Transcript Highlights:

• a benefit, and all 50 states do offer pharmacy as a benefit, most drug classes have to be covered.
• And limitations?
• What limitations are there?
• The Medi-Cal asset test limit, cuts in funding to FQHCs and rural clinics, elimination of dental benefits
• And so that is time-limited.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held the first of several hearings on the Governor’s May Revision for health care, with opening remarks focused on the state’s projected $12 billion deficit, looming federal Medicaid changes, and the potential impact on Medi-Cal, public health, reproductive health, and safety-net providers. Several members criticized the proposal as balancing the budget on vulnerable Californians, while others defended the need for cost containment and questioned the administration’s assumptions. The chair set ground rules for respectful, focused questioning and outlined three topics: the Medi-Cal proposals, Proposition 35, and Proposition 56. DHCS Director Michelle Baas presented the May Revision’s Medi-Cal package, saying the department’s budget totals $200.6 billion overall, including $45.2 billion General Fund, and that the proposals are intended to address rising caseloads, pharmacy costs, and managed care spending. She described proposed changes for adults with unsatisfactory immigration status, including a freeze on new full-scope enrollment for those 19 and older, $100 monthly premiums beginning in 2027, elimination of adult dental and long-term care coverage, removal of PPS/RAP payments to FQHCs and rural health clinics for that population, and a pharmacy rebate aggregator. Other proposals included eliminating certain OTC drug classes, removing GLP-1 coverage for weight loss, prior authorization and step therapy changes, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test, eliminating acupuncture as an optional benefit, allowing utilization management for hospice, raising the managed care minimum medical loss ratio to 90%, reducing PACE capitation rates toward the midpoint of the actuarial range, eliminating the skilled nursing facility workforce and quality incentive program, and suspending the SNF backup power requirement. The LAO said the revised Medi-Cal spending estimate is about $2.5 billion higher than the Governor’s Budget in the budget year, and that the increase appears driven more by higher per-enrollee costs than by caseload alone. The LAO said the budget solutions are concentrated in a few areas, are largely ongoing, and should be considered in light of federal uncertainty, but suggested the Legislature could explore alternatives such as more targeted income thresholds for the undocumented expansion and simpler asset-test rules. Department of Finance officials said the proposals are difficult but necessary to address a third consecutive deficit and rising Medi-Cal costs. Members then pressed the administration on the methodology and impacts of the proposals, especially the enrollment freeze, premiums, asset test, hospice controls, PACE reductions, and the elimination of benefits and provider payments. No votes or formal actions were taken at this hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• uh banning the use of SNAP benefits uh banning the use of SNAP benefits<00:50:04.240><c> for</c><00:
• ,</c> individuals who receive this benefit, individuals who receive this benefit, they<00:52:58.000><
• </c> benefits for truly needy individuals. benefits for truly needy individuals.
• .” to cover a share of recipient benefits. to cover a share of recipient benefits.
• You'll see in the public benefit.

Bills: HF3831, HF3603, HF1900, HF495, HF3750, HF4316, HF2136, HF4384

Keywords: SNAP, income limits, asset limits, nutrition assistance, children and families, federal poverty guidelines, federal waiver, food assistance, low-income families, nutritional support, day care, tax subtraction, child care costs, licensed child care, dependent care assistance, child care, family child care, child care center, licensing, correction order

Transcript Highlights:

• to benefits.
• We wouldn't want the state-funded benefit to unintentionally reduce someone's CalFresh benefit because
• So the value of the benefits lost, minus the three months of federal benefits that they're eligible for
• Carrot benefits are state-funded food assistance benefits equal to what people would have received through
• Carrot benefits are state-funded food assistance benefits equal to what people would have received through

