Transcript Highlights:

• gender-affirming care services.
• access to these services.
• different state-only services.
• All of the services from their federal funding streams to be able to offer state-only funded services
• All of the services from their federal funding streams to be able to offer state-only funded services

Summary: The joint hearing focused on access to gender-affirming care in California, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s legal protections, the importance of decorum, and the impact of federal actions on transgender, gender-diverse, and intersex Californians. The Department of Justice, Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC), and Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) described current state protections, including nondiscrimination rules, privacy and shield laws, Medi-Cal and commercial coverage requirements for medically necessary care, and ongoing litigation challenging federal executive orders, proposed rules, and HHS actions that could restrict care or threaten provider participation in Medicare and Medicaid. Officials also noted that California continues to oppose federal proposals through lawsuits and public comments, and that the state is preparing strategies if those proposals are finalized. Members asked about hospital closures or pauses in care, continuity of care, provider network adequacy, whether additional legislation or funding is needed, and how the state can better track access and enforce existing protections. DMHC said it monitors complaints and independent medical reviews, but does not have a specific provider category for gender-affirming care and does not collect utilization data by service type; DHCS said Medi-Cal covers medically necessary gender-affirming care and that federal proposals are not yet final. Finance staff said the previously approved $15 million allocation is still being implemented through Covered California. The second panel heard from a physician, clinic leaders, parents, and a transgender youth about how families and providers navigate access to care. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy described the history of transgender medical care, the role of puberty blockers and hormones, and said minors need parental consent for medical interventions, while emphasizing that care should be individualized and that supportive parents improve outcomes. She also described the closure of the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles youth program and the difficulty of rebuilding care in private practice, including insurance contracting barriers and inadequate reimbursement. J.M. Jaffe of Lyon Martin Community Health Services said the clinic has expanded to serve minors after hospital programs closed, but that the shift has created major financial strain and increased demand, and asked for a $26 million state investment to stabilize transgender health services. Parents and youth described delays, cancellations, and uncertainty at Kaiser, Stanford, UCSF, and Rady Children’s, along with the emotional and medical consequences of interrupted care. One parent said TRICARE stopped covering her son’s care after federal changes and that Rady later closed its clinic; her family urged California to backfill lost access and funding. A 16-year-old trans student and other witnesses argued that California should remain a reliable source of care and that current protections are not enough without funding, provider support, and stronger enforcement.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, in full disclosure, I don't personally bill for services.
• So if they're contracted services, again, these will vary.
• they could be reimbursed for those services.
• If those services are contracted to provide services for said high school or school or you're employed
• I do not personally bill for services. I do not intend to bill for services.

Committee: House Health and Mental Health

Transcript Highlights:

• gender-affirming care services.
• Gender-affirming care services.
• These services include an initial needs assessment with linkage to appropriate long-term services and
• So if you think about, for example, the service... Services they need.
• Is something like the navigation services or legal services that he was mentioning?

Transcript Highlights:

• , emergency medical services, and then you've got the list, the six core services.
• services.
• Several essential services that residents rely upon—veteran services, libraries, health and human services
• But our services still have to run, and we have had to reduce our services.
• These services complement county human services and school services and include things like early childhood

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• challenges of those service members and families.
• of those service members and families.
• We thank you for your family service.
• They could only call up troops into service when given the authority of law... ...troops into service
• Thank you for your service. Thank you. Thank you for your service. Thank you.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs

