Transcript Highlights:

• The full inspection process can take up to a few months to complete.
• and your for us to modernize the certificate of need process.
• to make sure that the public can be involved in the process.
• It has intentionally built into a process to make sure that the public can be involved in the process
• really owning all of those costs within that process.

Summary: The committee heard a JLARC presentation on the Department of Health’s oversight of hospital inspections, complaints, and reporting. JLARC said DOH was late on 72% of acute care hospital inspections as of December 2024, had not verified that third-party accrediting standards were substantially equivalent to state standards, did not consistently require proof of those inspections, did not review adverse health event corrective plans, and could make hospital data more accessible. JLARC also raised a possible language-access barrier in the complaint system. Members asked about complaint filing by staff, the meaning of adverse health events, inspection outcomes, and whether the audit compared DOH to other agencies. JLARC said it had not reviewed inspection results or cross-agency comparisons, but noted inspectors were dedicated and working long hours. DOH later said it concurred with the recommendations and outlined a strategic plan with target dates for improving timeliness, verifying accreditation standards, expanding language access, reviewing adverse event laws, and improving public data access, with annual reporting to the Legislature expected. The committee then heard a Department of Health presentation on certificate of need modernization. DOH described the current certificate of need process, which reviews need, financial feasibility, quality, and cost containment for certain facility changes and new services, and said the program has not been modernized since the 1980s. DOH proposed 10 statutory modernization recommendations, including clarifying the program’s purpose, creating a planning entity, adding flexibility, reducing legal costs, updating access-to-care standards, expanding oversight to freestanding emergency departments and urgent care, addressing equity, improving cost control coordination, strengthening long-term funding, and using better data systems. Members asked about oversight of freestanding urgent care and EDs, funding sources, and whether the process could be streamlined or made more responsive to complaints or other triggers. A third panel discussed artificial intelligence in health care. Lucy O’Rourke of the Coalition for Health AI described CHAI’s work on responsible AI principles, technical standards, model cards or “nutrition labels,” testing and governance tools, and educational resources for providers. She said the group is focused on trust, transparency, fairness, safety, security, and privacy, and noted Washington’s AI-related policy work as among the more progressive in the country. No questions were asked. The final portion focused on the financial impact of federal and state health care policy changes. The Washington State Hospital Association said hospitals are facing low or negative operating margins, service reductions, layoffs, and closures, and that state cuts and taxes enacted in 2025, combined with federal HR1 changes, will significantly worsen finances. Providence Swedish leaders described staffing reductions, service cuts, delayed capital investments, and pressure from denials, tariffs, and reimbursement changes, while emphasizing that frontline staffing cuts are tied to service reductions rather than nurse-to-patient ratio changes. The Washington Health Benefit Exchange then began a presentation on expiring federal ACA premium tax credits, state Cascade Care Savings assistance, and eligibility changes affecting lawfully present non-citizens, with examples showing large premium increases for customers if federal subsidies expire.

Transcript Highlights:

• We already have a review process though as admin rules.
• What's the efficacy of creating this eight-year review process?
• It's what I don't want to do is I don't want to create a rubber stamp process.
• But we're creating a process where the only thing that is being considered.
• If we can utilize that process to assist us to where it can mark specific things.

Bills: HJR1088, SB1280, SB1316, SB1433, SB1455, SB1456, SB1457, SB1459, SB1461, SB1463, SB1465, SB1466, SB1721

Keywords: education rules, administrative rules, joint resolution, Oklahoma State Department of Education, higher education, State Regents for Higher Education, Teachers' Retirement System, charter schools, Statewide Charter School Board, career and technology education, CTE, OEQA, rule approval, legislative oversight, permanent rules, school governance, teacher retirement, education agencies, excise tax, oil tax

Transcript Highlights:

• A process had gone through. A process is now being... That's why I have filed this amendment.
• A process had gone through.
• And they’re asking us to allow this to go through the right process.
• You’re obviously making multiple changes through the committee process.
• that goes outside of the administrative process.

