Transcript Highlights:

• And then the next one is the alternative payment admin rate.
• are set under the single rate structure.
• were put into the base rate rather than in the cost-of-care-plus rate, which is paid outside of contract
• Terms of the age rate categories are as follows.
• elements by defining age rate categories and details around the enhanced inclusion rates.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, with no votes taken. The first major topic was child care and early education, where the Department of Social Services and Department of Finance outlined proposed changes to absorb federal Child Care and Development Fund and Proposition 64 revenue reductions, shift some funding between child care programs, end funding for prospective pay implementation now that the federal requirement has been rescinded, adjust the alternative payment administration structure, and fund child care infrastructure grants and a Low-Income Investment Fund contract closeout. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the budget makes progress on the structural deficit but recommended maintaining the administration’s solution level, making reserve deposits, and avoiding new ongoing commitments; it also raised concerns about shifting reductions to the California Alternative Payment Program and about the proposed administrative-rate change. Committee members strongly criticized the proposed loss of child care slots and said they would oppose eliminating those slots, while also expressing support for child care as essential infrastructure. The committee then reviewed California State Preschool Program proposals. Finance and CDE described reductions to the preschool COLA from 2.41% to 2.01%, removal of prospective pay funding, and increases for the QRIS block grant, audit support, and rate reform implementation. Trailer bill language would codify age-based rate categories, inclusion-rate documentation, family fee collection rules, portability, and excused absences. CDE supported the QRIS increase and some attendance and family-fee changes, but warned that aligning three- and four-year-old rates could reduce support for three-year-olds and that the budget does not fully cover enrollment growth. Members also questioned whether the preschool and child care slot reductions should be reallocated rather than terminated, and the administration said the reductions were intended to reflect current utilization and avoid harm to currently enrolled families. The hearing then moved to CalFresh and nutrition programs. CDSS said the May Revision includes a one-time CalFood augmentation, funding to cover federal SNAP administrative cost-share pressures, and additional staffing and technical assistance to implement HR 1 changes, including the able-bodied adults without dependents time limit and new non-citizen eligibility rules. The department estimated HR 1 could cut CalFresh funding by $2.3 billion to $3.7 billion annually and affect about 500,000 people, with roughly 806,000 adults potentially subject to the time limit and about 34,000 non-citizens expected to lose eligibility once fully implemented. Members pressed for stronger harm mitigation, including a $98 million backfill to protect families from losing food benefits, and raised concerns about county workload and the “chilling effect” on immigrant participation. The final portion of the transcript began the IHSS presentation, noting a revised budget of $33.7 billion total funds and $12.8 billion General Fund, with proposed reductions tied to Medi-Cal asset-limit changes and other federal conformity items.

Transcript Highlights:

• urban rate.
• touched these rates in a very long time. touched these rates in a very long time.
• There have been rate cuts since then, iterative rate cuts.
• <00:18:31.840> Uh there has been no rate increases. Uh there has been no rate increases.
• Um, in the last few years, they've developed a rural rate and a super rural rate, and it does create

Bills: HB0004

Keywords: medical assistance, birthing centers, healthcare, Medicaid, Wyoming, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The alternative rate proposed in the October actuarial analysis had a contribution rate of 78% in the
• The alternative rate proposed in the October actuarial analysis had a contribution rate of 78% in the
• The alternative rate proposed in the October actuarial analysis had a contribution rate of 78% in the
• actual analysis had a contribution rate actual analysis had a contribution rate of<00:08:41.159>
• <00:48:41.079> was the premium rate if the premium rate was the premium rate if the premium