Summary: The committee held a hybrid public hearing on seven House bills and seven Senate bills related to the Massachusetts National Guard and U.S. Armed Forces Reserves. Opening remarks covered hearing procedures, livestreaming, testimony limits, and expected reporting dates, and chairs noted the committee’s focus on Guard and Reserve issues. Testimony then moved through several bills, including S. 2465 to expand the National Guard welcome-home veterans bonus to all deployed Guard members regardless of residency, H. 3876/S. 2462 to authorize military-style headstones for long-serving or deceased Guard members, and S. 2482/H. 3833 to establish a Massachusetts National Guard Museum in Salem. Supporters of the bonus and headstone bills argued they would correct inequities and better honor service; Senator Lovely described the museum proposal as a way to preserve the Guard’s history in Salem and potentially support federal funding for the project. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 3829/S. 2471, the “Defend the Guard” proposal that would bar Massachusetts National Guard deployments into active combat absent a formal congressional declaration of war. Supporters argued the bill would restore constitutional war powers, reduce repeated undeclared deployments, and protect Guard members’ mental health and state readiness. Opponents, including retired Guard leaders and current service members, warned it could conflict with federal law and Title 10 authority, undermine federal funding and training, and harm readiness, force structure, and unique Guard capabilities. Committee members repeatedly questioned the bill’s legal authority, constitutional basis, and practical effects under the Supremacy Clause and Title 10, and several witnesses were asked to submit additional written legal support. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3831, which would extend Chapter 115 benefits to currently serving Guard and Reserve members who do not meet federal veteran-status thresholds, and on related proposals to clarify Guard command structure and the duties of the Adjutant General. Supporters said these changes would improve access to benefits, reduce confusion in the chain of command, and strengthen discipline and responsiveness. Separately, the National Guard Association of Massachusetts backed H. 3860/S. 2458, the Guard Enlistment Enhancement Program, as a recruiting tool, while opposing the Defend the Guard bills. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• DCF contracts for case management, out-of-home services, and other services with CBCs.
• The outsourced service model is intended to increase local community ownership of service delivery and
• local community ownership of service delivery and design.
• local community ownership of service delivery and design.
• services.

Summary: The Human Services Subcommittee held its first meeting of the term and heard introductory remarks from the chair, vice chair, ranking member, and members, who broadly described their interest in child welfare, mental health, aging services, homelessness, and agency accountability. The chair then outlined the subcommittee’s jurisdiction, including child welfare, mental health and substance abuse safety net services, domestic violence, developmental disabilities, elder services, and child support, and introduced the Department of Children and Families (DCF) as the first agency panel for the term. DCF presented an implementation update on HB 7089, a 2024 law aimed at increasing accountability and transparency for community-based care (CBC) lead agencies that deliver most child welfare services under contract. The department said the bill was prompted by forensic examinations that found problems such as noncompetitive procurement, related-party transactions, excessive executive compensation, and weak financial oversight. DCF described new contract requirements and monitoring tools covering board governance and annual training, conflict-of-interest disclosures, financial penalties for noncompliance, fidelity bond requirements, limits on direct service provision by lead agencies, related-party procurement rules, procurement thresholds, real-property approvals, compensation caps, expanded public reporting, and a new Future of Child Protection and Funding Work Group. DCF reported that some lead agencies had completed required board training, others were still on schedule, and two agencies exceeding the direct-service threshold had been referred to the Auditor General. Members asked DCF about the reasons for the bill, the impact on children, the work group’s regional representation, aging-out youth, the Embrace Families transition, board training requirements, and whether enforcement actions had been taken. DCF said the bill was intended to protect funds for children and families and improve oversight, and clarified that the Central Florida lead agency contract was awarded through competitive procurement rather than an absorption. DCF also said the board training was designed to be meaningful but not overly burdensome, with timing left partly to lead agencies as they implement the new requirements. The committee then heard from two CBC leaders, who generally supported the accountability goals of HB 7089 and said their agencies had already addressed most of the new governance and disclosure requirements. They reported that board training had been completed or was being scheduled, but both agencies said the fidelity bond requirement has been difficult or impossible to obtain in the market as written, though they were able to secure the separate performance bond. The CBC witnesses also warned that recruiting providers is increasingly difficult, especially for higher-acuity children and group-home placements, due to limited provider supply, regulatory burden, insurance costs, and rising risk. They said these pressures are contributing to budget deficits in some areas and urged lawmakers to consider the funding model, insurance and indemnification issues, and the risk of overregulation reducing provider participation.

Transcript Highlights:

• . services. services.
• . service. service.
• </c> some of the numbers and services, Chair. some of the numbers and services, Chair.
• </c> demographics seeking services. demographics seeking services.
• </c><01:39:07.160><c> I</c> human services. You just shouldn't. I human services.

Bills: HF1767 , HF2068 , HF4725 , HF4637 , HF4638

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Long-Term Services and Supports. Long-Term Services and Supports.
• , those additional services.
• , those additional services.
• , those additional services.
• , those additional services.

