Transcript Highlights:

• INDUSTRY STANDARDS IS ANYWHERE FROM 5 TO 8 G SO INSTEAD OF LIMITING THE WEIGHT, LIMIT THE THC CONTENT
• , SET UP MILLIGRAM LIMIT AND MAKE US MEET THAT.
• ANOTHER THING IS THEY ANNOUNCED THE BILL IS LIMITING TO 20 SERVINGS PER CONTAINER.
• THERE IS ALSO IDEAS OF DAILY PURCHASE LIMITS. I DON'T THINK THAT IS ENFORCEABLE.
• THEN TO THE COMMENTS FROM THE SPEAKERS OR THE GUEST SPEAKERS I SHOULD SAY, THE DAILY LIMIT, THC LIMITS

Transcript Highlights:

• Witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition of the bill with a limit of two minutes
• The bill explicitly contains no character or line limit to this addition at this time.
• That we limited these people to 10% of what we had, and I think that's outrageous.
• These limits are arbitrary. And so I'm clearly in support of a more reasonable 1,500 limit.
• And just to be clear, this is limiting.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But, you know, I think maybe we have some limited...
• We will have a two-minute limit.
• Regarding THC limits, we... Safety is paramount.
• I mean, you're limiting it to 5.
• You're limiting it to 5... ...you're limiting it to 5 when 3 is the level of marijuana, correct?

Bills: HB441, HB445, HB477, HB441, HB445

Keywords: speech-language pathology, licensure, clinical supervision, educational qualifications, healthcare assistant, hemp-derived cannabinoids, CBD, THC, delta-8, delta-9, delta-10, consumable hemp products, psychoactive cannabinoids, cannabinoid regulation, hemp licensing, ABC Board, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, retail hemp sales, wholesale hemp distribution, hemp tax

Transcript Highlights:

• value goes up, that assessment limitation limits how much your assessment goes up, based on whichever
• The constitutional limit to transfer that benefit is $500,000.
• Here, there is a 10% assessment limitation.
• So if your property goes up 20% in value, your assessment is limited to growing by 10%.
• You have assessment limitations that limit how your assessed value is able to grow.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Finance and Tax met to hear a staff presentation on Florida property taxes. Staff Director Azar Khan gave an overview of the property tax system, including constitutional limits, January 1 assessment rules, homestead and non-homestead residential property, commercial and agricultural classifications, tangible personal property, and centrally assessed property. The presentation highlighted major exemptions and assessment caps, such as the homestead exemptions, Save Our Homes, the 10% cap for non-homestead property, and favorable treatment for agricultural/classified use land. It also reviewed long-term growth in just value and taxable value statewide, along with declining millage rates over time as taxable values have risen. Members then discussed the possibility of eliminating property taxes and the fiscal consequences of doing so. Senator Jones asked about the impact on local governments and referenced estimates that replacing property tax revenue could require roughly $43 billion; staff responded that current levied amounts are in the ballpark of more than $30 billion for non-school levies and more than $20 billion for school levies, but that the exact impact would depend on county and district budgets and collections. Senators Bernard, Passidomo, Gates, and others emphasized the need for more data on alternative revenue sources, such as sales tax increases or other combinations, and for input from counties and cities before considering broad tax changes. Chair Avila explained the presentation was intended to give members a foundation before property tax proposals are heard in committee, noting that several bills had already been filed involving homestead and tangible personal property. No bills were voted on, and no formal action was taken beyond the informational presentation. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• and another, more generally, about the negative effects of such limits.
• This limit would also undermine accountability.
• This limit would also undermine accountability.
• This limit would also undermine accountability.
• This limit would also undermine accountability.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 4, as amended, was heard in committee. The bill proposes a constitutional amendment to create a Minnesota tax relief account that would capture projected general fund revenues exceeding 105% of projected expenditures and return those funds to taxpayers, primarily through property tax relief or income tax relief. The committee adopted an amendment to put the bill in the author’s preferred shape, and later adopted a technical amendment from Representative Smith to insert the word “projected” before “expenditures” on line 2.2. Representative Johnson presented the bill as an affordability measure meant to return surplus money to the people rather than create new spending, arguing it would help homeowners and taxpayers if a surplus occurs. Ranna Lee of Americans for Prosperity supported the concept of returning surplus funds to taxpayers but also urged broader tax and budget reforms, including triggers for rate reductions and changes to budgeting practices. Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project and Eric Bernstein of We Make Minnesota opposed the proposal, warning that embedding budget and tax rules in the Constitution would reduce legislative flexibility, weaken public investment, shift costs to local governments, and make it harder to respond to recessions or emergencies. Members raised questions about how the formula would work, who would qualify for refunds, whether corporations with property tax liability could benefit, and how the proposal would handle forecast-based calculations and unexpected events such as pandemics or federal policy changes. House research and committee staff clarified that the bill would need to go to Ways and Means and then Rules to satisfy House requirements for constitutional amendments, and that a fiscal note had been requested and was in process. The committee did not take final action on the bill in the portion of the transcript provided, but the motion before it was to recommend passage and send House File 4 to Ways and Means.