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on the fiscal note process, prompted by concerns raised in a prior hearing about the fiscal note for the Paid Family and Medical Leave law. Chair Marty, Senator Pratt, and Senator Wiklund said the goal was not to revisit the bill itself but to strengthen understanding of fiscal note standards, the role of the Legislative Budget Office (LBO), and communication with agencies. They emphasized bipartisan concern that fiscal notes must be respected and that the process should be clearer going forward. Christian Larison of the LBO explained that the 2024 fiscal note issues stemmed from three main problems: choosing the proper baseline for a program that had not yet started, interpreting the seven-day qualifying event/waiting period, and determining whether DEED could adjust the first-year premium rate. He said the LBO, DEED, MMB, and House fiscal staff ultimately used the October 2023 actuarial analysis as the baseline because it was the most recent and likely most accurate estimate, but that choice meant the fiscal note did not show the difference from the 2023 enacted budget. He also described how DEED later interpreted the seven-day provision as a waiting period and how the premium-rate assumptions affected the fiscal impact. Larison outlined possible responses, including more assertive early communication from the LBO, providing more detailed analysis in unusual cases, and possibly creating a working group through the LBO Oversight Commission to consider new standards for substantial assumption changes, complex new programs, and third-party actuarial work. He also noted the LBO has authority to issue unapproved fiscal notes if standards are not met, though it has not used that authority. In questions, Senator Murphy asked about protecting the credibility of fiscal notes, and Larison said maintaining independence, objectivity, and consistent standards is central to the LBO’s role. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those drove the state's payment error rate higher.
• The payment error rate is always calculated on a look-back period.
• in their error rate at all?
• We can track our error rate and fix our error rate, but the federal government has to say, here's the
• rules and here's the error rates you have to target and come to.

Transcript Highlights:

• So from commercial carriers, not to Medicaid, what's the rate? Why is the rate?
• Medicaid, what's the rate? Why is the rate so low?
• The rate is what it is. The last time we had a rate change for inpatient Medicaid was in 2007.
• So where does the rate that we get for our per diem rate come from?
• And we'll look at the per diem rate.

Summary: The subcommittee met to review Arkansas DHS hospital spending and reimbursement methods, with Secretary Janet Mann and Deputy Secretary Misty Eubanks explaining Medicaid hospital payments. They described fee-for-service per diem payments, cost settlements, and the upper payment limit (UPL) program, noting that SFY 2025 hospital payments included $688 million in inpatient/outpatient claims, $473 million in UPL payments, $248 million in cost settlements, and about $47 million in other payments such as graduate medical education and disproportionate share hospital funds. Members asked about why per diem rates vary, how cost settlements work, why UPL applies mainly to private hospitals, and how assessment fees are structured and funded. DHS said the hospital assessment fee is broad-based and uniform, used as the state share to draw federal funds, and that supplemental hospital payments after federal match totaled $548 million with no general revenue used. The Arkansas Hospital Association’s Jody Ann Tritt then gave a broader overview of the hospital landscape, explaining the different hospital types in the state, including critical access hospitals, rural emergency hospitals, PPS hospitals, and specialty hospitals. She said Arkansas hospitals face financial strain, citing a negative 5.18% patient service margin statewide and lower reimbursement than surrounding states. She argued that Arkansas hospitals are paid less than hospitals in neighboring states for similar services, that commercial payer rates and administrative burdens are a major problem, and that Medicaid and Medicare rates remain below cost even with UPL support. She also said hospitals are the backbone of community care, provide emergency and public health functions, and are looking for ways to invest in technology and telehealth but often lack the revenue to do so. Members pressed for clearer data on hospital finances, reimbursement adequacy, and the impact of commercial insurers. Tritt said the association had just authorized a statewide survey to gather updated financial information from hospitals, which she said would take about a year to complete. She also explained that Medicaid pays weekly, Medicare and commercial plans can involve delays and denials, and that hospitals often spend significant resources on revenue cycle work. The discussion ended with a brief update on assisted living reimbursement: DHS said one facility, The Pillars of the Community in Crossett, had announced closure, nine Living Choices waiver clients were being transitioned, and the updated rate study would be available after cost reports are collected, likely before the end of the fiscal year. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill requires the rate of towing to be the rate published in DPS's tow service agreement for the
• The bill requires the rate of towing to be the rate published in DPS's tow service agreement for the
• It will be more sales, and the same rate will apply to the higher base.
• It will be more sales and the same rate will apply to the higher base.
• And we still have the lowest rates again in the Valley.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The meeting was a rapid review of a very large bill package, with the chair repeatedly asking staff to keep descriptions high level and many bills placed on third-read consent or consent calendars. A major theme was artificial intelligence: bills would require minors to be told when they are interacting with AI, allow AI-assisted divorce arbitration by consent, create an AI education program, privilege certain AI communications, and require K-12 instruction on ethical and practical AI use. Other education measures addressed school district superintendents, health instruction, anti-Semitism prohibitions, fetal development standards, and school safety, including a bill allowing concealed firearms on school grounds under specified conditions. Several health and public safety bills were also discussed. These included funding and oversight measures for childhood cancer research, nursing care complaint timelines, firefighter cancer data collection, limits on pharmacy penalties, and a bill making it a felony to administer abortion-inducing drugs without consent. Members also heard bills on overtime wage enforcement, domestic violence evidence standards in parenting cases, probation limits for dangerous crimes against children, and a measure expanding manslaughter liability to online encouragement of teen suicide. One sponsor strongly opposed a provisional medical licensing bill for foreign-trained applicants, while other sponsors emphasized rural health access, nurse anesthetist reimbursement parity, and the need for a dental board member who is an oral surgeon. A large portion of the meeting focused on water, land, energy, and state agency oversight. Bills would streamline or change rules for small modular reactors, new power plants, water supply determinations, groundwater transportation fees, water hauling, and state land disposition. Members also considered measures affecting the State Land Department, including audits, oversight boards, continuation, land-use maps for data centers and energy projects, and rules for mineral leases and solar or wind siting. Other topics included wildlife and ranching, Mexican wolf policy, annexation, housing and development incentives, transportation and towing rules, digital driver licenses, and a proposed four-year moratorium on municipal and county fee, tax, and utility-rate increases, which drew questions about stakeholder input and the impact on enterprise funds and local utilities. No recorded roll-call votes were taken in the transcript; most items were simply presented, briefly discussed, and left on consent or calendar status, with one bill noted as held in rules and another pulled for further discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• rate, is $1,637 a day.
• Medicaid rates don't reflect today's cost of care.
• Increasing pay for many comes through Medicaid rates.
• There was $450 per day on top of your assessed rate.
• There was $450 up to $450 per day on top of your assessed rate.