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services opened its first hearing of the year with a discussion centered on CalFresh, the Department of Social Services, and related anti-poverty and immigrant services programs. Chair Jackson framed the hearing as a response to the “historic and enormous challenges” created by H.R. 1, emphasizing that the committee’s goal was to minimize harm to vulnerable Californians. No votes were taken in the hearing. The first major topic was the impact of H.R. 1 on CalFresh eligibility and administration. CDSS estimated major federal funding reductions, with hundreds of thousands of Californians potentially losing benefits under new time limits and work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, and additional losses among certain non-citizen groups. County welfare directors, eligibility workers, SEIU, and other advocates argued that counties are underfunded and understaffed to implement the new rules, and urged release of the previously authorized $20 million General Fund, a county match waiver, and an additional ongoing workforce investment. LAO and the Department of Finance said they were reviewing the administration’s proposals and emphasized the need to use existing data, automation, and statutory direction to reduce administrative burden and improve implementation. A second panel addressed county administrative backfill and the broader fiscal effects of H.R. 1. CDSS explained that the law shifts more administrative costs to the state and counties beginning in federal fiscal year 2027 and could also create future state benefit costs tied to payment error rates. County and food bank representatives warned that many counties will struggle to absorb the higher match and that penalties tied to payment error rates could worsen budget pressure. Members pressed Finance and CDSS for clearer timelines, written responses, and more detailed workload assumptions, while Finance said it was still analyzing the federal guidance and county resource needs. The final major topic was the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) and possible state responses for people losing federal CalFresh eligibility. CDSS said CFAP remains limited by statute and by the federal structure it currently uses, but that the planned expansion to Californians age 55 and older regardless of immigration status remains on track for October 1, 2027, subject to funding. Immigrant advocates urged the state to fold newly excluded humanitarian immigrants into CFAP and to invest in outreach and administration, while Western Center on Law and Poverty proposed a broader state-funded anti-hunger response for people cut off by H.R. 1. LAO noted that the CFAP expansion is difficult to estimate and that further policy and technical work would be needed to assess costs and implementation options.

Transcript Highlights:

• It also raises the limit on the state and local tax deduction.
• savings in the sponsor's account is limited.
• by $5 trillion after Congress reinstated the limit at $36.1 trillion in January.
• Limits eligibility for a SNAP benefit to residents of the U.S. who are citizens or nationals.
• Ensuring state-funded care benefits so families don't lose food after their three-month time limit. progressive

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Under the DEA, eligible children and spouses can use benefits without age or time limits if the event
• Under the DEA, eligible children and spouses can use benefits without age or time limits if the event
• As of August 1, 2023, eligible children or spouses do have age limits for using DEA benefits if the event
• I believe if the bill passes there would not be a time limit for folks to use those benefits.
• And currently, the federal benefit, the DEA program, there is no time limit after those qualifying events

Bills: HB2286, HB2324, HB2363, HB2098

Keywords: social work, licensure, alternative routes, education requirements, professional regulation, tuition waivers, veterans, education, children of veterans, higher education, military families, music therapy, temporary exemptions, healthcare, therapy practice, funding, tuition, financial aid, state budget, 904

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 5169 by Shaheen, relating to the limitations applicable to certain agreements provided by the rebate
• HB 5171 by Hayes, relating to providing a one-time settlement payment applicable to certain benefits
• HB 5071 by Reynolds, relating to the applicability of limits on the authority of a political...
• For the Committee on Insurance, HB 5103 by Rosenthal relating to pharmacy benefit managers.
• HB5369 by Talarico relates to campaign contribution limits for certain entities.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• officers; provides for benefits for reserve and auxiliary officers and payment of certain benefits.
• ; repeal limits on damages caps.
• ; repeal limits on damages caps.
• ; repeal limits on damages caps.
• ; repeal limits on damages caps.

Summary: The House convened with a quorum, received and accepted multiple resignation notices from members representing Districts 37, 39, 60, 69, 97, and 100, and then recognized the election and qualification of the members-elect who filled those vacancies: Doyle Boudreau, Reese Broussard, Chasity Verrett-Martinez, and Edwin Murray. Each member-elect was sworn in, and the House also appointed committees to notify the Senate and the governor that it was ready to conduct business for the 2026 regular session. The chamber then handled a large number of procedural actions related to prefiled legislation. By motion and without objection, the House suspended rules to refer prefile bills to committee and introduced a broad slate of House bills and resolutions. Topics included the state budget and appropriations, retirement system changes, carbon capture and sequestration, criminal justice and bail, public safety, education, health care, local government matters, transportation, and several memorial or commemorative resolutions. Several resolutions and bills were noted as lying over, and some prefiled bills were withdrawn from the files. The House also received a Senate message that SCR 1 had been adopted, and the resolution was taken up without objection. The chamber then recessed for a joint session with the Senate to hear the governor’s address and a presentation honoring Technical Sergeant Adam W. Brister with the Distinguished Flying Cross. In his remarks, Governor Jeff Landry highlighted his administration’s priorities, including education, tax reform, workforce development, health and nutrition, insurance reform, transportation infrastructure, fiscal discipline, and criminal justice reform, while urging support for his agenda and several related bills and constitutional amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are requesting one-year limited-term resources equivalent to six positions, four-year limited-term
• It's the same for calculating the limit.
• And so we were far below that limit.
• So issue 11 is a BCP requesting three-year limited-term positions, three-year limited-term resources
• And it's a standard benefit design.