Transcript Highlights:

• House file 24.99 would ensure limits.
• <00:15:18.560> on legislature first put income limits on legislature first put income limits
• <00:15:39.680> has income limit for homeowners has income limit for homeowners has continued<00
• the income limit for renters has not. the income limit for renters has not.
• would increase the maximum income limit would increase the maximum income limit to<00:17:46.160>

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee heard House File 2499, as amended by the DE1, which would expand Minnesota’s renters’ credit by nearly doubling the income cutoff and increasing the maximum credit, with the bill laid over for possible inclusion in the tax bill. Representative Lee explained that the DE1 updated tax years and amounts after a new forecast, and argued the bill would bring the renters’ credit closer to parity with the homestead credit. She cited Department of Revenue data showing that recent changes to the renters’ credit increased participation and average refunds, and said the proposal would help more renters, including middle-income households and more seniors and people with disabilities. Testifiers Michael Dah of Homeline and Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project supported the bill. Dah said renters face rising housing costs and a shortage of affordable homes, and described how renters use the credit for basic needs like school supplies, clothing, eyeglasses, dental care, groceries, and car repairs. Madden said the credit refunds property taxes paid through rent, helps workers, families, seniors, and people with disabilities, and noted that more than 310,000 households received the credit in 2023 across every part of the state. She also said recent filing changes made the credit easier to claim and increased participation. Members broadly discussed the fairness of treating renters and homeowners similarly, the role of property taxes in housing costs, and whether the bill should be viewed as helping low-income or more middle-income households. Representative Abeler, Smith, Howard, and Huitt expressed support, while Representative Roach argued the broader problem is rising property taxes driven by mandates on counties and said the bill is only a temporary fix. Representative Anderson questioned extending the credit to higher-income renters and said policy should prioritize homeownership, while Representative Lee responded that many renters are middle-class, that renters often cannot save for a down payment, and that the bill would help them stabilize financially. The bill was then laid over as amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• My problem primarily is the fact that it still limits the machines to the existing HHR grandfathered
• My problem primarily is the fact that it still limits the machines to the existing HHR grandfathered
• My problem primarily is the fact that it still limits the machines to the existing HHR grandfathered
• opposed a bill to raise the Bingo limits opposed a bill to raise the Bingo limits for<00:32:20.279
• for fear that those higher Bingo limits for fear that those higher Bingo limits would<00:32:21.880

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Josh, I know you and I spoke about the statute of limitations section where it limits
• Where is it stated that the statute of limitations is tolled? You're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
• So there are procedural cures in the event where the statute of limitations is used against a claimant
• That statute of limitations is tolled for that period of time because it's a very short statute of limitations
• The statute of limitations is told for that period of time, because it's a very short statute of limitations

