Transcript Highlights:

• This is because federal premium tax credits reduce premiums to a percentage of income.
• calculated on gross premium costs. calculated on gross premium costs.
• Since premium tax credits are tied to the price of individual insurance premiums, when premiums rise
• from the premium some type of premium from the premium some type of premium premiums premiums premiums
• if rates go up and premiums increase, the premium tax credit will increase.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• At the same time, premium costs are rising.
• Are they going to pay 50% of my premium, 10% of my premium?
• The enhanced premium tax credits, and I'll just refer to Mr.
• That's going to be cost prohibitive at that premium.
• Bayou's point about particularly the age, the premiums, and premium changes, and I had a few examples

Transcript Highlights:

• number um in terms of of Premium number um in terms of of Premium increases<00:22:41.039> West
• those premiums mitigate those premium<00:22:45.559> increases<00:22:46.120> mitigated<
• also had no material impact on premiums also had no material impact on premiums in<00:22:54.840>
• That the premium went down—that is just the amount that the premium went down.
• that one member gets so their premium that one member gets so their premium premium<00:35:49.599

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00 Roll Call: 00:10 SB145 Discussion: 02:23 SB145 Vote: 05:13 SB183 Discussion: 06:13 SB183 Vote: 11:37 HB413 Discussion Only: 16:15, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Banking and Insurance met with a quorum and first took up Senate Bill 145, sponsored by Sen. David Givens. The bill would update retail installment contract statutes for automobile sales, allowing retailers with installment contracts shorter than 28 days to begin collections after three days instead of waiting for multiple missed payments, and it also harmonizes a related dollar amount in statute from $10 to $15. The committee asked no questions, and the bill received a favorable expression on a roll-call vote. The committee then heard Senate Bill 183 from Sen. Matt Nunn, with testimony from Chris Nolan of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. The bill would require proxy advisers acting for the State Retirement System to act solely in the financial interest of current and future retirees and to avoid political or social considerations in shareholder voting recommendations. Supporters argued it would keep politics out of public pensions and align proxy advice with fiduciary duties; members praised the bill and noted Kentucky could be among the first states to adopt such a model. The committee approved the bill with favorable expression after a roll-call vote. The committee also reviewed administrative regulation 808 KAR 9:10 from the Department of Financial Institutions, with no vote required. It then took up House Bill 413, a PBM rebate pass-through bill, with testimony from Sarah Wood of the Diabetes Patient Advocacy Coalition. She said the bill would require 85% of negotiated drug rebates to be passed through to patients at the point of sale, lowering out-of-pocket costs, especially for high-rebate drugs such as insulin, while still allowing 15% to remain with plans. She cited examples from other states and argued the bill would benefit about 650,000 Kentuckians. Hope McClaflin of Anthem opposed the bill, saying it would reduce employers’ ability to use rebates to lower premiums, could disproportionately favor high-cost brand-name drug users, and could create significant costs for state and fully insured plans. Members asked questions about other states’ pass-through rates and the effect on premiums, but no final action on House Bill 413 was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Next, enhanced premium tax credits and the advanced premium credits.
• And premiums.
• which is a very good premium.
• individual premiums.
• With the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credit, their premium goes up to $2,200.

Transcript Highlights:

• So these are gross premiums, and then any federal premium tax credits and then any federal premium tax
• So these are gross premiums, net premiums—that's like what an enrollee pays on their bill.
• If you were sicker, you'd get a higher premium. If you're female, you'd get a higher premium.
• People have asked me about premiums. Are premiums high in Minnesota?
• premium subsidies, as well as HR1. premium subsidies, as well as HR1.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• premium changes.
• The premium for the MEHP was $210.
• um results in a premium of $199.94. um results in a premium of $199.94.
• shows the premium impact to the plans. shows the premium impact to the plans.
• required as a result of those premiums. required as a result of those premiums.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:35 Attendance Roll Call: 00:00:55 Approval of Minutes: 00:02:56 Deferred Compensation Authority Update: 00:03:12 Retiree Health Update - TRS: 00:15:58 Retiree Health Update - KPPA: 00:56:13 Adjournment: 01:20:33, 958, all