Summary: The subcommittee met with a quorum present, approved the minutes without objection, and then reviewed a series of administrative regulations from multiple agencies. Most of the regulations received staff-suggested amendments and were approved without objection, including fish and wildlife rules on fishing limits and deer hunting on local government property, veterinary board changes to responsible party and veterinary manager requirements, election procedures for safe-at-home voters, attorney general regulatory relief rules, emergency gasoline tax pricing, public pensions updates, controller fraud-prevention policies, physical therapy licensure and English proficiency standards, school nutrition and fee-waiver rules, public health conference procedures, and Medicaid waiver regulations. Several agencies briefly identified themselves and answered procedural questions, but most items drew no substantive opposition. The Board of Veterinary Examiners regulation included an agency amendment that removed a proposed limit on the number of facilities a veterinary manager could oversee. The Department of Education regulations updated fee waiver and meal program procedures, while the Department of Public Health regulation clarified notification and conference-request procedures. The Department of Revenue and Kentucky Public Pensions Authority items were largely technical or conforming changes, including a special-needs trust definition added for consistency with Senate Bill 85. The most extensive discussion involved the Department for Medicaid Services’ 1915C child waiver regulations. Kentucky Protection and Advocacy testified in opposition to the waiver’s lack of participant-directed services, arguing that consumer-driven services such as respite and community living support are required and especially important in rural areas and for higher-acuity children. Cabinet representatives responded that the waiver is intended to provide wraparound services to keep children in homes and communities, that it has CMS approval, and that the program is limited to 100 slots with about 21 participants already enrolled. Members did not move a deficiency motion, and the chair indicated the regulations would continue through the process. The meeting adjourned after setting the next meeting for Tuesday, August 11 at 1:00 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• services, we're going to need to figure out a way to continue to provide services.
• and provide those services.
• and provide those services.
• We have a focus on survivor services, so we have services that are focused on children who have been.
• and reproductive services.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Public Health

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Health held an introductory informational hearing for the new session, with Chairs Marjorie Decker and Senator Michael Driscoll outlining the committee’s scope and emphasizing the impact of the federal landscape on Massachusetts public health. They noted the hearing would focus on testimony from agencies and advocates, with short testimony limits due to the hybrid format. No votes were taken; the meeting was for briefing and discussion of priorities. Commissioner Robbie Goldstein of the Department of Public Health described the department’s budget and federal funding, warning that recent CDC grant terminations could cut nearly $100 million and affect lab testing, surveillance, vaccines, and community engagement. He highlighted DPH priorities including racial equity, maternal health, substance use and child welfare coordination, emergency preparedness, data transparency, and public hospital quality. MassHealth Assistant Secretary Michael Levine discussed MassHealth’s role covering about 2 million residents and its priorities in health equity, behavioral health, primary care, member independence, and customer service, while noting the agency relies heavily on federal Medicaid dollars and would face major strain from federal cuts. Several advocacy and provider groups focused on reproductive health and maternal health. Planned Parenthood warned of threats to Title X, 340B savings, and other federal funding, and supported a bill to eliminate parental consent and judicial bypass for abortion care for young people. Reproductive Equity Now urged stronger shield-law protections and changes to Massachusetts’ later-abortion framework. Dr. Indyamaka Anugaka called for full implementation of the maternal health law, better reimbursement for doulas and midwives, stronger data collection, and support for full-spectrum pregnancy care coverage. The Health Policy Commission said new maternal health and primary care task forces would begin work soon. Mental health and health system access were also major themes. The Mass Medical Society urged action on vaccine hesitancy, removal of non-medical school vaccine exemptions, and primary care reform. The Massachusetts Association for Mental Health and the Children’s Mental Health Campaign opposed proposed cuts to DMH and substance use services, called for more school-based supports, and raised concerns about inpatient capacity, including a unit serving LGBTQ youth. The Massachusetts Nurses Association and 1199 SEIU warned that staffing shortages, low wages, workplace violence, hospital closures, and possible Medicaid cuts threaten patient care and the health care workforce. The Betsy Lehman Center also urged investment in automated patient-safety monitoring to reduce harm and costs.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is Assembly Budget Subcommittee 2 on Human Services.
• disorder services, pharmacy, dental, vision, and other long-term services and supports.
• inform policy, program, process, and service change.
• such as the Department of Health and Social Services.
• supportive services to housing.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services heard an overview of efforts to streamline access to safety net programs and move toward more automatic, person-centered enrollment. CDSS, DHCS, and CalHHS described current cross-enrollment between Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and CalWORKs, including data showing high overlap among programs and a text-message outreach pilot that increased CalWORKs applications and enrollments but reached only a small share of potentially eligible people. Witnesses emphasized barriers such as differing federal eligibility rules, data-sharing limits, privacy concerns, and the need for better technology, consent management, and stakeholder engagement. Members pressed the administration on how to institutionalize these efforts across administrations and asked for concrete budgetary and regulatory steps to support “no wrong door” enrollment and automatic referrals. The committee also reviewed several chair priorities. On the proposed foster care multi-agency office, CDSS said existing coordination structures already address much of the intended work and asked to verify prior fiscal scoring. On the Employment First Office, CalHHS explained that the office’s $1 million budget was eliminated in the 2024-25 budget as part of deficit reductions, while noting that employment for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities remains an administration priority through existing departmental coordination. For the food insecurity proposal, CDSS said it could provide technical assistance but would need new data-sharing agreements, could not separately calculate a CFAP participation rate with current data, and would likely need until July 1, 2027, plus ongoing staffing, to complete the requested report. The mandated reporter proposal drew support for reform, with CDSS estimating low-millions in one-time training costs and ongoing costs in the hundreds of thousands. The subcommittee also discussed a guaranteed income proposal. CalHHS suggested drafting new statutory language and considering a county-administered model rather than a state-run competitive grant process to reduce administrative burden, while members and public commenters urged support for AB 661 and a study of a permanent statewide guaranteed income program. Public testimony also supported automatic enrollment, community-supporting mandated reporting reforms, and cash assistance for fire recovery. In the final items, CSD described how local nonprofit partners helped during the Los Angeles fires with food, housing vouchers, transportation, and emergency energy assistance, and explained that LIHEAP and CSBG remain important but limited tools for disaster response. CSD also said recent federal staffing cuts and possible future federal budget threats could affect LIHEAP and CSBG administration, though no immediate service disruptions had occurred and additional LIHEAP funds were expected to be released soon.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:03:51.120><c> is</c> them the only way to get Services is them the only way to get Services is
• </c><00:04:10.640><c> just</c> they cannot make these Services just they cannot make these Services just
• </c><00:21:15.000><c> and</c> highlighting the need for services and highlighting the need for services
• Services uh really helps people as I Services uh really helps people as I want<00:51:20.599><c> to</c
• The gaps in the services available to those in need of mental health services are wide; however, this

