Transcript Highlights:

• Obviously, if the district had these contracts in place with FDACS or NRCS, they did have quite a bit
• those contracts required a level of reporting that required performance measures to be provided.
• for dollars with these other entities, what is the purpose of those contracts?
• , whether it was a mobile irrigation lab contract or whether it was the contracts with FDACS, outlined
• We do have a contract with NRCS.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Agriculture heard an update on the Florida citrus industry from Matt Joyner of Florida Citrus Mutual and Shannon Shepp of the Department of Citrus. Both described the industry’s steep decline over the past two decades due to citrus greening (HLB), hurricanes, freezes, and aging groves, but emphasized ongoing recovery efforts through research, replanting, and new therapies. They highlighted promising tools such as plant growth regulators, protective screens and covers, direct oxytetracycline application, CRISPR-based breeding, and the CRAFT program, which has expanded to more than 10,000 acres of solid-set plantings and over 20,000 acres including resets. Members discussed disaster relief, property tax pressures, grower participation, and the need for assessment relief and other state support. No votes were taken on the citrus presentation. Shepp also outlined the Department of Citrus’s marketing and research role, noting strong consumer demand for Florida orange juice, global advertising efforts, and clinical research tied to health messaging. She said the industry remains a major economic contributor, with thousands of jobs and billions in economic impact, and that the department is working to maintain demand while growers replant and reset groves. Senators asked about the CRAFT program, new grower participation, and how advertising and state policy could help sustain the industry. The committee then received a performance review of the Opa-locka Soil and Water Conservation Districts from David Jahossky of Malden and Jenkins. The review found wide variation among the 49 districts studied, with many lacking recurring revenue, staffing, proper meeting notices, records retention, formal performance goals, and timely financial reports. The report identified nearly 400 recommendations and noted that some districts had already dissolved or were considering dissolution. Senators questioned whether the districts were duplicative of other agencies and whether they still served a useful purpose; the presenter said there was overlap and collaboration but no duplication. A public commenter from Jefferson County argued that local boards still provide trusted, community-based support for producers and help connect them to cost-share and best management practice programs. The chair indicated the review would inform possible legislation to improve or restructure the districts, and the committee adjourned without taking a vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• We now have a contract. contract with a distribution center.
• So the level of contracting and contract oversight, product oversight that's needed.
• contract contracted resources most of our the majority of our project deliver development and delivery
• Okay, contracts. Contracts as the law requires. Got it.
• contracted. amounts.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• contracts should this measure go forward contracts should this measure go forward um<00:05:21.360>
• And that contract amounts to how much?
• <00:22:55.880> execution be a part of the the contract execution be a part of the the contract
• more is this contract with WT and and and um<00:32:23.000> Crawford The current contract is open-ended
• um I'm going to be keeping on a contract um I'm going to be keeping on a contract okay um<00:34:

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Economic Development and Tourism and Higher Education heard HB 1494, relating to sports facilities. Testimony was largely in opposition to the bill as drafted from the Stadium Authority, the Department of Accounting and General Services, and the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, with several other written comments also opposing; each asked that if the measure advances, Senate language from related stadium bills be incorporated instead. The University of Hawaiʻi testified in support of the Nāʻid project and said it wants the project delivered at Halawa so the university can have a football facility, though members pressed the university on whether it was effectively supporting both the project and the bill’s current approach. A substantial portion of the hearing focused on the stadium project’s financing, schedule, and oversight. DAGS and Public Works discussed a consultant contract that had grown to about $28 million and an audit that recovered $441,000 after improper travel and expense reimbursements, including first-class airfare and other personal expenses; officials said the audit exposed weak internal controls and led to revised reimbursement policies. Members questioned whether the problems would have been found without media reporting and whether stronger oversight should have been in place earlier. The committee also discussed the current Ching Field setup for UH football, with witnesses describing it as less than ideal and temporary until the new stadium is built. Stadium Authority representatives said the current preferred offeror is Aloha Halawa Development Partners, negotiations have recently accelerated, and the goal remains a contract this summer and a fall 2028 opening. They said the state is committed to $350 million in general obligation bonds, with the overall project expected to cost more, and that the developer is exploring other financing sources such as TIF or CFD while the state and city work to expedite permits and demolition. No vote or final action on the bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Witness: It is an outside contracted ALJ.
• We contract with the Attorney General's office for an ALJ.
• Witness: Contracted. We do pay for them. Yes. Senator Jett: Understood.
• They would still be an independent, contracted ALJ. contracted ALJ. Senator Jett for a question.
• Contracted. We do pay for them. Yes. Understood.