Summary: The Judiciary Committee took up a long agenda of 20 bills, beginning with CS/HB 1173 on the Florida Trust Code, which clarified that the Florida Attorney General is the only public official with standing to enforce charitable trusts administered in Florida; it was amended and reported favorably. The committee also unanimously or near-unanimously approved several claims and relief bills, including HB 6507 for Marcus Button, HB 6523 for Darlene Engerville and J.R., HB 6525 for Eric and Jennifer Miles, HB 6529 for J.N., and HB 6519 for the estate of Beniel Hambier, all involving settlements or compensation for injuries or wrongful death. Other measures reported favorably included CS/HB 213 on commercial squatters, CS/HB 1447 on trespass at large-scale ticketed events, CS/HB 515 updating the Uniform Commercial Code for virtual currency and related technologies, CS/HB 1007 on gift card fraud, CS/HB 1049 on protection of court officials, CS/HB 1219 on non-compete and garden leave agreements, CS/HB 399 on stolen valor in the ethics code, CS/HB 57 on xylazine regulation, HB 901 on court-appointed psychologists, and CS/HB 265 on enforcing terrorism-related judgments against frozen assets. Most of these bills had support from industry, law enforcement, or affected parties and passed with little or no opposition. The most contested measure was CS/HB 1517, which would expand Florida’s wrongful death statute to include parents of unborn children as survivors. Supporters argued it would allow families to recover damages when negligence causes the loss of a pregnancy, while opponents—including the ACLU of Florida, Planned Parenthood affiliates, reproductive rights advocates, and some committee members—warned it could be used to advance fetal personhood, chill medical care, and empower abusive partners or others to sue over abortion-related conduct. The sponsor said the bill remained within the wrongful death framework and included protections for mothers and lawful medical providers, but the committee still reported it favorably on a 14-6 vote. CS/HB 903, a corrections bill addressing inmate litigation, sentencing, execution methods, tracking devices, health services, and offender review appointments, also drew debate over a proposed tolling amendment and due process concerns; the amendment failed and the bill passed 16-5. CS/HB 57 on xylazine likewise saw debate over whether penalties should target users or traffickers, but the committee rejected a narrowing amendment and passed the bill 20-1. Several bills were amended in committee, often with technical or clarifying changes, including CS/HB 1219, HB 1351 on sexual offender and predator registration, and HB 901. Public testimony was generally supportive on the non-controversial bills, especially from law enforcement, business groups, and affected claimants. At the end of the meeting, Rep. Gottlieb offered a personal correction, acknowledging he had wrongly criticized FOP in a prior meeting after learning the organization had, in fact, contacted him. The committee then adjourned after completing the full agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• Testimony is limited to three minutes per person.
• and to implement signage speed limits.
• and to implement signage speed limits.
• Whoever owns the path can retain the authority to lower the limit.
• We set a speed limit, and we also set device regulations.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Transportation held a hybrid hearing on the governor’s Ride Safe Act, S. 3077, and related micromobility bills. Chairs and administration officials described the bill as a statewide, speed-based framework for e-bikes, scooters, mopeds, and similar devices, intended to replace outdated device categories with clearer rules for age limits, helmets, equipment, operating locations, registration, insurance for higher-speed devices, and restrictions on tampering. They also emphasized improved crash-data collection, a working group for future updates, and battery safety standards such as UL certification to reduce fire risk. Committee members asked about enforcement, shared-use paths, commuter rail accommodations, battery storage, and how the bill would apply to other vehicles like quads; the administration said some issues would need further study or follow-up. Testimony from advocates, municipal officials, and commission members was mixed but generally supportive of clearer statewide rules. Transportation and safety advocates backed the speed-based tier system but urged additional measures, including a default speed limit on shared-use paths, automated enforcement, and more funding for Complete Streets and Shared Streets programs. Bike shop and police representatives said current laws are confusing for riders and law enforcement and that better definitions and data reporting are needed. Several speakers stressed that enforcement and education will be critical, and that local patchwork rules are difficult to apply consistently. Medical testimony strongly supported tighter protections for young riders. Pediatric emergency and trauma doctors described a sharp rise in serious injuries and deaths involving e-bikes and scooters, including severe pediatric cases, and urged amendments adding a minimum age for faster devices and a universal helmet requirement. They argued that the force and weight of these devices make crashes more dangerous than conventional bicycles and pointed to past Massachusetts safety laws as evidence that age and equipment restrictions can reduce injuries. Some public testimony opposed the bill as written, especially from moped commuters who argued that gas-powered mopeds are being treated differently from comparable electric devices and should be included in the framework. They called for clearer rules on bike-lane access, insurance, parking, and statewide standards for mopeds as vulnerable road users. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee heard testimony and questions only.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:10:13.519> health proposal that would limit health proposal that would limit health insurance
• limit looks like. limit looks like.
• <00:47:50.400> in<00:47:51.040> health limits to the growth in health limits to the
• <01:16:02.320> time because of the very limited time because of the very limited time available
• because the department has a limited because the department has a limited budget.<01:21:38.400><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we're not limiting ourselves to that.
• Is the one-year limit shorter?
• Is the one-year limit shorter than the statute of limitations for similar actions on non-incarcerated
• Is the one year's limit shorter?
• Is the one-year limit shorter than the statute of limitations for similar actions on non-by-incorcerated