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the Department of Health Care Services’ proposed budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds budget and projected Medi-Cal enrollment decline as redeterminations continue. Members focused heavily on the fiscal and programmatic effects of prior budget solutions and federal changes, especially the elimination of General Fund-supported Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, the hospice utilization-management change, and the impact of reduced caseloads alongside rising health care costs. DHCS said it is still completing required access and rate-reduction analyses for the dental cuts and has been engaging stakeholders, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect on utilization or provider participation. The committee also reviewed the November 2025 Medi-Cal local assistance estimate, which shows higher General Fund spending despite lower enrollment, driven by managed care rate growth, Medicare cost growth, state-only claiming, and federal policy changes. The hearing then turned to provider taxes and federal H.R. 1 constraints, with extensive discussion of the MCO tax, the hospital quality assurance fee, and other health care-related taxes. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 phases down allowable tax levels and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, making the current MCO tax structure and the proposed higher hospital fee levels difficult or impossible to renew as originally designed. Staff and the LAO described the tradeoff between preserving Medi-Cal funding and avoiding higher costs on private providers and consumers. Members asked about options for preserving revenue, including possible amendments to Prop. 35 or returning to voters, and were told the department is still evaluating approaches while federal guidance remains in flux. The committee also reviewed hospital payment increases already implemented through state-directed payments, with DHCS noting that H.R. 1 will force those payments down to Medicare levels over time. Several budget change proposals were discussed and left open, including requests tied to the managed care final rule, managed care operations, hospital value strategy, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability requirements. The committee also heard about a one-year trailer bill extension for skilled nursing facility financing, including continuation of the SNF workforce standards program, the SNF quality assurance fee, and annual rate growth, while the department develops a longer-term financing redesign for 2027-28. Members expressed skepticism about repeated rate reform efforts and questioned whether a one-year extension of the eliminated workforce quality incentive program should be restored during the transition. Finally, Covered California presented its budget and enrollment update, reporting that the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit is expected to reduce affordability significantly, with average premiums roughly doubling for many enrollees and as many as 400,000 Californians potentially losing marketplace coverage over time. The exchange said California’s $190 million subsidy program is helping lower-income enrollees, but not enough to offset the federal loss, and it is also implementing a new gender-affirming care benefit and awaiting federal action on benchmark plan changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• benefits.
• The bill draft provides a lot of detail. ...benefits and survivorship benefits.
• limit per member for infertility benefits, but that coverage is not mandated under state law.
• The current health plan does provide a $20,000 lifetime benefit maximum limit per member for infertility
• The current health plan does provide a $20,000 lifetime benefit maximum limit per member for infertility

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• is a more limited update than a full reevaluation, which will erode the value of SNAP benefits over
• is a more limited update than a full reevaluation, which will erode the value of SNAP benefits over
• is a more limited update than a full reevaluation, which will erode the value of SNAP benefits over
• is a more limited update than a full reevaluation, which will erode the value of SNAP benefits over
• is a more limited update than a full reevaluation, which will erode the value of SNAP benefits over

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . chairman senator Epstein the I don't know if it limits what can be consented but it does limit the
• In real terms, I fear this bill limits what pensions can invest in, and it limits what people can vote
• doesn't benefit me.
• we should have term limits for lobbyists.
• That's who gets a benefit from stuff like this, right?

