Transcript Highlights:

• Keenan: identifiable data. Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
• Montigny: health-connected data disclosure. Senator Montigny: Mr.
• . ...top four violators to me is the bottom four in the grade you get for protecting data.
• Tarr, public health data collection. Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
• This data is going to come from everywhere.

Summary: The Senate first adopted three congratulatory resolutions recognizing the retirements of Dolores Hayes, Lisa Audet, and Kate Fitzpatrick. It then handled several procedural matters, including suspending Joint Rule 12 to refer a sick leave bank bill for a Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office employee to the Committee on Public Service and referring House petitions to their respective committees. The chamber also adopted a conference report on the joint rules for the 2025-2026 session after remarks from Senators Creem, Tarr, Lovely, and Fattman emphasizing transparency, public access, recorded votes, longer notice for hearings and conference reports, remote participation, and periodic review of the rules. The report was accepted by a 40-0 roll call. The Senate then took up the bill strengthening health care protections in the Commonwealth, Senate No. 2538, commonly described as Shield Act 2.0. Senator Friedman and others argued the bill was needed to protect reproductive and gender-affirming care from out-of-state and federal interference, to limit disclosure of sensitive information, to create a state-level EMTALA-style protection for emergency care and active labor, and to strengthen privacy and licensing protections for providers and institutions. Senators Cyr, Lovely, and Fattman also spoke in support, framing the bill as a response to recent federal and state threats and as an extension of Massachusetts’ prior shield-law work. The chamber considered numerous amendments. Several were rejected, including amendments by Senators Finegold and Keenan and multiple Tarr amendments on topics such as medical records, consistency with existing law, and public health data collection. Some amendments were adopted, including a Montigny amendment on health-connected data disclosure, a Brownsberger amendment further protecting privacy for reproductive and gender-affirming care, a Rauch amendment clarifying protections for patients in active labor, a Tarr amendment removing an exemption for data from personal tracking devices, and a Rodrigues corrective amendment. After the amendments, the Ways and Means substitute was adopted, the bill was ordered to a third reading, and it then passed to be engrossed by a 37-3 roll call. At the end of the session, the Senate adopted a memorial adjournment in honor of former Senate Majority Leader Louis P. Bertinazi. The Governor also filed a message submitting a bill to build resilience for Massachusetts communities, authorizing future capital spending for energy and environmental affairs, which was referred to the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. The Senate then adopted an order to meet again the following Monday at 1 p.m. and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have Chapter 13 which says that data<00:06:30.160><c> data</c><00:06:30.440><c> has</c><00:06:30.680
• ><c> to</c><00:06:30.760><c> be</c><00:06:30.880><c> shared</c><00:06:31.360><c> by</c> data data has
• to be shared by data data has to be shared by government.<00:06:32.320><c> We</c><00:06:32.840><c> go
• We do have data practices laws.
• And that We do have data practices laws.

Summary: Lawmakers held a bipartisan press availability on a bill to prohibit local governments and their officials from entering into non-disclosure agreements with private entities. Supporters said the measure is intended to protect transparency, public participation, and Minnesotans’ right to know about local decisions involving land use, public financing, and economic development, especially in cases involving data centers and other large projects. Representatives and senators from both parties described the bill as a response to examples in cities such as Rosemount, Farmington, Hermantown, North Mankato, Monticello, Pine Island, and others, where they said NDAs kept communities from learning about projects until decisions were effectively already made. The authors argued that the bill is not anti-development or limited to data centers, but instead prevents corporations from using private contracts to circumvent Minnesota’s open meeting and data practices laws. They said Chapter 13 already addresses trade secrets and other confidential information, and that the bill is meant to stop NDAs from creating secrecy around government decision-making. They also said they had heard little organized opposition so far, though they acknowledged questions about how the bill would affect early-stage business recruitment conversations and how local governments, especially smaller ones, would implement the change. Members also discussed the bill’s legislative path. They said it had previously received unanimous support in committee and was sent to the general register, then moved to the Judiciary Committee at the request of Chair Scott, who wanted a hearing. The authors said they did not believe the bill raised Chapter 13 issues requiring judiciary review, but agreed to the referral as a courtesy and said they were seeking a hearing. They reported that Senate consideration had previously ended in a tie vote, but said momentum was growing and expected stronger support this session. No vote was taken during the press event.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh so the prevailing wage data.
• This includes certified payroll data, personal license data, and prevailing wage survey data.
• Consider license data.
• By putting all of this data in one location portal, all it takes is one data breach.
• </c> all it takes is one data breach. all it takes is one data breach.