Summary: The Public Pension Oversight Board received updates from the Kentucky Public Employees Deferred Compensation Authority and the Teachers Retirement System. Chris Biddle reported that deferred compensation assets had grown to about $4.787 billion with roughly 88,000 participants, crediting auto-enrollment, targeted marketing around pay raises, and retiree-focused services. He said the board’s self-directed brokerage account, authorized by last year’s legislation, is being designed around a $40,000 account-balance threshold with up to 25% transferable into the brokerage window, tentatively for July 1 of the coming year. He also described the free financial planning program, which has been used by about 3,300 to 3,500 participants with an 87% return rate, and noted that the plan is currently in a fee holiday; members asked about the fee structure and whether the CFP service is provided through Nationwide, which Biddle confirmed. Board members praised the deferred compensation program’s growth and asked for the legislation referenced by Biddle. He said the plan’s annual fees are capped, with a $1 monthly fee plus other charges up to a $225 cap, for a maximum of $237 per year absent a managed account. He also said the program is seeking unified payroll access to expand participation, especially among teachers, and that prior lineup changes saved about $6 million annually in participant fees. Bo Barnes of TRS then addressed retired teachers’ health insurance, first clarifying a prior question about declining federal contributions to the retirement annuity trust. He explained that federally funded school positions generated contributions that rose from $72 million in 2019 to $109 million in 2022, then fell to $85 million this year, with a projection of $80 million over the next three years; if those dollars do not come from federal sources, they would have to be replaced through the SEEK formula. Barnes then reviewed TRS health coverage, explaining that the statutory contract guarantees access to group coverage but not fixed premium levels, and that TRS administers two retiree plans: KEHP for retirees under 65 or otherwise not Medicare-eligible, and MEHP for retirees 65 and older or Medicare-eligible. Barnes said TRS completed RFPs for the 2026 plan year, retaining Express Scripts for prescription drugs and switching the Medicare Advantage medical provider from UnitedHealthcare to Humana, while keeping plan design, provider access, out-of-pocket costs, and benefits materially unchanged. He noted a modest hearing-aid improvement of $500 per ear beginning in 2026. He also reported that the TRS Board approved the maximum state contribution for KEHP at $1,044.96, up from $930.76, an 18% increase that he said would require about $15 million to $16 million more annually, while the MEHP premium would drop from $210 to $200 per month because of the new contract. Using the 2024 valuation, he said the KEHP increase would slightly reduce the health trust funded ratio from 80.4% to 80.1% and raise unfunded liability from $4.036 billion to $4.051 billion. Barnes closed by reviewing the 2010 shared-responsibility reforms that shifted retiree health costs away from a pay-as-you-go model, including phased employee and district contributions and Commonwealth stabilization funding. No votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Their premiums really didn't change much.
• It's Thomas for the premium based on the company's private prior your premium.
• So the tele matter reimbursement premium for premium is received by the fine can change each year.
• also be including the costs and to the premium.
• And then any premium that we expect to see through the end And then any premium that we expect to see

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:30:09.679> security into the uh the premium security into the uh the premium security
• they otherwise be paying in premiums. they otherwise be paying in premiums.
• <00:35:30.240> We to the premium security account. We to the premium security account.
• /c><00:43:45.359> premium drove huge premium drove huge premium increases,<00:43:47.280> carriers
• making double-digit premium increases. making double-digit premium increases.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the estimated balance of the premium the estimated balance of the premium security<00:03:58.000>
• that we have to put into the premium that we have to put into the premium security<00:13:15.600>
• It may lower the premium; we don't know how much.
• The board operates the premium security program.
• <00:20:00.240> uh it extends the premium uh it extends the premium uh security<00:20:02.480