Summary: The committee approved the February 2, 2026 minutes and held Senate Bill 1090. It then took up SB 1503, which would require pension fiduciaries and proxy advisory firms to base voting and advice solely on economic interests, prohibit ESG or ideological considerations except in limited circumstances, and authorize attorney general enforcement. The sponsor said the bill was meant to protect investors and align with federal action; supporters argued proxy advisors lack transparency and can influence votes against shareholders’ financial interests. Arizona retirement system representatives said they were neutral but warned the bill would add major operational costs, create reporting burdens, increase litigation risk, and could narrow the market for proxy advisory services. The committee passed SB 1503 on a 4-3 vote. The committee then considered SB 1293, which would bar GPLET abatements from applying to school-district revenue during the eight-year abatement period. Supporters said the bill would protect school funding and reduce the state aid backfill tied to GPLET projects, while opponents from Phoenix, Mesa, and economic development groups said GPLET is a key redevelopment tool that helps finance downtown and blighted-area projects and that the bill would weaken future investment. The committee adopted the amendment and passed SB 1293 on a 4-3 vote. It also heard and passed SB 1414, which gives insurers 30 days to review and respond to third-party settlement demands; insurers supported the bill as a reasonable commercial timeframe, while trial lawyers opposed it as too slow and urged a 15-day standard, with members indicating they expected a possible friendly amendment. Next, the committee heard SB 1633, which would create an Arizona income tax subtraction for capital gains from the sale of a primary residence, after five years of occupancy. Opponents argued it would mainly benefit wealthy homeowners and could cost the state tens of millions annually, while the sponsor said it could help homeowners move without facing large tax bills and improve housing turnover. The committee passed the bill 4-2. It also adopted an amendment to SB 1429, which would have expanded Arizona Commerce Authority board ex officio membership, then held the bill for further consideration. Finally, the committee passed SB 1536, allowing temporary consolidation of street light improvement districts, and heard SB 1724, which clarifies when property splits or consolidations trigger limited property value recalculation, with county assessors supporting the measure as an anti-gaming reform.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's the same for calculating the limit.
• And so we were far below that limit. Commercial health plans. And so we were far below that limit.
• So issue 11 is a BCP requesting three-year limited-term positions, three-year limited-term resources
• And it's a standard benefit. It's at about $60 a visit, and we'll follow up with a benefit design.
• Eliminating dental benefits will...

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:02:39.480><c> more</c> connecting to other state benefits more connecting to other state benefits
• <00:03:39.000><c> by</c><00:03:39.280><c> DHS</c><00:03:40.200><c> or</c> benefits by DHS or benefits
• </c><00:04:50.600><c> and</c> not eligible for federal benefits and not eligible for federal benefits
• </c> and connect them to other state benefits and connect them to other state benefits that<00:05:11.400
• </c> which was a limiting which was a limiting factor<00:20:08.400><c> with</c><00:20:08.600><c> this

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We are also asked to do some benefits comparisons. We were asked to do some benefits comparisons.
• benefits.
• limit per member for infertility benefits, but that coverage is not mandated under state law.
• The current health plan does provide a $20,000 lifetime benefit maximum limit per member for infertility
• that the current health plan does provide a $20,000 lifetime benefit maximum limit per member for infertility