Bills: SJR50, SJR51, SJR52, SJR53, SJR54

Keywords: Medicaid, federal funding, state law, healthcare, low-income adults, Oklahoma Constitution, healthcare regulations, Oklahoma Health Care Authority, permanent rules, joint resolution, OHCA, health care rules, administrative rules, major rule, Title 75, Title 317, Oklahoma Administrative Code, OAC 317:30, health policy, state health programs

Summary: The Senate Committee on Administrative Rules met with a quorum and considered five Oklahoma Health Care Authority and OMMA rules resolutions. Senate Joint Resolution 50 was presented as a federal-law conformity change allowing licensed professional counselors, LBHPs, and licensed alcohol and drug counselors to work as eligible providers in federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics; despite questions about the fiscal estimate, it passed 9-0. SJR 51 was amended to correct rule citations related to human genome sequencing, then failed on a 4-5 vote after members noted an estimated $860,000 fiscal impact tied to legislation. SJR 52, removing physician visit limits in Medicaid, was described as an access-to-care and rural health measure that could reduce ER use; it passed 8-1. The committee then took up SJR 53 from the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority, which would align rules with statutes requiring prepackaging of medical marijuana products and other provisions. Members questioned OMMA extensively about the economic impact, the discrepancy between the agency’s estimate and Loft’s much larger estimate, and whether the rules were already being implemented under emergency authority. OMMA said the rules mirrored existing statutes and that the cost would fall on the industry and ultimately consumers, not the agency. After debate about regulatory fairness and the effect on the industry, the resolution passed 5-4. Finally, SJR 54, a non-major OMMA rule change renaming the adjudicator from administrative law judge to hearing examiner to match the Administrative Procedures Act, drew concerns about independence and whether OMMA should be required to contract for outside adjudicators. The director said the change was only a terminology alignment and would not alter current practice, and Senator Bergstrom said he would pursue legislation next year to require outside contracting. An amendment changed the committee’s position from disapprove to approve, but the underlying resolution still failed 4-5. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• you said that the Terminex contract for you said that the Terminex contract for LFA<00:53:38.880>
• define spent if we release the contract define spent if we release the contract at<00:56:47.520>
• <00:56:56.240> controller from the the dags contract controller from the the dags contract
• These funds are in the contracted These funds are in the contract<01:00:26.319> process<01:00
• you know basically tree um contract you know basically tree trimming<02:13:26.800> contracts<