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee reviewed a side-by-side comparison and fiscal analysis of Senate File 3472, a reinsurance-related bill affecting the premium security plan account, MinnesotaCare, and related health care funding. Staff explained the Senate and House versions of the bill, including how the Senate proposal extends reinsurance for five years and uses a projected $1.087 billion general fund transfer to fully fund claims and administrative costs through fiscal year 2028, while the House version conditions continuation of the program on federal approval of the state innovation waiver. The fiscal presentation also covered appropriations for MNsure, a mental health parity and substance abuse office, and House provisions for delivery reform and a public option study, along with a House transfer of $110.674 million to the health care access fund. Members debated the budget horizon and whether costs should be forecast beyond fiscal year 2025. Representative Schultz argued that the spreadsheet understated the broader fiscal impact of reinsurance and warned about future funding cliffs for MinnesotaCare and other health programs, while other members and staff noted that the state’s standard forecast ends in fiscal year 2025 and that the fiscal note only estimated reinsurance costs through the five-year extension. Supporters said reinsurance was the best available option to reduce premium increases, especially in rural areas, and some pointed to a public option as a longer-term alternative. Opponents argued reinsurance does not address underlying health care costs or deductibles and urged consideration of other reforms. House Research then walked through the policy differences. House-only provisions would change Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association board membership, require platinum plans in certain markets, expand postnatal coverage, require a prescription drug benefit in some plans, set a minimum actuarial value for MinnesotaCare, create an Office of Mental Health Parity and Substance Abuse Accountability, and direct reports on delivery reform and a public option. The shared provisions would extend the premium security program to 2027 and delay the transfer of remaining premium security plan funds to the health care access fund until 2029, with the House language again contingent on federal waiver approval. No formal vote was taken in the excerpt; the chair closed discussion after hearing no further questions and indicated members would be contacted about next steps.

Transcript Highlights:

• premiums.
• other mostly on premiums.
• other mostly on premiums.
• other mostly on premiums.
• other mostly on premiums.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So then, or the premium? So what's the average premium for the teachers then?
• Premium trend—everybody went through the premium trend—and here...
• Premium trend, everybody went through the premium trend, you know, the average family premiums.
• Texas small employer premiums, 15% to 20% premium increases annually.
• Premiums matter.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• actually afford the premiums. actually afford the premiums.
• can price your premiums. can price your premiums.
• of the premiums? of the premiums?
• premium tax credits. premium tax credits.
• . premiums. premiums.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• or advanced premium tax credits.
• Typically, this means that you're going to have lower premium in metro urban areas and a higher premium
• A year times four, yes, and certainly talking about 3% of premium across all the premium collected is
• up to premiums of insurance in other states?
• in requested premium each year.