Committee: Senate Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• I think the data shows that the data that was turned over as a result of these hearings... to go from
• Therefore, data is not available.
• AIHP members leaving AIHP is incomplete data.
• Data limitations that directly affect AIHP oversight.
• We demanded data and we followed the facts.

Committee: Senate Senate Health and Human Services COR

Summary: The committee continued its fourth hearing on fraud, waste, and abuse involving Arizona’s Medicaid and behavioral health systems, with a major focus on Access/ALTCS eligibility, behavioral health licensing, and payment delays. Senator Shamp presented findings alleging large gaps in ABD Medicaid asset verification, including that only a portion of enrollees were checked and that many with substantial liquid assets remained on the program. She argued the state’s waiver and lack of asset limits created a compliance and fiscal risk, and urged referrals to law enforcement, tighter verification, and broader reforms. Heather Dukes, representing behavioral health and sober living operators, testified that ADHS and Access have become overly punitive toward licensed providers, often sending technical paperwork violations straight to enforcement instead of allowing correction plans, and that zoning and licensing delays are harming legitimate businesses. Reva Stewart testified that patient brokering and fraudulent recruitment of vulnerable people into behavioral health and sober living settings remain ongoing, especially through social media, and called for stronger accountability and enforcement against bad actors. ADHS Deputy Assistant Director Tiffany Slater said the department has received more than a thousand complaints about unlicensed sober living operations, which has diverted staff from routine oversight of licensed facilities. She said ADHS has expanded enforcement tools for sober living homes, is using a new licensing system to flag repeat bad actors, and is trying to make the application process easier, while acknowledging that inspections can tip off unlicensed operators. Access Director Virginia Roundtree described steps the agency has taken since the prior hearing, including daily staff huddles, live dashboards, added project management support, an external claims vendor, and an independent review of the Division of Fee-for-Service Management. She said Access is trying to balance fraud prevention with support for legitimate providers, and committed to follow up on a specific provider payment dispute by early the next week. Committee members repeatedly pressed Access and ADHS on delayed claims processing, prepayment review, and whether the current system is driving providers out of business. Roundtable testimony from Access staff described the new Provider Resolution Roundtables, which are intended to work with a small number of providers facing the most claims and authorization problems. Members questioned why claims are being denied or held for long periods, why some providers are still waiting on payments from 2023 and 2024, and whether the agency’s actions are sustainable. Access also explained the Targeted Investment Program, saying it is a federally approved Medicaid initiative with large dollar amounts still being paid out on a delayed schedule, and agreed to provide more information on provider participation and payment timing. No formal votes or committee actions were taken in the portion provided, but the chair indicated the committee would continue reviewing the issue and requested additional reports and follow-up information from Access and ADHS.

Transcript Highlights:

• measures poverty using state income tax returns, public benefits data, and U.S. data.
• state income tax returns, public benefits data, and U.S. data.
• Census data.
• And I want to know that sometimes the way that we collect the data, the way that we report the data,
• Some states report assessment-related data, including, I'd say, just assessment-related data.