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave policies, labor market conditions, and prevailing wage issues, then later took up committee rules and bill-draft jurisdiction. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the state has paid the full family premium since 1979, described cost-control and benefit-enhancement changes over time, and explained current plan options, wellness incentives, employer wellness discounts, and the upcoming bid process for the 2027-29 contract. HRMS then presented compensation comparisons showing state classified pay generally trails private and regional markets, with larger gaps at higher-level jobs, and reviewed benefits and leave policies, including the new enhanced annual leave and new-hire leave, the state’s unpaid family leave structure, and varying tuition reimbursement practices. Job Service reported on labor force trends, low unemployment, high labor force participation, job openings, and wage growth, and OMB said there are no state prevailing-wage requirements beyond federal Davis-Bacon rules for federally funded projects. The committee then considered a proposed amendment to Joint Rule 211 to better align the health insurance mandate review process with recent statutory changes. Members discussed how the rule should reference both the committee’s required actuarial reports and the Legislative Council cost-benefit analysis, and the amendment was adopted on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed how its jurisdiction decisions affect whether a bill draft receives actuarial analysis, with staff explaining that a decision not to take jurisdiction means the bill is not treated as impacting the relevant retirement or health plans for purposes of that analysis. After that, the committee began reviewing bill drafts for jurisdiction. The first draft, bill draft 33, would automatically renew pre-tax elections for dental and vision coverage during open enrollment instead of requiring annual re-election. Members debated whether it had any actuarial impact, noting the state does not pay those premiums directly, and the discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• and non-benefit costs.
• to that original asset limit.
• benefit today.
• benefit today.
• So benefits are not changing.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a May Revision hearing covering several health-related budget proposals and broader concerns about the state’s budget structure. The Chair opened by praising some May Revision changes, such as added health IT funding, county administration support tied to Medi-Cal changes, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some lawfully present immigrants, and additional support for Covered California subsidies, while criticizing proposed increases in Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other reductions affecting counties, mobile crisis units, workforce incentives, and physician shortages. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state’s budget condition remains weak despite progress on the structural deficit, and the Department of Finance said the May Revision uses a mix of reductions, reforms, revenue proposals, and fund shifts to cut out-year deficits. The committee first heard Department of State Hospitals proposals, including adjustments to county bed billing authority, contract exemption language for online clinical/pharmacy subscriptions, reversion of unspent funds, a revised Metro Central Utility Plant replacement project, electronic health record implementation, and workforce development funded partly through Behavioral Health Services Act resources. DSH also described savings and realignments in incompetent-to-stand-trial and conditional release programs, including extending the independent placement panel program and shifting funds to support additional bed capacity and a mental health rehab center. Members asked about the use of BHSA funds for workforce programs, and the department said the proposal would replace General Fund support with BHSA reimbursements. The Emergency Medical Services Authority proposed funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for enterprise system development, and the Department of Managed Health Care proposed modernization of its complaint system and claims-settlement data system to improve oversight and comply with AB 3275. The largest discussion centered on the administration’s BHSA spending plan under Proposition 1, including state-directed prevention, workforce, and other uses, plus General Fund offsets for existing programs. The LAO questioned whether some proposed offsets fit Proposition 1’s non-supplant and eligible-use requirements, while the administration argued the uses were consistent with the measure and that the state-directed share can be adjusted annually. The Commission for Behavioral Health’s proposals drew the most public and member concern. The administration proposed cutting the commission’s Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and reducing the Community Advocacy Program by $6.7 million, while redirecting BHSA dollars to other state purposes and direct services. Commissioners, advocates, and several members argued the cuts would weaken community voice, reduce support for underserved populations, and disrupt grants already in process; they also objected to using BHSA funds to backfill General Fund commitments. Public commenters, including youth, disability, behavioral health, LGBTQ, tribal, veteran, immigrant, and community-based organization representatives, overwhelmingly opposed the cuts and urged preservation of prevention, advocacy, mobile crisis, and innovation funding. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• program should be implemented and at what appropriate amount of the benefit.
• By seeking to limit SNAP benefits for items like candy and sugary drinks, while protecting essentials
• Here in Washington, by seeking to limit SNAP benefits for items like candy and sugary drinks while protecting
• Senate Bill 6186 does not increase benefits or improve affordability.
• Limited access to healthier food is.

Bills: SB6007, SB6186, SB6212

Keywords: assessment practices, public policy, children, youth, families, evaluation, outcomes, SNAP, nutrition, public health, food access, unhealthy foods, benefit program, assistance, pilot program, state support, public welfare, 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Employee Benefits process.
• Benefit mandate is considered a benefit outside of the benchmark plan.
• They talk about cost-benefit analysis, but I didn't really see benefit.
• So that one was, Benefit analysis, but I didn't really see benefit.
• and emergency services from their limits, so the limit usually applies to only treatment.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to review the history and current treatment of North Dakota health insurance mandates, with presentations from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, Sanford Health Plan, the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), and the Insurance Department. The discussion focused on how mandates apply differently to fully insured, self-funded, ACA, Medicaid, and PERS plans; how the state’s benchmark plan and federal essential health benefits affect coverage; and how the existing process requires cost-benefit analysis and, for certain measures, a PERS pilot period before broader application. Presenters also reviewed the long list of existing state mandates, including provider, beneficiary, and coverage requirements, and noted that many were enacted decades ago and have not been revisited despite changes in medical evidence and treatment options. Witnesses from the carriers argued that mandates should be reviewed periodically because some are outdated, can create unintended costs, and may not align with current medical guidance. Examples cited included PSA screening, off-label drug coverage, prior authorization rules, step therapy, and cost-sharing provisions for mental health and substance use treatment. They emphasized that carriers often cover services without a mandate when supported by clinical evidence, and that mandates can shift costs to employers and employees, especially in the fully insured small-group market. They also suggested possible policy improvements such as clearer mandate definitions, better transparency around cost-benefit analyses, a regular 10-year review of mandates, and more timely submission of proposals through the interim process. PERS and the Insurance Department highlighted a recurring tension over what counts as a mandate and when a measure triggers the state’s defrayal obligation under federal law. PERS described its interim committee process, the April 1 deadline for fiscal-impact proposals, and the limited pilot program used for certain measures, noting that only a few bills have gone through the full pilot process. The Insurance Department explained that it views new benefit mandates through the lens of the ACA benchmark plan and essential health benefits, distinguishing true new benefits, such as infertility coverage, from changes to existing benefits, such as telehealth or insulin cost-sharing caps. No votes were taken on policy changes; the meeting was informational, with members asking questions about costs, applicability, transparency, and whether a periodic mandate review should be established.