Keywords: 907, all

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing focused first on Oregon Medicaid coordinated care organization (CCO) finances and rate setting. Oregon Health Authority staff explained how 2025 CCO financial results will inform 2027 capitation rates, including reserve requirements, subcapitation arrangements, and major cost drivers such as behavioral health, pharmacy, rural hospital costs, and dental directed payments. They said the Legislature’s added 2025 funding materially improved CCO margins and that, without it, the program would have been negative overall. Members asked about retained earnings, subcapitation, behavioral health utilization, ABA therapy, and whether outcomes are being evaluated; OHA said rate setting is actuarial and that CCOs, OHA, and other partners all play roles in monitoring efficacy and access. OHA also reviewed House Bill 4039 changes intended to increase transparency and give CCOs earlier access to rate information and reconciliation exhibits. CCO representatives then testified that the system is under significant financial pressure and that behavioral health state-directed payments, benefit changes, and federal uncertainty from H.R. 1 are reducing flexibility. CareOregon said it has lost more than $500 million over the last couple of years and is now making provider terminations and other network changes to align spending with available funding, while emphasizing that CCOs must make hard decisions about which services and providers can be sustained. Eastern Oregon CCO said rural and frontier factors, cost-based hospitals, air ambulance needs, and statewide efficiency adjustments are not fully reflected in rates, and that dental funding is especially strained. Trillium similarly warned that state-directed payments and benefit expansion pressures are constraining the global budget model and that H.R. 1 could worsen acuity and volatility. Members pressed the witnesses on who is responsible for evaluating treatment effectiveness, especially for ABA and psychotherapy, and on how utilization limits and reimbursement changes are being used to control costs. The committee then shifted to an overview of the Affordable Care Act and Oregon’s commercial insurance market. Department of Consumer and Business Services staff explained actuarial value, metal tiers, premium tax credits, medical loss ratio rules, and the main drivers of premium rates: cost trend, utilization trend, and administrative costs. They said mandates have likely added only a limited amount to premiums over the past decade, though the exact effect is difficult to isolate, and they gave examples of how high-cost, low-volume services versus broad, high-utilization services can affect rates differently. Staff also noted that Providence Health Plan and PacificSource Health Plans are withdrawing from the individual market, though consumers should still have at least three insurer options in every county and may have four in many counties. The division said it is in the middle of reviewing proposed 2027 rates and will continue its public rate review process, including hearings and written comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• You mentioned increase of premiums in the Northeast.
• An Act relative to surcharges on local insurance premiums.
• It's going to ensure fairer auto insurance premiums.
• geographic territory in premium setting.
• has led to excessively high premiums for various communities.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services held a public hearing on a wide range of auto insurance and vehicle-related bills. Testimony focused heavily on autonomous vehicle regulation, auto insurance rating by ZIP code, rental car liability coverage, and surcharge thresholds for minor accidents. Representative Polito supported a bill to regulate autonomous vehicle testing and deployment, arguing for school-zone restrictions, slower speeds, a remote kill switch, and minimum insurance requirements to protect the public. Representative Mendez and Senator Payano testified for legislation to reduce racial and socioeconomic inequities in auto insurance pricing by limiting the weight insurers may place on territorial loss costs, while the Mass Insurance Federation and Consumer Federation of America offered opposing and supporting views, respectively, on the fairness and actuarial impact of geographic rating. The committee also heard support for a bill to remove inspection-sticker violations from license-point calculations, and for a bill to raise the damage threshold for insurance surcharges and minor/major accident classifications. A substantial portion of the hearing addressed House Bill 1301 on rental car liability. Enterprise Mobility, the American Car Rental Association, and a small Massachusetts rental company supported the bill, saying personal auto insurers should be primary when their insureds drive rental cars, that Massachusetts is an outlier compared with most other states, and that the change would reduce costs and simplify claims handling. The Mass Insurance Federation opposed the bill, arguing that current Massachusetts law already clearly makes the vehicle owner’s policy primary and that shifting liability would raise costs for private-passenger policyholders. Committee members asked detailed questions about how rental coverage works, whether premiums or rental rates would change, and how other states handle the issue. The committee also heard testimony on a bill to adjust surcharge rules for at-fault accidents, with sponsors arguing that repair costs and vehicle values have risen sharply and that the current thresholds are outdated. Members discussed how the point system affects drivers, whether the proposal should apply cumulatively or per incident, and how Carfax and out-of-pocket repairs factor into consumer costs. At the end of the hearing, the chair noted written testimony could still be submitted and, during a brief personal privilege, recorded support for two underinsurance bills, H. 1109 and S. 748. The committee then moved and seconded a motion to adjourn, and the hearing ended without any votes on the bills themselves.

Transcript Highlights:

• A key point is premium. Premium rates reflect health insurance costs; they don't drive them.
• I mean, if they... ...premium at all?
• The incentive is to have higher premiums, Insurance companies, the incentive is to have higher premiums
• Cost areas for premiums and fairly consistently get lower premium increases.
• Premium. Of the total?

