlicensed facilities and the need for local enforcement backup. The committee then heard SB 62, which would codify California’s updated essential health benefits benchmark if approved by the federal government. Senator Wiener said the package would add hearing aids, durable medical equipment, and infertility treatment including IVF, acknowledging that premiums could rise but arguing the benefits were worth it. Health Access California and other advocates supported the bill, while the California Family Council opposed it. The committee also took up SB 596 by Senator Menjivar, which would tighten the rules for hospitals claiming an on-call list as a defense to nurse staffing ratio penalties. Supporters, including nurses and SEIU, said hospitals have used vague or ineffective on-call practices to avoid accountability and that the bill would improve enforcement and patient safety. Hospital groups opposed it, arguing that staffing is highly dynamic, that hospitals need flexibility to manage acuity and emergencies, and that the bill could increase costs and interfere with collective bargaining arrangements. Finally, the committee heard SB 40 by Senator Wiener, the Insulin Affordability Act, which would cap insulin copays at $35 for a 30-day supply and restrict step therapy unless a plan covers at least one insulin in each drug type. Supporters, including physicians, diabetes advocates, nurses, students, and patient groups, said insulin is life-saving and too often unaffordable, forcing patients to ration or choose between medication and basic needs. There was no formal opposition testimony, though one member questioned why insulin remains so expensive. The committee also began discussion of SB 363, but the transcript cuts off before that bill’s full presentation or any action on the measures. No votes are recorded in the portion provided, and several bills were noted as consent items earlier in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, coverage is less consistent in the commercial market, where enrollees can be subject to plan-by-plan
• plan of the biosimilar. require a patient to try a biosimilar when the net cost of the plan of the biosimilar
• But when my husband's employer switched plans in January, we discovered that the new plan has a copay
• And we heard from the plans that there’s sometimes not communication between the pharmacy and the plan
• Planned Parenthood has been in California for nearly a century.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill in this posture is what my plan does now as an ERISA plan.
• There's ERISA-covered plans, so self-funded plans and union plans.
• There's ERISA-covered plans, so self-funded plans and union plans.
• There's ERISA covered plans, so self-funded plans and union plans.
• So the plan picks up the difference? The plan does.

Bills: HB591, HB765, HB826, HB870, HB938, HB1151, HB1162, HB1176, HB1196, HB1236, HB1241

Keywords: family leave, insurance, paid leave, employment benefits, caregiver support, liability insurance, coverage defenses, direct action, judgment enforcement, legal procedures, insurance referrals, compensation, non-licensed agents, consumer protection, insurance products, HB 870, Act 907, Louisiana insurance, health insurance, prescription drugs