Summary: The committee met for what was described as its final meeting, with members and staff reflecting on the work of the Joint Legislative Executive Committee on Aging and Long-Term Care and noting that future work would likely shift to standing health and wellness committees. The meeting began with introductions and then moved into updates on major initiatives that originated from the committee, including Washington Cares, the Dementia Action Collaborative, and Medicaid long-term care programs. Presenters emphasized that these efforts were developed through long-term legislative-executive collaboration and were intended to help Washington prepare for the state’s aging population. On Washington Cares, DSHS described the program’s development from a 2014 research effort to its 2019 enactment, premium collection beginning in 2023, portability improvements in 2024, and 2025 changes including a grandfathered opt-out fix and a framework for supplemental private long-term care insurance. The agency said benefits are expected to go fully live next summer, with a pilot of up to 400 applicants planned for next January. On dementia policy, the Dementia Action Collaborative reported on the state dementia plan, Project ECHO training for providers, and pilot dementia-capable community programs at area agencies on aging, citing preliminary results that about 85% of family caregivers said services helped people remain at home. DSHS also reviewed Medicaid Transformation Project initiatives, including Medicaid Alternative Care, Tailored Supports for Older Adults, presumptive eligibility, and health-related social needs benefits such as rental assistance, nutrition support, and home modifications. The committee then heard an emerging issues panel from ombuds and disability advocates. Patricia Hunter of the long-term care ombuds program raised concerns about staffing shortages, resident rights, surveillance technology, private equity ownership of facilities, and illegal discharges or evictions. Betty Sweeterman of the Developmental Disabilities Ombuds discussed people stuck in hospitals without medical need, gaps in behavioral health services for people with developmental disabilities, and the need for better workforce training. Todd Carlyle of Disability Rights Washington urged expansion and bundling of community supports such as PACT, GOSH, and peer bridgers to reduce repeated institutionalization and support discharge from inpatient psychiatric settings. Provider and labor panels followed, with nursing home, assisted living, supported living, and union representatives all emphasizing workforce shortages, low wages, Medicaid rate inadequacy, case management bottlenecks, behavioral health complexity, and the need for more flexible care models and stronger accountability for rate increases. No formal votes were taken; the meeting ended with public comment on manufactured housing and closing remarks thanking staff and participants for the committee’s work.