Summary: The Senate convened with opening prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several member introductions of guests and staff. The chamber then took up returning messages from the House and acted on several bills, including transportation facility designations (SB 628), affordable housing/Live Local Act changes (HB 1389), utility services (HB 1451), education (HB 1279 substituted for SB 7038), data centers (SB 484), and land use/development regulations (SB 208/HB 399). Several other measures were temporarily postponed, including education, emergency services, and environmental rule ratification bills. On SB 628, the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 31-4. On the affordable housing bill, senators discussed the fourth iteration of the Live Local Act, including a new provision allowing certain affordable housing on religious institution property, removal of accessory dwelling unit language, and changes to tax exemption and expiration provisions; the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 35-0. On the utility services bill, the House amendment shortened the surcharge phase-out timeline and advanced reporting dates; the Senate concurred and passed the bill 30-6. The education package was substituted with the House companion, amended to include agreed-upon provisions on student health and safety, early learning, math, virtual instruction, career and technical education, school choice, accountability, tuition protections, and financial aid, and passed 36-1. The data centers bill drew extensive debate over transparency and ratepayer protections. Senators questioned the removal of the Senate’s nondisclosure agreement prohibition, the 12-month confidentiality period, and whether costs could be shifted to residential and commercial customers. Supporters said the amendment strengthened ratepayer protections and maintained local land-use authority, while critics objected to the loss of transparency and the possibility of local NDAs. After debate, the Senate concurred in the House amendment and passed the bill 31-6. The land use and development bill generated the most contentious discussion. Amendments addressed a Fontainebleau/Miami Beach resort water park issue, a sunset provision, and a major rural boundary/property rights proposal affecting counties such as Orange and Seminole. Senators debated whether the rural boundary language protected property rights or undermined local planning and environmental safeguards, with concerns raised about takings, county liability, and the use of an Attorney General opinion. The transcript cuts off during extended debate on that amendment, so no final vote on the land use bill is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, we think that giving the counties a more permanent process or ability to do this process would be
• Process, right?
• process.
• The deputy director responded that the process is the Captain of the Port process for the U.S.
• chapter 91 process than the legislative chapter 91 process than the legislative process<03:17:05.000

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures. On HB 211 relating to stream maintenance, DLNR supported the intent but requested amendments to clarify that responsibility for removing abandoned property rests with the entity that has jurisdiction or ownership of the stream, and asked for appropriations to help cover cleanup costs. Members discussed existing county authority to clean streams and then seek reimbursement from private owners, and the City and County of Honolulu’s written testimony was noted as arguing the bill conflicts with a federal court stipulation requiring notice and storage of personal property before disposal. On HB 502 relating to land use, OPSD and the Land Use Commission supported the bill’s intent but raised concerns about the short timeline and the need for rule changes, with OPSD recommending a more permanent county plan-based district boundary amendment process instead of a temporary one. The Department of Agriculture asked counties to make concurrent revisions to ordinances and rules affecting agricultural land partitioning. Testimony also noted the bill is aimed at legacy agricultural subdivisions and would require Land Use Commission rulemaking. On HB 510 relating to declaration of water shortage and emergency, DLNR and the Board of Water Supply strongly supported the measure, saying it would give CWRM a more timely tool to respond to emergencies outside designated water management areas and would require rulemaking, permit classifications, and criteria for declaring shortages. In response to opposition concerns from the Land Use Research Foundation and the Hawaii Farm Bureau, DLNR said the rulemaking process would allow public input and that permit classifications could help balance agricultural and other water uses. On HB 511 relating to public lands, DLNR, the Department of Agriculture, and Hawaii Farm Bureau supported removing the survey requirement before setting aside public lands between state agencies, saying it would speed Act 90 transfers and save time and money, though one testifier cautioned against misuse of agricultural lands. No votes were taken during the excerpted portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a number of other processing plants that are growing in the process.
• Outlay process to do those same things.
• process.
• separate process?
• It's an inherited process that we have.