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, prayer, pledge, and several recognitions, including remarks from Senator Berman on Democratic priorities and introductions of military leaders and an intern. The chamber then moved through a long special-order calendar, with many bills substituted to House companions, amended, and passed, while several others were temporarily postponed. Major measures approved included the dangerous dogs/Pam Rock Act (SB 572/HB 593), which tightened penalties and procedures for dog attacks and passed 36-0; local government land regulation (SB 1080), which was amended to remove agricultural enclave language and passed 26-8; vessel/freedom-related legislation (SB 1388/HB 1137), which passed 35-0; blood clot screening and treatment (SB 890/HB 1421), which added registry and training provisions and passed 36-0; fleeing or eluding law enforcement (SB 468/HB 113), which increased offense levels and passed 36-0; concealed carry/licensing for certain officers and service members (SB 490/HB 383), which passed 33-3; timeshare management (SB 496/HB 897), which clarified governance and annual meeting requirements and passed 36-0; background screening education (SB 614/HB 531), which created a public webpage and passed 36-0; utility service restrictions (SB 1002/HB 1137), which preempted local energy-source restrictions and passed 36-0; Medicaid oversight (SB 1060), which created a joint oversight committee and passed 35-0; health facilities authorities (SB 68), amended to make fentanyl urine screening more discretionary, and passed 36-0; and veterans’ nursing home beds (SB 78/HB 797), which authorized veteran- and spouse-designated beds and passed 36-0. The chamber also passed disability history and awareness instruction (SB 540/HB 447), a highly personal bill honoring Evan Hartzell that drew extended debate about disability language, inclusion, and education; it passed 35-0 after 35 co-sponsors were added. Manufacturing policy bills SB 600 and SB 602 were approved after amendments to add reporting, ranking metrics, and fee-use restrictions, both passing 35-0. Educational opportunities for military children (SB 1528) passed 36-0 after testimony from student sponsors and senators praising the bill’s origin. Several other bills, including Medicaid oversight, mammograms, Parkinson’s disease, condominium/cooperative associations, waste management, human trafficking, and Bright Futures, were postponed or not taken up during this segment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Originally, there was no limit.
• that no limit.
• That six-unit limit that no limit.
• This originally had no six-unit limitation, and we would certainly like to see no limitation.
• This originally had no six-unit limitation, and we would certainly like to see no limitation.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 291, which would update religious land-use and property tax exemption rules for church-owned parsonages, parish houses, and similar properties. Senator Tim Lang, speaking for the sponsor, said the bill was intended to address situations where former parsonages are no longer occupied by clergy and are instead used for church-related purposes such as housing staff, religious education, or congregate living tied to ministry, including addiction recovery. He emphasized that the bill was not meant to create commercial rental housing and that it also preserves reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Committee members pressed the sponsor on how the bill would be applied, especially the meaning of “religious purposes,” the six-unit limit, the “same lot” language, and whether churches could use the exemption to rent units for revenue. The sponsor said the six-unit cap was added to prevent large-scale commercial rental use, that congregate housing would be limited and defined, and that the bill was meant to cover uses like substance abuse recovery, homes for unwed mothers, and religious education, but not apartments converted for ordinary rental. He also said churches would still file annual exemption paperwork and towns could challenge claims they believed were commercial. Questions also raised concerns about whether the bill treated religious and nonreligious housing trusts differently; the sponsor responded that the bill was aimed at church-owned property used in pursuit of a religious mission. Several witnesses testified in support. Representative Mark Pearson, an active clergyman, said the bill would not remove additional property from the tax rolls because clergy housing allowances typically lead clergy to buy taxable homes elsewhere, while the church-owned parsonage remains exempt. Nick Taylor of Housing Action New Hampshire supported the bill as a modest expansion that could help create more attainable housing by allowing better use of existing religious land and structures, though he noted his organization would support even broader use. The hearing ended without a vote or final action, and the chair closed questions after the testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please limit your time to about 90 seconds, please. Oh, thank you.
• Please limit your comments to 90 seconds.
• Madam Chair, expert, yes, support or limit. Either way.
• limitations.
• That's going to limit their ability to vote.