Transcript Highlights:

• And what was the latest year that we have data on? This is for the 2024 data.
• With respect to data.
• So this is where the data is slightly off because that data is measured in hate crime offenses.
• areas, is data erasure.
• And so part of what the commission is charged with is looking at data and how do you disaggregate data

Summary: The Select Committee on Hate, Racism, and Xenophobia met to hear opening remarks, state data, and testimony from community organizations and equity commissions about rising hate and discrimination in California. The chair framed the hearing as a response to persistent targeting of protected classes, and members said the committee’s purpose was to elevate community voices and identify policy responses. Assembly Member Gonzalez and Assembly Member Lowenthal also briefly commented on the importance of listening to communities and developing legislative solutions. The California Department of Justice reported that 2024 hate crime events, offenses, and victims all increased from the prior year, with anti-Black bias remaining the most common category, followed by anti-Jewish and anti-Latino bias in different breakdowns. DOJ also noted increases in referrals for prosecution and described its hate-crimes guidance, rapid-response protocol, and outreach efforts. The California Commission on the State of Hate said hate is underreported, cited survey data suggesting millions of Californians experienced hate incidents, and recommended permanent data infrastructure, mandatory law-enforcement training, and sustained funding for victim support and prevention programs. Commissioners also emphasized that public messaging by leaders can influence hate and violence. A long panel of advocates described the impacts of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-LGBTQ+ hate, and anti-immigrant enforcement on their communities. NAACP representatives focused on systemic racism in policing, education, health, housing, and environmental justice; LULAC and CHIRLA described ICE raids, profiling, and fear in Latino and immigrant communities; Jewish, Muslim, Asian American, and LGBTQ+ speakers highlighted rising threats, harassment, and the need for language access, school protections, security funding, and legal assistance. The Racial Equity Commission closed by describing its statewide framework work, community engagement, and a December 1 deadline for delivering recommendations to the Legislature and administration. No formal votes or committee actions were taken during the hearing, but members said they would request additional recommendations and continue the work through future hearings and briefings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, many of these are data points, but some of them are not data points, and many times the districts
• We determine the data points.
• </c> uh would wouldn't we have some data uh would wouldn't we have some data then?
• She's entering data into another system. She's entering data into another system.
• to grab the data out of it so the data to grab the data out of it so it<01:50:33.760><c> could</c><01

Summary: The subcommittee met for its third discussion on special education aid under retained bill 742, with the chair noting that no action would be taken at the meeting. The chair reviewed prior hearings on Medicaid and local special education funding shortfalls, saying the committee was trying to understand why districts are facing proration of special education aid and how to reduce unfunded costs. He raised a series of questions for the Department of Education about the Nessus system, eligibility and ineligibility, invoices and vouchers, audit procedures, reimbursement rates, out-of-state placements, and who enters data at the district level. Rebecca Fdet, director of special education services at the Department of Education, explained that Nessus is the statewide special education information system and that every child in special education must be entered into it. She said most districts use it to develop IEPs and track services, while six districts use it only as a data reporting tool. She described which fields are required, how the system connects IEP development to the financial section, and how districts submit invoices when seeking special education aid, court-ordered placement payments, or episode-of-treatment placements. She said the department reviews invoices against the IEP, pays only for allowable services, and uses a cap that notifies districts when they reach the annual limit. Members asked about who submits the information, how districts decide when to seek aid, and how costs are calculated for individual or group services. Fdet said the district, usually an administrative assistant in the SAU office, submits the documentation electronically, and districts decide when to track students for aid based on their own circumstances. She said reimbursement is based on actual costs tied to the IEP, with group services split among students, and that the department does not generally set rates for local services. The only rate-setting she described was for approved private special education providers, which submit annual cost spreadsheets for tuition rates. She also said out-of-state providers must be approved by their own state, and the department checks licensure and certification through monitoring and investigations if concerns arise. The department also described its monitoring process, called Program Approval and General Supervision Monitoring, or PAGS. Fdet said districts are reviewed on a six-year cycle, with more intensive review for districts needing assistance or intervention and fewer file requests for districts meeting requirements. She said the department can review up to 65 data points on an IEP and that districts must submit special education aid paperwork by July 31, with superintendent verification due by August 15. The meeting ended with continued questions about procurement, audit procedures, and how the department handles out-of-district and out-of-state placements.