Transcript Highlights:

• the data through a complex monthly process.
• the data through a complex monthly process.
• So that was part of that process.
• But is it used ahead of the budgeting process to inform the budgeting process, or is it only after the
• We go through the same processes. Agency budget requests will be.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee subcommittee heard a State Auditor’s Office performance audit on the accuracy and reliability of OSPI’s school apportionment system. Auditors said the system, which calculates and distributes K-12 funding using multiple feeder systems and a core apportionment engine, is outdated, unstable, inefficient, and at high risk of failure. They reported weak controls over data input, documentation, oversight, and staffing, and said OSPI relies heavily on manual workarounds, a few knowledgeable staff, and vendor support. In limited testing of three districts, the auditors found the system calculated funding correctly for the 2023-24 school year, but they identified nine small input discrepancies tied to differences between budget materials and state law, which they said could compound into larger dollar amounts. The auditors recommended replacing or modernizing the system and noted that delays in doing so prolong risk. OSPI largely agreed that the current platform needs replacement and said it has been working toward a new system for years. Agency officials clarified that the Legislature requested a feasibility study in 2022, that the study found the system at risk of catastrophic failure, and that funding for a replacement is now in the state IT pool subject to OCIO/OFM gate reviews. OSPI disputed the audit’s characterization of the rounding and budget-law discrepancies, saying the issue was an agency rule and implementation choice, not an error that caused under- or over-allocation. Officials also said the current system is too old to easily absorb future formula changes, but that the planned replacement should be flexible enough to handle a new funding model if the Legislature adopts one. Committee members asked about the amount and timing of the $16 million project funding, whether smaller districts face greater risk, how many times data is entered, and whether the funding formula should be simplified. Auditors and OSPI both emphasized that formula simplification is a policy question for the Legislature, not the audit. Public testimony came from one online witness, who urged full implementation of the audit recommendations and modernization of the system. The subcommittee took no formal vote and adjourned after the presentations and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm very excited that we got our primacy over that. ...permitting process.
• I hope we all can agree that this process is inefficient and must be improved.
• And should have a more streamlined process to obtain primacy.
• It's an efficient process.
• of where they are within primacy, so making that a more transparent process.

Transcript Highlights:

• The local permitting process allows fire and building officials to review The local permitting process
• and the notification and the appeal process.
• The current bill process would work: a county would have to choose to move forward with the process.
• and makes engaging in the process feel less welcome.
• folks thought that it was a good process.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , the process This process will initiate a coordinated review among participating agencies, which will
• Once I started my adoption process, I was well-informed of how... the process will go before and after
• We don't just watch this process.
• It goes through a fairly rigorous process.
• process, they do a much more extensive investigation.

Bills: HB163, HB216, HB721, HB2035, HB2038, HB3057, HB3153, HB3233, HB3595, HB3801, HB3812, HB4076, HB4129, HB4377, HB4535, HB4666, HB4730, HB4743, HB4903, HB5149, HB5155, HB1534, HB163, HB216

Keywords: epinephrine, healthcare, emergency response, administration, medical policy, health care, itemized billing, patient rights, provider regulations, Texas Health and Safety Code, cost disclosure, insurance, benefit plan, administrators, chemical dependency, treatment facilities, minor admissions, parental notice, mental health, medical licensing

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, I know a lot of it had to do with just a process, the 164 process that I was made familiar with
• So it never even made that process.
• When can we put that into process? Does it still have to go through? Through the 164 process again?
• How is that process put in place at that level?
• Is it a process on their end, or are we behind on our process in fiscal year meeting?

Transcript Highlights:

• AND THEN ON THIS ESSENTIALLY WE WILL GO TO THE RULEMAKING PROCESS AND WHEN WE DO FINISH THIS PROCESS
• WE GET APPLICATIONS AND WE PROCESS THEM.
• THAT IS A NUMBER THAT REPRESENTS ALL OF OUR APPLICATIONS IN ALL STAGES OF THE PROCESSING PROCESS. >>
• THE LICENSURE PROCESS IS A COMPETITIVE COMPARED TO PROCESS. THESE ARE ALL BOUND UP TOGETHER.
• NO ONE HAD A PROBLEM IN PROCESSING.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• At the hospital, I had time to process.
• Once I started my adoption process, I was well informed of how the process would go before and after
• We don't just rush this process.
• It goes through a fairly rigorous process.
• It goes through a fairly rigorous process.