Transcript Highlights:

• had rates around 75.7%.
• The maltreatment rate is basically the rate that CYFD determines maltreatment at.
• That rate is 14.7%, which is the rate that is.
• We will not reimburse providers based on their price; we reimburse a set rate, and those rates are in
• maltreatment rate is 47% higher.

Transcript Highlights:

• We aimed to remove the provider taxes, but we went from a bad rate in the House to an even worse rate
• in the Senate, then back to the House rate.
• Rate down to 100% of Medicare rates because we are an expansion state.
• It is the match rate.
• Your rate can vary in that situation.

Transcript Highlights:

• unemployment rate for the US is 4.4%. unemployment rate for the US is 4.4%.
• Um, our unemployment rate is below what the U.S. rate is. It's 2.7%.
• Um, our unemployment rate is below rate.
• participation rate is still 57.7. participation rate is still 57.7.
• error rate. error rate.

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• rate?
• , 90% live discharge rates.
• improper payment rate.
• And for our eligibility error rate, they found an error rate of 1.1%.
• So we had an error rate of 1.3% compared to a national rate of a little over 5%.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Health and Human Services convened to discuss interim charges regarding fraud, waste, and abuse in Texas human services, particularly focusing on Medicaid and childcare programs. The meeting highlighted the importance of preventing misuse of taxpayer funds, with testimony from various stakeholders emphasizing the need for increased oversight and accountability in these programs. Key points included the alarming rise in healthcare fraud in other states, the necessity for Texas to enhance its fraud prevention measures, and the potential financial repercussions of failing to meet federal compliance standards. Several committee members expressed concerns about the impact of fraud on vulnerable populations, particularly those relying on Medicaid services. Testimonies from experts underscored the effectiveness of Texas's Office of Inspector General (OIG) in combating fraud, yet pointed out existing vulnerabilities, such as inconsistent enforcement and the need for better data sharing among agencies. The discussion also touched on the challenges faced by hospice care providers, with a significant increase in the number of hospices in Texas raising concerns about quality and oversight. The committee heard from various witnesses, including representatives from health plans and advocacy organizations, who provided insights into the complexities of managing Medicaid and the importance of maintaining program integrity. The meeting concluded with a commitment to further explore legislative solutions to enhance oversight and ensure that resources are directed to those in genuine need.

Transcript Highlights:

• DMS pays on a per-member, per-month capitated rate, and you can see those capitated rates on the right
• Those rates are decided by region.
• Rates are based on to use them. Rates are based on historical<00:14:31.360> claims.
• , coverage updates, reimbursement rates, coverage updates, reimbursement rates, and<00:14:55.839>
• and and what their approval rating was. and and what their approval rating was.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Health and Family Services met in person, approved the October 15 minutes, and began with a moment of silence following a Louisville UPS plane explosion that was described as a local tragedy affecting many families and first responders. The main presentation was an overview of Kentucky’s Medicaid non-emergency medical transportation (NMT) program from the Department for Medicaid Services and the Transportation Cabinet. Witnesses explained that NMT is a federally required Medicaid benefit, administered by the Transportation Cabinet under a risk-based capitated model, with eligibility limited to Medicaid members traveling to medically necessary, Medicaid-covered services and who lack access to other transportation. They also described exclusions, including certain KCHIP, QMB, and PACE members, and outlined the brokered regional structure, call center operations, scheduling rules, vehicle and driver oversight, complaint handling, and rider surveys. The presenters reported that NMT handled more than 3.1 million trips in state fiscal year 2024, with over 1.38 million trips already recorded in October, and said customer satisfaction surveys were high. They said the FY 2025-26 contract total is about $360.6 million, with monthly per-member capitation rates set by region through an actuarial process and approved by CMS. They emphasized that payments are tied to monthly Medicaid enrollment and that the state draws down federal funds for the exact amount paid, with no leftover balance. They also said most NMT use comes from adult day centers and rehabilitative care such as dialysis. Members questioned the witnesses about how quality metrics and contract standards are set, whether the state had explored alternatives such as Uber Health or other integrated models, and how utilization was calculated. The witnesses said contract requirements are developed collaboratively by Medicaid Services, the Transportation Cabinet, and other agencies, and that studies of other models generally found higher costs and lower approval ratings, with additional research on a hybrid model expected by the end of the year. They clarified that one figure reflected the share of Medicaid members with registered vehicles, while another reflected actual NMT users, and they defended the capitated structure as shifting financial risk to brokers rather than the state. Representative Fleming also raised concerns about oversight, reporting, and the apparent gap between budgeted and contracted amounts, asking whether any unused funds would return to general funds; the discussion ended before a final answer was given.