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint House and Senate agriculture committees met on January 17, 2025, for an informational briefing on biosecurity and invasive species; Chair Kahaloa opened by noting there would be no public testimony. Members introduced themselves, and the Hawaiʻi Invasive Species Council (HISC) program manager Chelsea Arnot outlined the purpose of the briefing and the statewide impacts of invasive species, citing examples such as coconut rhinoceros beetle, little fire ant, coquí frogs, albizia, and mosquito-borne disease. She emphasized that biosecurity requires coordinated action across state departments, counties, federal agencies, universities, and communities, and highlighted HISC’s role in funding interagency projects, island invasive species committees, research, outreach, and early detection efforts. Arnot and HISC representatives described major funding and program needs, including a requested $4.25 million increase to HISC to raise its baseline budget to $10 million, support island committee operations, research, biocontrol, marine biosecurity, surveillance, and staffing. They also requested $500,000 for the Hawaiʻi Ant Lab, saying it is critical to invasive ant research and little fire ant response. The briefing also noted HISC’s leverage of federal dollars, including a $4.6 million REPI award with HISC providing the match, and cited successful collaborative eradications and responses, including veiled chameleons on Maui, axis deer on Hawaiʻi Island, and a 2023 coconut rhinoceros beetle response on Maui that prevented further spread. Hawaiʻi Department of Agriculture officials then discussed implementation of updated administrative rules effective January 20, 2025, which permanently restrict movement of coconut rhinoceros beetle host material and give the department stronger authority to stop movement of infested material. They reported 2024 import activity of about 50,000 ship and aircraft arrivals, inspection/clearance of 20 million pieces, and 16,000 interceptions, with additional staffing from Act 231 expected to increase interceptions. They also described Act 231 funding and current spending status: about 65% obligated and 52% encumbered, with some funds tied to contracts for CRB and little fire ant response, plus an $800,000 green-waste hauling RFP that had to be reissued because of a flaw. The department said 580 Oʻahu homes and 290 Hawaiʻi Island homes are slated for little fire ant treatment, while Maui and Kauaʻi will focus on survey and outreach. Members questioned how homes are selected for subsidized treatment, whether HISC and the island invasive species committees received Act 231 support, and whether the state should direct how contracted funds are prioritized. Representative Martin raised concerns that the RFP limited eligibility to private pest control companies and excluded more experienced entities such as the Hawaiʻi Ant Lab. Department officials said they would follow up on prioritization and funding details, and noted that emergency proclamations and procurement flexibility could help with rapid response and hiring during invasive species emergencies.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are you also contracted by the utilities, or will be contracted by utilities, to create what they're
• Less than what they originally expected, they are required to pay for at least 80% of their contract
• As of today, we have 2.2 gigawatts of signed contracts, As of today, we have 2.2 gigawatts of signed
• We've started to bake them into our longer-term forecasts, and they've signed contracts.
• They've put financial skin in the game, and they've signed a contract to it.

Summary: The Committee on Utilities held an informational hearing on data centers in Missouri, with the chair explaining that the goal was to hear from three speakers with different perspectives and allow committee questions, but no public testimony. The first witness, Matt Edelow of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Columbia-Jefferson City Area Building Trades Council, spoke in support of data center development for its construction jobs, long-term employment, tax revenue, and local economic benefits. He said the Montgomery County projects had already put about 200 Missourians to work, described the facilities as using closed-loop water systems and generator noise levels that he said would be limited by setbacks and acoustics, and urged local hire and apprenticeship requirements. Committee members asked about water use, noise, cybersecurity, labor, and tax revenue, and he said one project could generate about $13.1 million annually at full buildout. The second witness, Rob Dixon of Ameren Missouri, testified that Senate Bill 4 and the Public Service Commission’s large-load tariff provide strong protections for existing customers. He said large data center customers must sign long-term contracts, pay 100% of interconnection costs, post collateral, pay at least 80% of contracted demand, and face exit and reduction fees, with load-shedding rules applying to them like other customers. Dixon said Ameren’s planning process includes engineering reviews and MISO review before projects proceed, and that the utility’s integrated resource plan calls for 5.3 gigawatts of new generation by 2030, with 2.2 gigawatts of signed large-load agreements already in place. He also said large customers can help spread fixed grid costs and put downward pressure on rates, and noted that the protections apply to investor-owned utilities, not co-ops or municipal utilities. The final witness, John Kaufman of the Consumers Council of Missouri, argued that the current protections are not strong enough and that data centers could raise rates through construction work in progress, stranded generation costs, and other risks if projects change or technology shifts. He urged greater consumer protections, including more upfront financial security from data centers, reconsideration of construction work in progress policies, and possibly requiring data centers to bring their own power in some cases. Committee members debated his claims about SB 4, QIP, and rate impacts, with some members saying the law already contains clawbacks and consumer-benefit requirements, while others echoed concerns about transparency and public understanding. The hearing ended without any votes or formal action, and the chair said the committee would continue the discussion in future meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• She asked whether the bill would cancel out arbitration clauses in contracts, pointing to section C on
• Just then with closing, that Outcome of a contract.
• When you expand in one area, for whatever reason, you are going to contract in other areas.
• The question was simple: where are we going to contract?
• So once these things keep increasing, it's going to expand and contract somewhere else.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• These are private contracts that companies are forcing on local governments with the goal of hiding from
• These are private contracts that companies are forcing on local governments with the goal of hiding from
• And that our local elected don't keep getting bullied by powerful corporations to sign contracts that
• talking about is private contracts talking about is private contracts between<00:14:44.480> law
• > are<00:15:55.920> about What these private contracts are about What these private contracts