Bills: HB163, HB216, HB721, HB2035, HB2038, HB3057, HB3153, HB3233, HB3595, HB3801, HB3812, HB4076, HB4129, HB4377, HB4535, HB4666, HB4730, HB4743, HB4903, HB5149, HB5155, HB1534

Keywords: epinephrine, healthcare, emergency response, administration, medical policy, health care, itemized billing, patient rights, provider regulations, Texas Health and Safety Code, cost disclosure, insurance, benefit plan, administrators, chemical dependency, treatment facilities, minor admissions, parental notice, mental health, medical licensing

Summary: The committee met without a quorum at first, then established a quorum with five members present. Members heard and left pending several House bills, including HB 4743 on allowing hospitals to license mobile stroke units under a hospital license, HB 4129 on earlier DFPS enforcement tools for single-source continuum contractors in community-based foster care, HB 4903 creating a Quad Agency Child Care Initiative to coordinate child care regulations across state agencies, HB 3812 revising the gold card/prior authorization process for physicians, HB 4535 requiring written informed consent before COVID-19 vaccination and a standardized state information sheet, and HB 4666 reducing the frequency of some HHSC reports to the legislature. The chair also noted HB 35 would be voted on later after a subcommittee back was received, and that a large number of bills would be heard the next day. Most of the testimony focused on HB 4535 and HB 4730. On HB 4535, supporters argued the bill would strengthen informed consent for COVID vaccination by requiring written consent and clearer state-level information about risks, manufacturer liability protections, and adverse-event reporting; opponents, including a pediatrician and medical groups, said existing federal and state informed-consent materials already cover these topics and warned the bill could create duplicative paperwork and penalties. On HB 3812, the Texas Medical Association supported changes that would extend the gold-card evaluation period to one year, raise transparency, and make prior authorization exemptions easier to administer, while health plans said they were neutral and viewed the bill as a balance between reducing burden and preventing fraud or unsafe care. HB 4730 drew extensive testimony from adoption professionals, birth mothers, adoptive parents, and child welfare advocates. The bill would require DFPS to create a relinquishment form, train child-placing agency staff, and extend the minimum waiting period for voluntary relinquishment from 48 hours to seven days. Supporters of the current law argued the 48-hour period aligns with hospital discharge, allows informed decisions, and helps birth parents and adoptive families begin healing and bonding without pushing children into foster care or creating legal and Medicaid complications. The author said the bill would be revised and that the seven-day provision was a work in progress. No votes were taken on the bills during the meeting; each bill was left pending after public testimony closed.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:14:33.800> again Phases of the Contracting process again Phases of the Contracting process
• 15:45.480> and RFP going through the grant process and RFP going through the grant process and
• <00:40:29.599> within contract processes within contract processes within BHA<00:40:32.119
• But we have the process in place.
• But we have the process in place.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, that doesn't answer my question, uh, because you talked about a different process, and I'll get
• In section one, it sets forth the process on the determination of high-acuity youth and the process to
• Section one sets forth the process for the determination of high-acuity youth and the process to determine
• Youth and uh sets forth the process Youth and uh sets forth the process where<00:39:58.599> they
• <00:42:03.119> in we get the mental health um process in we get the mental health um process

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:00 Roll Call: 00:00:04 SB 02: 00:01:37 Discussion in Opposition to SB 02: 00:09:49 SB 84: 00:22:19 SB 111: 00:30:35, 958, all