Transcript Highlights:

• and at the bottom of the article it says no benefit, California.
• The second benefit, which is even bigger, is for our account holders who receive other benefits.
• The problem is that SSI has a very, very strict limit.
• The limitation from our perspective... perspective, is just a programmatic limitation, is that outreach
• as far as this benefit?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , drastically limiting the benefits of the program.
• , drastically limiting the benefits of the program.
• , drastically limiting the benefits of the program.
• Minnesota SHRM is in support of House File 1976, specifically the limitation of benefits to six weeks
• </c><00:56:54.960><c> of</c><00:56:55.160><c> benefits</c> specifically the limitation of benefits specifically

Bills: HF1976

Keywords: paid leave, family leave, employment law, Minnesota statute, benefit eligibility, seasonal employment, workforce, labor rights, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Would this benefit plan be able to deny covering someone and offering them any of these benefits because
• Would this benefit plan be able to deny covering someone and offering them any of these benefits because
• So how would a benefit plan like yours, how would that compare to the types of benefits an individual
• When I see that this is a benefit, it’s insurance, but it’s non-insurance, we’re providing medical benefits
• We’re having folks,” “Benefits.

Summary: The committee heard several bills on commerce, tourism, labor, technology, and public safety. SB 1666, by Senator Graal, would adopt Florida’s version of UCC Article 12 to address commercial transactions involving digital assets such as cryptocurrency, blockchain, smart contracts, and NFTs; after a technical amendment, it was reported favorably. CS/SB 480, by Senator DiCeglie, would create affordable health coverage options for farmers and ranchers through a nonprofit agricultural organization model similar to Tennessee’s; supporters said it would expand access in rural areas, while opponents and some senators raised concerns about ACA protections, preexisting conditions, and state fiscal impacts. The committee also approved CS/SB 1172, which expands business development incentives for veterans and military spouses, including procurement preferences, fee waivers, tax exemptions, and an entrepreneurship program, after an amendment expanding hiring preferences for military spouses was adopted. The committee then took up SB 1400, which creates a process for removing nonconsensual AI-generated sexual deepfakes from covered online platforms within 24 to 48 hours and subjects noncompliant platforms to penalties under Florida’s deceptive trade practices law; an amendment carved out internet service providers, and the bill was reported favorably. SM 1488, a memorial urging Congress to create a sovereign wealth fund, drew opposition from a public school teacher who questioned its necessity and constitutionality, but it still passed. CS/SB 922, dealing with employment agreements, would strengthen enforcement of certain non-compete and garden leave agreements for employees with access to sensitive information; critics argued it would restrict workers and innovation, while supporters said it protects trade secrets and high-paying jobs. After an amendment, it was reported favorably. The committee also approved SB 1252, which would create a statewide system for sharing pawn and secondhand dealer data among law enforcement agencies, with an initial feasibility study cost estimated at $250,000 and questions raised about enforcement if agencies do not participate. Finally, CS/SB 1776, under the Whistleblower’s Act, would require advance notice and an opportunity to cure alleged violations, narrow retaliation and disclosure definitions, and limit claims when another statutory remedy exists; members questioned whether the changes could reduce employee protections or allow employers time to destroy evidence, but the bill was still under debate as the transcript ended.