Bills: SB38, SB17, SB41, SB264

Keywords: SB38, pet food, registered pet food, registration fee, fees, sunset repeal, repeal of repeal, revenue, state fee, business regulation, animal feed, pet food registration, New Mexico, gun control, firearm safety, dealer regulation, illegal trade, background checks, sexual crimes, statute of limitations

Transcript Highlights:

• And so what this bill seeks to do is give our county sheriffs a limited ability to run radar.
• It limits the number of radars available by population.
• , perhaps even paralleling the city limits.
• <00:10:28.399> for itself to to set the speed limits for itself to to set the speed limits
• , county to set the speed limits, county to set the speed limits, >> but<00:10:37.360> we're

Keywords: Highways and Transportation - Room 216, 30 January, 2026; 10:00 AM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 2269, the Mississippi Fully Autonomous Vehicle Enabling Act. The bill was described as simply extending the repealer date to July 1, 2029. A motion was made that the title was sufficient and the bill do pass, and it passed without opposition. The committee then considered Senate Bill 2614, which would authorize county sheriffs and deputies to use radar on county roads, subject to county board approval and population-based limits on the number of radar units. Senator Thompson said the measure was intended to reduce Mississippi’s high rate of speed-related highway fatalities, not to create revenue or speed traps. He explained that fines would be directed to the Mississippi Department of Education to support driver’s education programs, and that the bill includes a 1,000-foot buffer from municipal limits and a definition prohibiting speed traps. Members asked about engineering reviews of speed limits, opt-in/opt-out authority for supervisors, quotas, body cameras, and how the bill would affect counties that already use radar. Thompson said the bill does not require roadway reassessments, that county boards must approve radar use, that he would not oppose a quota-related amendment, and that a body-camera requirement would be beyond the bill’s scope and could burden departments that cannot afford it. Several senators spoke in support, citing public safety and sheriff support, while one senator raised concerns about transparency and public trust. The committee then voted that the title was sufficient and the bill do pass, and the motion carried.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, don't limit yourself.
• more than one you know don't don't limit more than one you know don't don't limit yourself<00:28
• that we try to with our limited that we try to with our limited resources<00:29:01.880> when<
• So what's the limit?
• <00:51:26.599> daily<00:51:26.920> limit and that a $2,000 limit daily limit and that

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills related to consumer protection, liquor regulation, construction procurement, and state contracting. On House Bill 565, DCCA and the Office of Consumer Protection stood on written testimony, and a committee member raised a question about whether creators of remains would have to hold them indefinitely if family members did not respond; the member indicated language would be fixed to address that issue. No vote was taken. House Bill 208, dealing with liquor law changes, drew strong support from Scarlet Honolulu and Maui Brewing Company, who said the measure would modernize liquor rules and add guardrails, while the Wine Institute and Anheuser-Busch opposed it as a special tax break or unnecessary expansion of liquor-related authority. Members questioned whether anonymous complaints should be allowed and whether the bill could lead to retaliation; the supporter said complaints should not be anonymous and suggested the Liquor Commission had been accused of writing complaints to target licenses. No action was taken. House Bill 939, concerning taxation of low-ABV spirits-based beverages, received support from Maui Brewing Company and Johnson Brothers, who said it would align tax treatment with existing categories and reduce confusion, while the Wine Institute and Anheuser-Busch opposed it as a narrow tax break that could reduce revenue and should instead be considered in a broader alcohol tax review. House Bill 808, on construction defect insurance or related protections for state projects, drew comments from DAGS, the State Procurement Office, and the Subcontractors Association, with the latter warning it would make state contracting harder and shrink the contractor base; the chair questioned what recourse the state has when defects appear after a project is completed. House Bill 809, addressing procurement and subcontractor-listing corrections, drew opposition from SPO, DAGS, and the Subcontractors Association, while the General Contractors Association supported it; members debated whether a 24-hour correction window would create abuse or simply allow minor ministerial fixes, and the bill’s sponsor said the goal was to reduce bid protests and procurement discretion. No votes or final committee actions were recorded in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's important to understand that this does not go against the state's credit limit because this is a
• It's important to understand that this does not go against the state's credit limit because this is a
• now it's important to bonding limit now it's important to understand<00:08:36.760> that<00:08
• I've never seen a limit like this anywhere else for any other type of expenditure or policy space.
• which was a limiting which was a limiting factor<00:20:08.400> with<00:20:08.600> this