Transcript Highlights:

• of the gas climate credit to further reduce electric rates.
• Most Californians have seen their rates double over the last 10 years.
• It would increase their rate base by 50%.
• The biggest way is our credit rating, correct? Yeah, yeah.
• The biggest way is our credit rating. Correct. Yeah, yeah.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy heard two bills focused on electricity affordability and utility costs. AB 745, by Assembly Member Irwin, would restructure the California Climate Credit by shifting it from lump-sum payments to direct reductions in volumetric electricity rates and moving the credit to the summer months when bills are highest. The author and UC Santa Barbara economist Dr. Kyle Meng argued this could significantly lower summer rates and better help households during extreme heat. Supporters, including UCS, NRDC, and some labor representatives, favored the concept, with some urging that the gas climate credit also be redirected. No opposition testimony was presented, and the bill passed 18-0 to the floor. The committee then considered AB 825, also presented as an affordability package aimed at reducing electric bills by addressing wildfire mitigation costs, transmission financing, permitting delays, and a review of ratepayer-funded programs. The bill would authorize securitization for undergrounding expenses, remove the first $15 billion in undergrounding capital investments from the rate base for return purposes, create a public transmission financing program using Proposition 4 funds and IBank support, revive the California Power Authority as a public sponsor, and establish a task force to review energy efficiency and demand response programs. The author and witness Matt Friedman of The Utility Reform Network said the bill could save ratepayers billions over time through lower-cost public financing and securitization. Testimony on AB 825 was mixed. Support came from several consumer and clean-energy groups, while utilities and labor raised concerns about the bill’s impact on utility financial stability, wildfire fund participation, liability, and whether the $15 billion securitization cap could discourage undergrounding. Some witnesses also objected to the task force’s potential effect on energy efficiency and demand response programs. Committee members discussed the need to balance affordability with utility creditworthiness and wildfire safety, and several asked for more analysis of market impacts and liability issues. Despite those concerns, AB 825 passed the committee 13-0 and was sent to the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• Two, the waiver rate study.
• Uh, the rate study.
• rates funded established by the rate rates funded established by the rate study.<01:33:31.520>
• of the benchmark rate. of the benchmark rate.
• /c><01:36:30.560> do the rate in the rate study has to do the rate in the rate study has to do

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight Advisory Board’s fourth meeting focused primarily on a presentation from University of Kentucky and University of Louisville health leaders about the state university directed payment program. Mark Birdwhistle and Ken Marshall described the program as a long-running, value-based Medicaid arrangement that began in 2019, uses university-provided matching funds rather than provider taxes, and ties a portion of payments to quality outcomes. They said the program has improved measures such as tobacco cessation, diabetes control, depression screening, and cancer screening, while supporting access to specialty care, medical education, and workforce training. They also emphasized that Kentucky’s model is nationally notable and has helped improve health rankings and generate cost savings. A major topic was the federal reconciliation bill signed July 4, which the presenters said will reduce directed payments by 10% annually for 10 years beginning in 2028. UL Health estimated a first-year loss of about $75 million and a cumulative loss of about $600 million over the decade; UK estimated about $100 million in the first year, for a combined first-year impact of roughly $175 million. Both speakers warned the cuts could affect access to care, training capacity, and the sustainability of Kentucky’s value-based model, though they expressed hope that congressional action could alter or delay the changes. They also noted that 340B drug pricing changes could further strain already thin operating margins, but did not provide exact figures during the meeting. Committee members responded positively to the program’s reported outcomes and the institutions’ role in Kentucky health care. Senator Berg praised the quality of care and shared a personal example of being advised to stay at UofL for breast cancer treatment. Representative Moer highlighted Kentucky’s strong cancer-control score and asked for more explanation of the value-based payment structure; the presenters said the system is built around ongoing measurement, accountability, and collaboration with the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the amended August 27 minutes by voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is it just a flat rate per patient per bed? Yes, ma'am.
• Is it just a flat rate per patient per bed? Yes, ma'am.
• So from commercial care, now to Medicaid, what's the rate? Why is the rate so low?
• The rate is what it is. The last time we had a rate change.
• So where does the rate that we get for our per diem rate come from?”