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• Services.
• Refer the Committee on Pensions, Investments and Financial Services.
• Of Personal assistance services under the Community Limiting Assistance and Support Services class waiver
• Services.
• and related services and the provision of Medicaid reimbursement of certain services to certain public

Transcript Highlights:

• services into a consolidated service model.
• a consolidated service model.
• services.
• So, sort of updating the service, if you will, and then covering it in lieu of services to avoid this
• So sort of updating the service, if you will, and then covering it in lieu of services to avoid this

Summary: The hearing began with testimony from Let California Kids Hear and supporters urging action on pediatric hearing aid coverage. Advocates said California has repeatedly failed to enact a workable solution over the past eight years and argued that children need early access to sound to support development. The proposal discussed would limit the coverage mandate to the large-group market, which advocates said would cover roughly 70% to 80% of affected children and avoid the exchange-related cost issue that contributed to prior vetoes. Supporters, including parents, audiologists, and children’s health groups, backed the proposal, and the chair expressed sympathy and support while noting hope for a federal solution for exchange plans. The Department of Finance then gave opening remarks about the state’s structural deficit and the need to balance new investments against projected out-year shortfalls. HCAI followed with a broad overview of its programs, including CalRx insulin and naloxone initiatives, reproductive health grants, the Office of Health Care Affordability, hospital seismic compliance, workforce programs, and the diaper access initiative. Members asked about geographic targeting of workforce funds, the behavioral health workforce pipeline, and the status of the 21st Century Nursing Initiative, which HCAI said had reverted funds. The committee also discussed a proposed transfer of the Data Exchange Framework and Office of the Patient Advocate to HCAI, new reporting on long-term care staffing and health coverage waiting periods, and a Behavioral Health Services Act workforce proposal that would use BHSA funds to support training, stipends, and technical assistance while offsetting $100 million in General Fund spending; members and LAO questioned the offset and asked for more detail, and the item was held open. HCAI also presented the Rural Health Transformation Program, explaining that California received $233.6 million in federal funds for the first year and had to revise its proposal so that $35 million in provider payments would be tied to specific transformative activities rather than general financial relief. The program will fund rural care model redesign, workforce development, and technology/infrastructure improvements, with grants to be rolled out on a tight timeline and subject to CMS approval. Members asked about the size of California’s award, the use of funds for maternity care, labor and delivery access, dialysis, tribal set-asides, and the role of a technical assistance contractor. The department said the program will use supply-and-demand workforce modeling to target funding and that all funds must be obligated by October 30. Finally, the Department of Managed Health Care outlined its budget and two major bill-related proposals: SB 41 on PBM reform and SB 306 on prior authorization transparency. DMHC said SB 41 would require PBM licensure, ban spread pricing, require rebate pass-through, and regulate pharmacy network practices, while SB 306 would require reporting on prior authorization and create a list of services exempt from prior authorization. DMHC requested additional positions and funding to implement both measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a free service that we provide.
• Those are back-office services.
• I read that as not all information technology services, but training and support services.
• But $1.2 million will be an impact to their services, the service time, the staffing that's required.
• But $1.2 million will be an impact to their services, the service time, the staffing that's required.