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• believe this 5year average would limit believe this 5year average would limit that<00:12:38.160>
• <00:29:03.679> the Ci's area it's necessary to limit the Ci's area it's necessary to limit
• about a limitation on the credit because the purpose of the bill is to remove that limitation.
• c><01:03:32.440> the that talks about a limitation on the that talks about a limitation on the
• from the a homestead this will limit from the a homestead this will limit their<01:15:42.800>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:00:43.320> for written testimony, the time limit for written testimony, the time limit
• So, we cannot if if we say the you limit So, we cannot if if we say the you limit it<00:07:56.800
• I think that's the limitations.
• <00:21:07.920> and as like the statute of limitations and as like the statute of limitations
• She said her limit with the range...

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2455, HD2, relating to employment practices. Testimony was limited, with support from the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women and UPW; the committee noted nine support, zero opposition, and zero comments. No vote was taken on this bill during the portion provided. The committee then took up House Bill 2165, HD2, relating to the Hawaii Employment Security Law. DLIR supported the measure but requested an amendment moving language in Section 2 from subsection A to subsection C to preserve the legal structure. Members questioned DLIR about a January 8 U.S. Department of Labor letter and whether the bill would keep Hawaii in conformity with federal unemployment insurance requirements. DLIR said the federal guidance requires the state to remove the carve-out for labor-dispute claimants, though unions with hiring halls and members in good standing could still be exempt from work-search requirements under an authorized list. UNITE HERE Local 5 opposed the bill and said the current law already gives the department discretion to exempt striking workers. The committee recessed the bill before any final action was taken in the portion shown. In the joint hearing with Commerce and Consumer Protection, the committees heard House Bill 1509, HD2, relating to workers’ compensation. DLIR supported the bill, DHER offered comments and requested an amendment, UPW supported it, and one Zoom testifier described personal experience with delayed care and urged faster decisions. After testimony, the committees voted to pass the bill with amendments. The adopted amendments restored the 7-day treatment-plan deadline from 10 days, changed the effective date to January 1, 2077, and struck the proposed $500 fine for employers who fail to respond within 10 days. Back in the Labor and Technology agenda, the committee heard House Bill 1515, HD2, also relating to workers’ compensation, with testimony noting seven in support, one in opposition, and one comment, but no action was taken in the excerpt. The committee also heard House Bill 1514, HD2, relating to workers’ compensation vocational rehabilitation plans. A Zoom testifier opposed the bill, arguing the 120-day timeline was unrealistic for complex cases. DLIR said the bill would give the director discretion to extend the vocational rehabilitation plan timeline beyond 120 days with no cap on extensions, and the committee noted five support, four opposition, and zero comments. Finally, the committee began House Bill 2458, HD3, relating to surveillance pricing. OCP said it stood on written testimony, while supporters argued the bill would prevent corporations from using personal data to set prices, especially for groceries. Retail and grocery interests opposed the measure, saying it was too broad and could restrict loyalty programs, promotions, and discounts; one witness asked that a loyalty-program exemption be restored.

Transcript Highlights:

• buying the liquor stores and limiting of buying the liquor stores and limiting what<00:15:36.360>
• It's not limited to three times or whatever the case may be for the park; it's limited to the individual
• It's not limited to three times or whatever the case may be for the park; it's limited to the individual
• It's not limited to three times or whatever the case may be for the park; it's limited to the individual
• no limit.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So I've asked them to kind of limit their acronym use.
• So the upper payment limit is considered the Medicare limit for each state.
• The upper payment limit program, or access payment program, is limited to the private hospitals currently
• That sets your upper payment limit.
• So the hospitals fund their upper payment limit payments.

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