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Lawmakers held a bipartisan press availability on a bill to prohibit local governments and their officials from entering into non-disclosure agreements with private entities. Supporters said the measure is intended to protect transparency, public participation, and Minnesotans’ right to know about local decisions involving land use, public financing, and economic development, especially in cases involving data centers and other large projects. Representatives and senators from both parties described the bill as a response to examples in cities such as Rosemount, Farmington, Hermantown, North Mankato, Monticello, Pine Island, and others, where they said NDAs kept communities from learning about projects until decisions were effectively already made. The authors argued that the bill is not anti-development or limited to data centers, but instead prevents corporations from using private contracts to circumvent Minnesota’s open meeting and data practices laws. They said Chapter 13 already addresses trade secrets and other confidential information, and that the bill is meant to stop NDAs from creating secrecy around government decision-making. They also said they had heard little organized opposition so far, though they acknowledged questions about how the bill would affect early-stage business recruitment conversations and how local governments, especially smaller ones, would implement the change. Members also discussed the bill’s legislative path. They said it had previously received unanimous support in committee and was sent to the general register, then moved to the Judiciary Committee at the request of Chair Scott, who wanted a hearing. The authors said they did not believe the bill raised Chapter 13 issues requiring judiciary review, but agreed to the referral as a courtesy and said they were seeking a hearing. They reported that Senate consideration had previously ended in a tie vote, but said momentum was growing and expected stronger support this session. No vote was taken during the press event.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:15:54.880> to uh transfer funds from one contract to uh transfer funds from one contract
• contracts in the department of health. contracts in the department of health.
• It appropriates funds to the judiciary to increase the contract price in existing contracts for certain
• Brandon Kimura of the judiciary. in existing contracts for certain in existing contracts for certain
• judiciary and their contracts first. judiciary and their contracts first.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs heard House Bill 2095, which would provide supplemental appropriations for the Judiciary for the 2025-2027 biennium. Judiciary Administrative Director Brandon Kimura testified in strong support and outlined a request for about $6.4 million in supplemental operating funds, plus four permanent full-time position conversions. He grouped the request into security, services to court users, and staffing needs, including $3.25 million for supplemental armed private security at judiciary facilities statewide, nearly $200,000 for cybersecurity staffing and support, restoration of funding for substance use treatment purchase-of-service contracts, restoration of funding for the Office of Public Guardian on Kauaʻi, salary commission funding, a Kona court operations position, and two Court-Appointed Special Advocates positions converted from temporary to permanent. He also described five capital improvement requests totaling $55.4 million, led by $30 million for construction of a new South Kohala courthouse, $1.2 million each for air conditioning upgrades in Hilo and Kauaʻi, $15 million for elevator upgrades at Kahumanu Hale, and $8 million in lump-sum bond funds for emerging projects. Several organizations testified in support, including Parents and Children Together and the True Cost Coalition. Supporters emphasized the importance of the purchase-of-service funding for domestic violence and substance use treatment services and said the restoration would return funding to pre-COVID levels and help providers maintain capacity. Kimura explained that the Judiciary often shifts funds among contracts during the year to avoid service interruptions, but that the reduced funding has caused delays and operational problems for providers and probationers. Members asked detailed questions about the capital projects and operating requests. Representative Shimizu asked for more information on the lump-sum bond funds and the elevator project, and Kimura explained that the Kahumanu Hale request covers four remaining elevator shafts after earlier funding addressed the first five elevators. Representative Cochran asked about the absence of Maui County projects, and Kimura said the Judiciary is still planning for its older Maui facilities with DAGS. Chair Tarnas questioned the need for armed private guards and discussed whether court security should be prioritized within the Department of Law Enforcement; Kimura said the Judiciary needs additional personnel now and has not asked DLE to deprioritize other missions, though the chair suggested further coordination between the agencies. No vote or final action on the bill was taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• But I understand that the ICE contract with the government is very long, but the contract with CoreCivic
• Our contract is not brief with MTC.
• in violation of their contract or their?
• The beds are set per the The contract is both with ICE and the facility, and the contract I think you
• What we're talking about here is public Contracts at the state and local level.