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, why this huge increase in premiums?
• For that $250,000 in premium, and they would pay the PCF, which is also a premium.
• Insurance premiums, generally speaking, if this is the root of our problems, the actual cost of premiums
• Haskin, do we have specific statistical data comparing premiums for insurance in 2021 versus premiums
• And it does have something to do with these premium rates.

Transcript Highlights:

• The premium was established in the 2023 enacting legislation, had a first-year premium rate of 7% for
• The premium was established in the 2023 enacting legislation, had a first-year premium rate of 7% for
• The premium was established in the 2023 enacting legislation, had a first-year premium rate of 7% for
• The premium was established in the 2023 enacting legislation, had a first-year premium rate of 7% for
• The premium was established in the 2023 enacting legislation, had a first-year premium rate of 7% for

Bills: HF3

Keywords: legislative auditor, reporting, accountability, state finance, executive agency oversight, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And then in 2023, we started collecting premiums.
• So it relates to the premium rate. The initial premium rate in statute is 0.58% of wages.
• In addition, the Pension Funding Council must set the premium.
• The premium rate, no greater than 0.58%.
• We don't... ...in through actual premiums.

Summary: The Pension Funding Council met on October 8 with introductions from council members and staff, then received a detailed presentation from the Office of the State Actuary on long-term economic assumptions and the state pension systems’ financial condition. OSA reported that the combined pension systems are currently 100% funded on a smoothed basis, with open plans above 95% funded, and that legacy Plan 1 systems remain on a path toward full funding under current policy. The actuaries recommended updating assumptions to 3% inflation, 3.5% general salary growth, and a 7.25% investment return, while keeping Plan 1 membership growth at 1%. They also explained asset smoothing, the role of recent strong investment returns, and the expected budget impacts of the recommended changes. Representatives from the Economic and Revenue Forecast Council and the State Investment Board offered supporting perspectives, generally describing the assumptions as reasonable and consistent with their own outlooks. The council also heard an overview of the Long-Term Services and Supports Trust Program (WACares) from DSHS and OSA. Program staff described the program’s social insurance structure, premium collection, benefit eligibility, and upcoming implementation milestones. OSA reported that the program’s first actuarial valuation showed a positive actuarial balance under the base scenario and recommended no change to the current 0.58% premium rate during the program’s early learning phase, noting that future changes would depend on experience and the program’s risk-management framework. OSA also said the recommendation would remain the same regardless of the outcome of the pending ballot measure affecting investment options. During public comment, a representative of the Washington State School Retirees Association urged continued work on Plan 1 funding and related legislation, while the Association of Washington Cities cautioned against increasing pension assumptions in a way that could raise future employer costs and reduce flexibility for current local government services. In action, the council adopted a motion to maintain the current long-term economic assumptions by a 4-2 vote, adopted the recommendation to keep the WACares premium rate at 0.58% by a 6-0 vote, and then elected Katie Chapman as council chair by unanimous vote. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So everybody who gets insurance pays a premium.
• New Mexico's defense costs were 65 cents per premium.
• The PCF versus open market premiums. Next slide.
• And I’m looking, Madam Superintendent, at your premiums here on page eight, and the premium for the open
• And the premium for the open insurance market is much higher with the And the premium for the open insurance

Bills: SB41, SB153, SB165, SB261, SB264

Keywords: sexual crimes, statute of limitations, criminal justice, victim rights, child abuse, procurement, contracting, small business, local government, disaster recovery, emergency procurement, certification, public spending, juvenile justice, delinquency, rehabilitation, community corrections, risk assessment, public safety, health regulations

Transcript Highlights:

• This expands the premium assistance eligibility.
• Tax credits help offset the cost of our insurance premiums.
• The highest premium increase in the state is a staggering 35.7% for the upcoming year.
• The level will face an average premium increase of 40%, with some as high as 150% in those premiums.
• So there are many requirements to qualify for the federal premium tax credit.