Summary: The committee first considered Senate Bill 2, sponsored by Senator Mike Wilson, which would prohibit incarcerated people from receiving cross-sex hormones or gender-affirming surgeries, while allowing a tapering period if stopping an existing treatment would cause physical harm. Wilson said the bill was needed to prevent the Department of Corrections from providing such care by memo or policy rather than statute, and he argued the care was elective and not medically necessary. Senators Thomas, Neal, Nemes, Styers, and others questioned whether any gender-affirming surgeries had actually occurred in Kentucky, whether the hormone treatments were physician-prescribed, and whether the bill would override medical judgment; Wilson said the department reported no surgeries, that 67 incarcerated people were receiving cross-sex hormone therapy, and that he would only support treatment if it fit the bill’s narrow medical-harm exception. Public testimony on SB 2 was strongly opposed. Chris Hartman of the Fairness Campaign said the bill would deny medically necessary care, violate the Eighth Amendment, and target a very small and vulnerable incarcerated population. Dr. Jack Skilles testified that gender-affirming care is medically necessary and supported by major medical organizations, warning that denying it could worsen mental health and lead to suicidality. Hannah Callahan, a transgender woman, described being denied hormone therapy while incarcerated and said the interruption caused severe physical and mental harm, including suicidal thoughts. Emma Curtis, Lexington’s Fourth District councilwoman, also urged a no vote, framing the issue as a matter of compassion and religious duty. The committee then voted on SB 2. Senator Neal explained his no vote by saying he was not medically trained and deferred to doctors; Senator Nemes said he wanted clarification that the bill would not stop ongoing treatment; and Senator Styers argued the bill was a poor priority and noted there was no fiscal note and that only 67 people were affected. Senator Wheeler moved the bill, Senator Reed seconded, and the committee reported Senate Bill 2 favorably. Afterward, the committee began hearing Senate Bill 84, sponsored by Senator Steve Rawlings, which would limit judicial deference to state agency interpretations and require courts, not agencies, to interpret ambiguous laws, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright decision overturning Chevron deference.

Transcript Highlights:

• The process starts with detection.
• The process starts with detection.
• We don't have to go through the same process of allowing the owner to exercise their right to due process
• We don't have to go through the same process of allowing the owner to exercise their right to do process
• But the majority of removals are done through the grant process.

Summary: The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources received a presentation from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission on derelict vessels, enforcement challenges, and a long-term stored vessel study. FWC reported about 1,040 derelict vessels currently in its database, with roughly 600 new cases entering each year, and noted that hurricanes account for a large share of recent cases. The agency explained the legal definition of derelict vessels, the environmental and navigation hazards they create, and its enforcement process, including investigation, notice to owners, administrative hearings, removal authorization, and recovery of costs through registration holds. FWC also described prevention efforts such as at-risk vessel enforcement, nuisance vessel designations, public awareness campaigns, and the vessel turn-in program, which has received more than 250 applications and removed more than 145 vessels since rollout. Committee members asked about owner resistance to removal, rapid-response options for hazardous vessels, county differences in derelict vessel numbers, and how local governments participate. FWC said only a small percentage of owners contest removals, that the agency relies on contractors and does not generally have its own removal equipment, and that local governments may conduct removals with their own funding but must still provide due process. Members also asked where removed vessels go; FWC said they are taken to landfills, with recyclable materials recovered, and that storage is used only when necessary for public safety because it is costly. The presentation also highlighted the long-term stored vessel study, which found a strong correlation between long-term anchored vessels and later derelict vessels, especially in Monroe County. No votes were taken on the presentation, and the committee adjourned after Senator Errington moved to adjourn and there was no objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• Witness: I will speak to the process, the regional water planning process.
• So it's an ongoing iterative process.
• And- Kim Nygren: -something to note with both the landowner petition process and the PGMA process is
• a process that currently isn't funded.
• So there are processes. There's a process in place that you've heard about, the PGMA process.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In our approach, having an RFP process, a request for proposal process, is to look at what's in the best
• In our approach, having an RFP process, a request for proposal process, is to look at what's in the best
• a request for prop proposal process a request for prop proposal process<00:09:21.480> is<00:09
• RFP process that we do have a a process RFP process that we do have a a process in<00:09:50.880>
• You said new way of doing the background studies—do we have that process in a legislative process?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• and the solicitation process.
• the process earlier than that traditional design-bid-build.
• the process earlier than that traditional design-bid-build.
• the process earlier than that traditional design-bid-build.
• <00:46:00.599> uh um in the in the selection process uh um in the in the selection process

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• process.
• And that's their measurement process.
• And that's their measurement process.
• So that's kind of the beginning of the process on our reappraisal process each and every year.
• It's going to be a slow process. Like Mike said, it's maybe a slow process.