Transcript Highlights:

• <02:00:34.079> norovirus morning as she is contracted norovirus morning as she is contracted
• meet together to discuss the contract meet together to discuss the contract that<04:22:17.279>
• voting on the contract?
• transparency to have the contracts transparency to have the contracts formed<04:28:23.840> in
• understand exactly why the contract understand exactly why the contract Provisions<04:28:35.159>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 232, which would protect health care workers’ conscience rights in connection with certain procedures, especially abortion and sterilization, and also referenced contraception. The prime sponsor, Rep. Mark Pearson, said the bill is meant to prevent medical professionals from being forced to participate in procedures that violate their beliefs, while still prohibiting discrimination against patients based on protected characteristics. He said the measure was intended to help retain health care workers in New Hampshire and noted he had added an amendment to address concerns about people taking jobs only to later refuse duties, as well as emergency situations where a provider is the only one available. Committee members raised concerns about how broadly the bill and amendment were written. Questions focused on whether the protections could apply to non-physician staff such as schedulers, receptionists, or pharmacy employees; whether a provider could refuse to schedule, refer, or otherwise assist with services; and how “emergency” would be determined in practice. Several members also questioned whether the bill could affect access to contraception, including pharmacy sales and procedures such as tubal ligation, and whether the language was clear enough to prevent confusion or unintended refusals of care. Pearson said the bill was not intended to allow refusal of emergency care or general patient discrimination, and he acknowledged some language could be tweaked. Rep. Paige Boerman, a maternal-child health nurse, testified in opposition, saying she had seen pharmacists question prescriptions related to miscarriage care and that the bill could create barriers to contraception and other reproductive health services. She warned that the lack of a disclosure requirement and the broad definitions could create risks, especially in rural areas with limited providers. She also pointed to problems she said had occurred in other states, arguing the bill could lead to delayed care in emergencies. The hearing ended after questions and discussion; no vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• But what happens if someone has a contract, say it's a construction contract that's a 2.5-year contract
• , say it's a construction contract, that's a 2.5 year contract and this goes into place, but they just
• under what the mandate was, they would have to increase their prices in the contract.
• They would have to go through a contract revision.
• They would have to go through a contract revision.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• I’m Tom Kiebers, Executive Director of the Service Contract Industry Council, or SCIC.
• There is no law that provides a regulatory framework for the offering of service contracts for motor
• Consequently, your constituents don't have access to third-party vehicle service contracts to protect
• , applicable to service contracts on motor vehicles.
• and to disclose key provisions of the contract.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services heard testimony on a wide range of insurance-related bills. Topics included public adjusters (H. 1100/S. 785), electronic cancellation notices (H. 1123/S. 701), insurance rebates and loss-mitigation devices (H. 1233), flood hazard determinations (H. 1087 and related flood bills), organ donor insurance protections (H. 1248/S. 727), mental health parity in disability policies (S. 780), motor vehicle service contracts (H. 1139/S. 812), modernization of business-to-business insurance transactions (H. 1105), and a bill changing the GIC withdrawal notice deadline (H. 1150). Committee chairs set a three-minute testimony limit and heard from legislators, industry representatives, advocates, and affected consumers. Testimony on public adjusters was sharply divided. Insurance agents and property-casualty industry representatives argued that bills barring insurers from prohibiting public adjusters would interfere with policy terms, while public adjusters and several consumers described cases where adjusters helped secure substantially higher settlements and said some surplus lines policies already contain anti-public-adjuster endorsements. On electronic notices, the insurance industry supported consumer opt-in email communications, while agents warned that email-only cancellation notices could cause consumers to miss cancellations. On rebates/loss mitigation, insurers supported allowing risk-mitigation devices outside the policy to encourage innovation, while agents opposed the bill as an improper inducement. Flood-related bills drew opposition from insurers who said flood determinations are complex and federally governed. The committee also heard strong support for organ donor protections from a kidney transplant recipient and the American Kidney Fund, who said the bill would prevent insurance discrimination against living donors and could encourage more donations. On disability parity, a disability insurance specialist opposed S. 780, arguing that mental health limitations are a consumer choice that helps keep coverage affordable, while the bill’s sponsor said it would prevent unequal limits on behavioral health claims. The committee also heard support for H. 1139/S. 812 from the service contract industry, and support for H. 1105 from APCIA as a modernization measure for specialty commercial lines. No votes were taken; after testimony concluded, the chairs closed the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• THERE IS A CONTRACT THAT IS EXECUTED AND THERE WILL BE A REVISED CONTRACT AT THURSDAY'S MEETING TO MAKE
• THE INITIAL CONTRACT?
• Steele: WHAT CHANGES WILL BE IN THE NEW CONTRACT?
• >> I AM. >> DO THEY RECEIVE STATE CONTRACT?
• HAS INDELIBLE DONE ANY WORK OR RECEIVED ANY CONTRACTS FOR HOPE FLORIDA?