Summary: The subcommittee met to review Department of Human Services hospital payments in Arkansas Medicaid, with DHS Secretary Janet Mann and Deputy Secretary Misty Eubanks presenting first, followed by Arkansas Hospital Association Executive Vice President Jody Ann Tritt and a brief comment from Arkansas Children’s. DHS outlined the main hospital payment streams: fee-for-service per diem payments, upper payment limit (UPL) supplemental payments, cost settlements, and smaller payments such as graduate medical education and disproportionate share hospital funds. Members asked for plain-language explanations of cost settlements, why per diem rates vary by hospital type, and why UPL applies to private hospitals. DHS said cost settlements and UPL are mechanisms to help offset Medicaid underpayment, with SFY 2025 hospital payments totaling hundreds of millions of dollars and no general revenue used for supplemental payments beyond the state share funded through hospital assessments and related financing structures. Committee members focused heavily on whether Arkansas hospitals are adequately reimbursed and why rural hospitals struggle. Tritt explained that critical access hospitals, rural emergency hospitals, PPS hospitals, and specialty hospitals operate under different federal and state rules, and said lower per diem rates for some facilities help with cash flow and later cost settlement adjustments. She said Arkansas hospitals are under financial strain, citing a negative patient services margin statewide and noting that Medicaid, Medicare, and commercial payers all contribute to the problem. She also said the association had just authorized a statewide survey of hospital finances and costs, which she expected would take about a year to complete. A major theme was commercial insurance reimbursement. Tritt argued Arkansas hospitals are paid far less than hospitals in neighboring states even though premiums are similar, and said administrative burdens, prior authorizations, and denials add to the problem. She said hospitals receive about 52 to 53 cents on the dollar for Medicaid costs without UPL and about 78 cents with UPL, still below cost. Members also discussed Medicare wage index issues, Medicare Advantage, and whether hospitals could use technology or alternative arrangements to improve finances. No votes were taken on the hospital presentation. At the end of the meeting, DHS provided a brief update on Living Choices and assisted living reimbursement. Officials said one assisted living facility, Pillars of the Community in Crossett, had announced closure, with nine waiver clients being transitioned to other settings. DHS said the current cost reporting period was underway and that a new rate study could be ready for review before the end of the fiscal year if reports were submitted on time. Members also asked about the broader waiver plan, and DHS said the next waiver iteration would likely be brought back to the committee in the summer.

Transcript Highlights:

• I understand that rates are going up. Utility rates are going up for everyone.
• They don't set the rates. The Public Service Commission sets the rates.
• They don't set the rates. They don't set the rates.
• It says rates areru are utility rates.
• <01:25:58.400> He rates?" He says, he started laughing. He rates?"