Committee: House Finance

Summary: The House Finance Committee held a work session that began with welcoming new member Rep. Janice Zahn, who introduced herself as representing the 41st Legislative District. The committee then received a Department of Revenue update on the Antio-related legislation. DOR explained the Washington Supreme Court’s Antio decision on the B&O deduction for investment income, the department’s post-decision guidance, and the 2025 legislative changes in HB 2081 and SB 5167, including an expanded voluntary disclosure agreement for entities with unreported investment income. DOR said the expanded program offers broader penalty and interest relief and applies to both registered and unregistered businesses, but participation has been minimal so far because additional implementation questions remain unresolved. The committee next heard the annual update on the Working Families Tax Credit. DOR reported record participation in 2025, with about $205 million refunded through the first 10 months and a major increase in applications after TurboTax integrated the credit. Officials said the program reached more than 409,000 children this year, but demographic response rates fell because TurboTax did not present optional demographic questions. DOR also discussed outreach efforts, the end of funding for community outreach partners after 2025, and challenges including fraud involving third-party preparers, turnover in eligible households, immigration-related reluctance among ITIN holders, data-sharing barriers, and difficulty verifying self-employment income. Members asked about fraud remedies, and DOR said it can pursue recipients for fraudulent refunds and may work with law enforcement, but the statute does not provide direct penalties against preparers. The final DOR presentation covered implementation of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5814, which expanded retail sales tax to certain services effective October 1. DOR described its outreach and guidance process, including 16 listening sessions, an online survey, a centralized guidance page, special notices, and about 95,000 direct taxpayer contacts. Officials said ruling requests surged sharply around the effective date, especially for live presentations, advertising, and software/IT services, and formal rulemaking is expected after the 2026 session. Committee members questioned whether the fiscal note anticipated impacts on schools and nonprofits and whether the department’s estimates should be revisited. The committee then heard stakeholder testimony from Expedia, T-Mobile, and the Construction Industry Training Council, followed by Clover Park School District and Seattle Theatre Group/Inspire Washington. Witnesses argued that SB 5814 creates complexity, uncertainty, and competitive disadvantages for Washington businesses and nonprofits, especially for digital advertising, IT, training, and live presentation services. School and nonprofit representatives said the tax raises costs for education, apprenticeship, arts, and cultural programming, with Clover Park warning of a roughly $1.2 million annual hit to special education-related contracted services. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with the chair saying the committee would continue working on SB 5814 issues in the next legislative session.

Transcript Highlights:

• services before receiving the funding to pay for those services; when the state is late in issuing reimbursements
• This means they pay interest to deliver state-funded services.
• filed as a fillable form via the online filing service.
• Human service providers provide critical services.
• Really undermines the kind of delivery of services, right?