Transcript Highlights:

• How do you handle these large contracts for other agencies historically?
• or contracts that can be used by all state agencies and local government.
• This leverages the full purchasing power of the state through those contracts.
• Yes, they have some contracting plans.
• One of the key components is our ability to contract with multiple vendors.

Bills: SB 1, SB1

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have to contract out for specialty services.
• no contract has been made.
• DGS has A&E retainer contracts, and so they have AORs on contract.
• You would have to do a contract.
• Our contracts here in the state of California require us to meet So state standards, our contracts here

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard updates from the Department of State Hospitals on its proposed 2026-27 budget, including a $3.2 billion total budget, patient-driven operating cost increases, savings in the IST solutions program, and progress in meeting the Stiavedi court-ordered 28-day treatment standard. DSH reported it has met court benchmarks, reduced the IST pending placement list from a pandemic high of 1,953 to about 250, and is now averaging about five days to initiate treatment. Members asked about the effects of Proposition 36 and SB 1323 on referrals, outside hospitalization costs, Medicare coverage, and whether IST solution funds were being overbudgeted; DSH said referrals are slightly down overall, outside medical costs are rising due to inflation and an aging population, and the IST savings reflect slower-than-expected activation of community programs rather than a service gap. The department also outlined proposed funding for electrical infrastructure upgrades at Napa and Patton, a feasibility study under SB 380 for transitional housing for the CONREP SVP program, and a dental services expansion at Metropolitan and Patton. The committee held those DSH items open after discussion. The Commission for Behavioral Health presented its role in overseeing the transition from MHSA to BHSA, including data, evaluation, transparency, grantmaking, and technical assistance. It described the new Innovation Partnership Fund, a statewide innovation grant program funded at up to $20 million annually for five years, with small and large grants, and said it had received strong interest ahead of the May 8 application deadline. Members asked about what qualifies as innovation, whether grants could be renewed, and how the state would ensure the program supports service delivery rather than general outreach or training. The commission also sought a liquidation deadline extension for up to $4.062 million in remaining Alcove Youth Drop-in Center funds so sites can finish implementation and Stanford can complete the final evaluation; that item was also held open. DHCS provided an overview of behavioral health policy changes under CalAIM and BH Connect, including peer support, mobile crisis, contingency management, traditional health care practices for tribal members, the access reform and outcomes incentive program, workforce investments, evidence-based practice expansion, IMD participation, transitional rent, and upcoming youth-focused guidance such as high-fidelity wraparound and activity funds. On BHSA implementation, DHCS said it is not tracking specific local program cuts, but is monitoring county plans and outcomes while noting that counties must still preserve Medi-Cal specialty mental health and DMC-ODS services. The department also discussed its H.R. 1 implementation strategy, including outreach, streamlined renewals, ex parte exemptions, and proposed clinic navigator and outreach funding to reduce Medi-Cal coverage loss, especially for people with behavioral health needs. In response to questions, DHCS said it has not produced a specific H.R. 1 impact estimate for county behavioral health populations, and later explained that counties can still use BHSA and other funding streams for prevention and early intervention while the state tracks impacts through integrated plans and new performance measures. The department also reported on BH-CHIP bond spending, saying it has awarded $5.8 billion for 437 infrastructure projects creating 546 new or expanded facilities and more than 9,553 residential beds, with tribal set-asides exceeding the original allotment.