Keywords: House streaming session for Friday, February 6, 2026, 957, house, all

Summary: The House convened with 117 members present, then 123 after a quorum call, and proceeded through routine introductions and referrals, including introductory House bills 959 through 1018, House Joint Resolution 8, House Simple Resolution 1, several Senate bills, and bond initiatives referred to Appropriations. The main floor item was House Bill 1, concerning investor-owned electric and gas utility cost recovery limitations, which was on third reading and final passage. Debate on HB 1 focused on whether the bill would meaningfully lower utility bills and whether it was necessary given existing Public Service Commission authority. Supporters argued the bill would prevent ratepayers from bearing the cost of executive bonuses and other compensation above $250,000, saying utilities can still pay those costs from shareholder profits and that the measure would save money for customers, even if only modestly. Opponents argued the PSC already has authority to review executive compensation, warned the bill could be largely symbolic or misleading, and said it might encourage utilities to shift bonuses into base salaries or harm recruitment and service quality. Several members also argued the bill did not address other drivers of high bills, such as riders and program costs, and one member said the General Assembly itself was responsible for rising energy costs. No final vote on HB 1 was shown in the transcript excerpt, but members on both sides stated their intended positions, with supporters urging a yes vote and opponents indicating they would vote no. The discussion ended with another member beginning remarks about taking on concentrated corporate power and standing with working people.

Transcript Highlights:

• On the federal funds rate, the interest rate that's really important, and I'll get back to that in a
• So in January, they did not cut rates.
• That dip in the rate... ...that dip in the rate reflects exactly what I said: there was a 150 basis point
• The ERS rate is going up by a little over 1%. ...the ERS rate is going up by a little over 1%.
• For an increase to the PIP rate up to 94, that rate has been at $800.

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• than 50, then the rates are going to follow the federal small employer rating structure.
• and community rating, right?
• Because just the age rating, the community rating, you know, back in the pre-ACA days, you know, you
• If not, you do age rating.
• The rate of drug price increases consistently exceeds the rate of inflation.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is just the rate piece, doing the rate increase for those three populations.
• being used for this rate increase, it dropped the orthodontic rates from where we were previously.
• They get 80% of the physician rate. That's just their rate. That's just one example.
• So the bifurcated rate to use Mr.
• They get 80% of the physician rate. That's just their rate. That's just one example.

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The committee reviewed a series of Medicaid and health-related administrative rules, most of them tied to 2025 acts. Early items covered presumptive eligibility end dates, adding a definition of fictive kin for foster children, and updating ABLE account disability onset age. The committee also reviewed rules on continuous glucose monitors, RSV vaccine administration fees, ET3 telemedicine exemptions for ambulance services, dental rate increases, physical and occupational therapy access, and the Healthy Moms Healthy Babies and lactation consultant provisions. Most rules were reviewed without objection, though several members asked for fiscal and implementation details, especially on the CGM rule and the dental rate rule. The most extended discussion centered on the dental rate increase under Act 1025. DHS said the rule applies only to oral surgeons’ dental services as written, while the Arkansas State Dental Association and legislative sponsors argued the intent was to raise rates for a broader set of dentists performing the same procedures, especially for adults with special needs. Members discussed the statutory language, CMS constraints, bifurcated rates, and the estimated additional cost of about $1.5 million annually if general dentists were included. The committee ultimately reviewed the rule, but the chair noted the testimony and lawmakers indicated they would work on a fix next session. Another major exchange involved the CGM rule. Members questioned the reported $3 million two-year fiscal impact, the prior authorization process, and whether DME providers would be forced into a pharmacy-based system. DHS explained that the same vendor would handle prior authorizations and that the billing system changes were already live, but one member moved to expunge the earlier review vote and then said he would hold the rule pending further clarification. The committee also reviewed rules on adverse decisions appeals, CNA training, substance abuse and mental health network-status disclosures, new certification rules for doulas and community health workers, cosmetology/body art, massage therapy, lead-based paint, radiation control, radiologic technology licensure, and mobile home/RV park standards. The meeting ended with all remaining items reviewed and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• WE LOOKED AT THE RESEARCH QUESTION IS THERE A DIFFERENT IN THE FIRST ATTEMPT AND PASS RATES.
• HERE THIS SLIDE IS SHOWING YOU OUR NCLEX PN PASS RATES.
• HOW MANY PASS ON THE SECOND ATTEMPT AND DO OUR RATES RISE BECAUSE IT IS LIKE A SITUATION ETC.?
• THESE INTERVENTIONS, HAVE YOU SEEN A SUCCESSFUL PASS RATE AFTER PROVIDING THESE INTERVENTIONS?
• NUMBER 1 YOU HAD TO BE ON PROBATION AND YOU HAVE TO FINISH WITH A 30% PASSAGE RATE OR LOWER.