Summary: The joint Senate and Assembly Select Committee on the nonprofit sector held a hearing focused on the importance of California’s nonprofit sector and how state systems can better support it. Chair and co-chair remarks emphasized that nonprofits are essential to the state’s economy and public services, especially as federal cuts and administrative burdens increase pressure on organizations that deliver health care, food assistance, homelessness services, disaster response, and other safety-net functions. CalNonprofits CEO Jeff Green described the sector’s size and complexity, citing roughly 110,000 nonprofits in California, about 1.4 to 1.5 million nonprofit workers, and major concerns about funding uncertainty, delayed reimbursements, and federal threats to nonprofit funding and nonpartisanship. He said many organizations are being forced to use reserves, reduce services, or take out loans while waiting for state payments. The Little Hoover Commission presented findings from its study of state grant and contract administration, arguing that nonprofits often subsidize state services because of late payments, insufficient advance funding, and inadequate reimbursement for overhead. The commission recommended requiring advance payments, expanding prompt-payment protections, matching federal indirect-cost rates, standardizing emergency contract amendments, creating an Office of Nonprofit Empowerment, reducing duplicative reporting, moving to electronic payments, improving feedback to unsuccessful applicants, and using longer grant periods. Committee members expressed support for these ideas and discussed shifting state contracting culture toward outcomes and better coordination. The commission also noted that SB 1240, which would create the Office of Nonprofit Empowerment, and SB 1366, related to payment delays, align with its recommendations. The Attorney General’s Charitable Trusts Section then outlined its rollout of a new online filing system for charities and charitable fundraisers. Elizabeth Kim said the system, launched in stages beginning in 2024, is intended to replace paper filings, reduce incomplete submissions and bounced checks, and speed processing; the final phase is expected to cover renewals, delinquency, raffles, professional fundraisers, dissolution, and complaints. Committee members asked about staffing impacts and complaint handling, and DOJ explained that complaints are reviewed based on allegations, public filings, and, when needed, requests for additional information. A final panel featured Matt Gonzalez of Nonprofit New York, who described New York City’s Mayor’s Office of Nonprofit Services as a model for reducing contract backlogs, increasing advance payments, and improving coordination through ombudsman-style support and chief nonprofit officers. Public commenters from the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, SEIU, and CalNonprofits urged support for stronger state-nonprofit partnerships, transparency, and modernization of contracting systems. No formal vote was taken; the hearing concluded after testimony and public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:07:19.319><c> I</c> this District Contracting Services I this District Contracting Services I
• for those services.
• Do we have all the services in there for all of the special services for all 32,000 kids that are in
• </c><01:00:27.640><c> the</c> services the only services that the services the only services that the
• services by that district.

Summary: The work session focused on special education, especially the differentiated aid component and special education aid, which members noted is still often called “catastrophic aid.” The chair said the committee was trying to better understand how special education costs are growing, how districts are delivering services through SAUs or internally, and how reimbursement formulas affect local costs. Members also discussed the need for better data before making decisions on several education funding bills, and Representative Brown was tasked with capturing questions for follow-up information from the department or elsewhere. Testimony from the state special education director, Becky Fad, centered on why student counts in various disability categories have shifted over time. She said the categories themselves have not changed much, but autism has increased because of greater understanding and identification, developmental delay has grown because it applies to children under age 10 who may not yet have a clear diagnosis, and some students previously classified under speech/language or other health impairment are now identified in more specific categories such as autism. She emphasized that the IEP is based on a child’s individual needs, so a change in category would not necessarily change services, though it may help educators support the student differently. Members asked about whether the shifts reflect better diagnostic capability, whether the department should gather more data on the reasons for the changes, and whether autism-spectrum data could be broken down further. Fad said the department does not currently have data on the causes of the shifts or on where students fall within the autism spectrum, but that collecting and analyzing such data is on its list of priorities and a new data manager had recently been hired. She also explained that each child is counted only once on the chart by primary disability, that the IEP or eligibility team determines the primary category based on evaluations, and that any child can be referred for special education by a parent, teacher, or doctor, after which the district must meet within 15 days to decide whether to evaluate. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• , health care services, developmental on the collaborative work between the departments of social services
• , health care services, developmental services, and the Health and Human Services Agency to support eligible
• Health Care Services?
• Partners coordinated to create a web of services to eliminate gaps in service delivery for families.
• And in some cases, they use it to provide direct services, and other cases indirect services.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and employment services.
• , and employment services.
• , and employment services.
• , and employment services.
• </c><00:12:43.000><c> make</c> services uh programs and services make services uh programs and services

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> service standard for ICS service service standard for ICS service providers providers providers
• services.
• </c> intensive services. intensive services.
• </c> intensive services. intensive services.
• , Services, services, I believe.

Committee: Senate Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• Reimbursement for services, particularly services like mental health and others, pays well below the
• </c> brink reimbursement for services brink reimbursement for services particularly<00:09:10.680><c>
• services like mental health particularly services like mental health and<00:09:12.920><c> others</c>
• </c> OB Services we do not offer OB Services OB Services we do not offer OB Services although<01:13:16.199
• program for inpatient fee for service program for inpatient Services<01:15:44.600><c> administered</

Committee: House Health Finance and Policy