Transcript Highlights:

• resulted from the POC and the amount of the contract and its terms.
• Again, to award a contract, um, we're anticipating that that contract will be awarded, uh, sometime this
• to honor the bargained contract.
• We were out of a contract for four years with no raises.
• We have already negotiated a contract.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It would mean I have predictability, transparency, and a voice in my employment contract.
• If I may, so you consider contract employees right now?
• After all those years without a contract, that 3.5% did not begin to get us above water.
• Delays in contract funding make their situation even more precarious.
• It keeps the delay in funding our contracts down to a reasonable minimum.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Service heard testimony on a wide range of retirement, municipal workforce, and public employee labor bills. Early testimony focused on H. 2749, a Plymouth home rule petition to classify Plymouth harbormaster employees as Group 4 for retirement purposes. Supporters, including local officials and retirement board representatives, argued the employees perform law-enforcement and rescue duties comparable to police and fire personnel, that the change would be fair, and that it would have little or no fiscal impact on the town. A separate harbormaster-related bill, H. 2743, was also introduced later in the hearing. The committee also heard testimony on provisions of the Municipal Empowerment Act (H. 56), including a temporary critical-shortage exemption allowing retired state or municipal employees to return to work in hard-to-fill positions, and a renewed OPEB commission to study retiree health care costs. Administration and municipal officials said the measures were needed to address staffing shortages and rising benefit liabilities, while emphasizing the shortage exemption would be time-limited and require proof of recruitment efforts. Related retirement bills drew support and caution: advocates for higher COLA bases and enhanced COLA benefits urged relief for retirees, but some asked the committee to wait for recommendations from the special COLA commission before acting. A major portion of the hearing concerned labor rights at the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority and the Committee for Public Counsel Services. Union representatives and employees backed bills to extend just-cause protections, promotional rights, and collective bargaining rights to MWRA and CPCS workers, arguing they currently lack protections available to most other public employees. Testimony described unfair discipline, delayed promotions, and high turnover, and committee members indicated prior favorable action on similar MWRA bills and expressed support for addressing CPCS labor rights. The committee also heard from representatives of the Massachusetts Municipal Association and public higher education employees in support of H. 2820, which would require timely funding of ratified state employee contracts, with witnesses describing long delays in receiving negotiated raises and back pay. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chair repeatedly invited written testimony and closed each panel after questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• The reverse auction resulted in awarding a new independent PBM contract to our incumbent provider.
• That was probably going on, he said, throughout the various contracts we had previously, but that has
• He said throughout the various contracts we had previously, but that has stopped now.
• We are being charged to the penny exactly what the contract allows. That's a new world for Iowa.
• Unfortunately, that's how legacy PBMs have set up their contracts.