Summary: The Committee on Finance and Tax met with a quorum present and heard a presentation from the Property Appraisers Association of Florida on ad valorem valuation, exemptions, and the property tax process. Lauren Levy reviewed the legal and historical framework of Florida property taxation, including Save Our Homes, the 10% cap on non-homestead assessments, portability, tangible personal property exemptions, TRIM notices, and the distinction between taxable value and millage rates. He emphasized that property appraisers are independent constitutional officers who assess just value, administer exemptions, and are overseen by the Department of Revenue, with values and exemptions generally determined as of January 1 and subject to challenge through the Value Adjustment Board or circuit court. Mike Twitty described the mass appraisal process in Pinellas County, explaining how property appraisers value large numbers of parcels using the same core approaches as fee appraisals but with statistical testing, field reviews, aerial imagery, and technology. He discussed the importance of budget, staffing, and the January 1 valuation date, and noted that recent hurricanes caused significant damage, increased petitions, and required new procedures to help property owners with value reductions and FEMA-related issues. Paul Polk focused on Department of Revenue oversight, explaining sales ratio studies, uniformity measures such as COD and PRD, time adjustments, sales qualification reviews, and in-depth studies that can lead to corrective action if assessment standards are not met. He also noted that the Department reviews property appraiser budgets to preserve independence from county pressure. Senators asked about the supersized homestead concept, DOR review and rejection standards, value trends, and the impact of storms and new construction on taxable value. Twitty and Polk said value growth has been driven by a mix of new construction, market appreciation, cap resets, and storm-related adjustments, while noting that some counties saw market value decline even as taxable value rose. They also said some property tax relief proposals would be easier to implement than others depending on how local tax bills are structured, especially where law enforcement millage is separately identified. No votes were taken on legislation, and the committee adjourned after the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thanks for sharing that and some of the process.
• And that is what this entire process is about.
• The second is remote processing as part of the Board’s sunset review.
• the conversation with you through this process.
• the conversation with you through this process.

Summary: The joint Assembly and Senate business committees held a sunset review hearing on the California State Board of Pharmacy, with board leadership describing the board’s consumer-protection role and its priorities around access, enforcement, and updating pharmacy law. The board emphasized a proposed shift toward a standard-of-care model for pharmacists, arguing it would reduce rigid protocol requirements and improve access to services such as HIV PrEP/PEP, contraception, and naloxone. Board representatives also discussed pharmacy deserts, possible fee waivers for pharmacies in underserved areas, concerns about payer practices contributing to closures, continuing education audits, and a request to restore more flexibility in licensure decisions and probationary monitoring for applicants with certain criminal histories. A major focus of the hearing was the board’s ongoing compounding regulations, especially the treatment of sterile versus nonsterile compounding and substances such as glutathione and methylcobalamin. The board said the proposal was not a ban on those substances and described the rulemaking as grounded in federal law, USP standards, and public comment, noting the process had gone through multiple modified texts and hearings. Testimony from stakeholders was sharply divided: pharmacists, veterinarians, firefighters, naturopathic doctors, and patient advocates warned the rules were restricting access to compounded medications and harming patients and first responders, while the California Medical Association, psychiatric physicians, and PhRMA raised concerns that the board’s proposals could expand pharmacist authority beyond training, affect physician practice, or create safety risks. Other public comments addressed pharmacy technician ratios, remote processing, flavoring medications, hospital-specific regulation, budget and enforcement transparency, and whether the board should add members with community compounding or pharmacy technician expertise. Committee members also asked about the board’s oversight priorities and the rationale for its standard-of-care proposal. Board staff explained that consumer protection includes education, licensing, policy, and enforcement, with the highest-priority enforcement cases being those posing imminent public harm. After public testimony concluded, the chairs thanked participants and adjourned the sunset review hearing, announcing an immediate transition to the joint informational hearing on the Department of Cannabis Control.