Summary: The Senate Insurance Committee met on May 13, 2026, adopted the May 6 minutes, and then took up several bills dealing with pharmacy benefit managers, prescription access, behavioral health coverage, and Citizens Property Insurance. HB 938, as amended, was the main PBM reform measure. After the committee adopted a large amendment set that narrowed the bill, members heard extensive testimony in support from Mark Bloom, Justin Joseph of Capital Rx, and Kathy Ue of Pontchartrain Cancer Center, all emphasizing transparency, pass-through pricing, reverse auctions, and patient access. Supporters described savings from reverse auctions and administrative models, while the cancer center testified that PBM-owned specialty pharmacy requirements can delay cancer medications and create financial hardship. The committee reported HB 938 favorably with amendments. The committee also heard HB 1154, which prohibits prior authorization for certain generic medications prescribed by qualified physicians, with a $250 cap discussed as a safeguard against higher-cost generics. The bill was supported by representatives from Ochsner Health and the Louisiana State Medical Society and was reported favorably. HB 909, which requires commercial coverage for behavioral health crisis services, was amended to clarify the insurers covered and then reported favorably with support from the Office of Behavioral Health and several outside groups. Testimony on HB 909 focused on reducing emergency room and law enforcement burdens and expanding crisis response capacity across the state. HB 1187, dealing with excess emergency assessment funds from Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, was explained by the Insurance Commissioner as a way to transfer remaining Katrina-era assessment funds to the Fortified Roof Program. The committee reported the bill favorably. Finally, SB 511 and SB 512 were deferred and converted into a study resolution approach because there was not yet consensus on the underlying issue. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• the covered entities, your hospitals and clinics, et cetera, your pharmacy benefit managers, your contract
• We also put, we added the contract pharmacy.
• We also added the contract pharmacies, the federally qualified health centers.
• pharmacy, or federally qualified, drug transparency report, health care facility, contract pharmacy,
• pharmacy to include, to be clear that we, should be clarified under contract pharmacy to include, to

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and took up the final bill on its agenda, Senate Bill 2370, which had been converted into a 340B drug transparency measure tied to insulin and broader prescription drug pricing issues. Representative Hendrix outlined the latest bill draft, explaining that it would require reporting by covered entities, contract pharmacies, federally qualified health centers, drug manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, and health insurers, with confidentiality protections, civil penalties, and staggered effective dates. He also noted unresolved questions about the scope of required reporting, possible overlap with federal reporting, and whether the Insurance Department would need a consultant to analyze the data. Representative Dobervich then proposed an alternative amendment that would replace the bill language with a Legislative Management study on 340B transparency reporting during the 2025-26 interim. Her proposal would remove the detailed reporting mandates and instead direct a study of what information should be collected, how it should be used, who should receive it, staffing or contracted support needs, and stakeholder input from hospitals, pharmacies, FQHCs, rural health, state agencies, insurers, and manufacturers. Members discussed germaneness, the late-stage nature of the changes, and whether the issue had been adequately heard, while the Insurance Department testified that it had not previously studied 340B-specific data but supported transparency and could see value in either a study or reporting approach. The committee first adopted the Hendrix amendment by a vote of 8-5, then voted on a do not pass motion on the amended bill, which passed 7-6. Representative Frelich was selected to carry the bill. The chair then adjourned the committee for the last time and reminded members about the committee dinner.