Transcript Highlights:

• And do we have any data in that regard?
• And we looked at a good lot of data here, and it's great data. I love this data.
• You know, I like data. But, you know, do we ever try to track?
• data regarding access to educators, and then we're going to look at data regarding district level of
• Is there any data that shows that? I know there's definitely data that looks at that.

Summary: The committee received a lengthy Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on Arkansas academic standards, accountability systems, and adequacy-related requirements. Staff reviewed the history of state curriculum and accreditation laws, the current standards for grades K-12, required high school units and graduation pathways, and recent changes such as career-ready pathways, embedded instruction requirements, and the distinction between courses required to be offered versus courses actually taken by students. Members asked for a chart comparing the 1997, 2003, 2015, 2017, and later law changes, and staff agreed to provide one. The presentation then turned to the federal ESSA plan and Arkansas’s state accountability system. Staff summarized ESSA requirements, Arkansas’s long-term goals for proficiency, English learner progress, and graduation rates, and recent data showing that 2025 proficiency rates remained well below the 80% goal, while English learner progress and graduation rates were also below long-term targets. The committee discussed school support and improvement, equitable access to educators, report cards, and the apparent lack of evidence that equity labs are currently being conducted. Members requested follow-up from the Department of Education on equity labs, report card data, and whether the ESSA plan can be changed. The presentation also covered state assessment results under the Arkansas Accountability Act, including ATLAS, DLM, ELPA 21, ACT, and NAEP data, along with teacher access measures and geographic shortage districts. Staff reported that Title I and high-poverty schools tend to have more emergency/provisional teachers and less experienced staff, and that shortage districts are concentrated in parts of the state. Members asked for additional information on test highs and lows, the number of assessments students take, dropout data, and whether higher teacher salaries have affected shortage areas. The committee also discussed district levels of support under the state accountability system, including the possibility of state intervention at the highest level of support.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this has data from a year ago.
• GDP growth coming from spending on AI and data centers.
• They have to do so without this kind of data.
• And so, we will continue to monitor our, independent data with the taxpayer data.
• talking about that data.

Committee: Joint Revenue Stabilization & Tax Policy Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Our presentation today is going to focus largely on data labeling and data privacy issues as they relate
• </c> applications, can pose risks to data applications, can pose risks to data privacy,<00:03:37.519>
• labeling and data largely on data labeling and data privacy<00:04:04.000><c> issues</c><00:04:04.480
• And so this data can to create new data.
• </c> training data. training data.

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• Cross-tabulating data about Black students and students with disabilities...
• It is only with this data that we can truly plan the best ways to keep all children in school.
• . ...surprised when I learned about the lack of publicly available cross-tabulated data.
• This bill would require DESE to publish student data, including school discipline data, that is cross-tabulated
• When the data is broken down like this to reflect a student's multiple identities, When the data is broken

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Education

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a hearing focused primarily on special education-related bills, with testimony centered on two major themes: transition planning for students aging out of school-based services at age 22, and the fiscal strain special education costs place on districts. Committee members explained hearing procedures, noted the House was in formal session, and periodically stepped out for votes while staff recorded testimony. A separate bill on special education due process was also taken up briefly, along with a bill on special education finance and another on equitable access/data reporting. On House Bill 752 and Senate Bill 313, witnesses from the Arc of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Down Syndrome Congress, the Developmental Disabilities Council, families, self-advocates, and Senator Comerford described the “Turning 22” transition as a crisis point that often leaves families without adult placements, services, or clear communication. Testimony emphasized earlier planning, more accountability, better data collection, and a commission to improve coordination and residential placement. Several parents and advocates shared personal accounts of traumatic transitions, delayed placements, and the need for plans to begin at least a year before age 22. The committee later closed testimony on these bills after hearing from all signed-up speakers. House Bill 4217, on special education due process, drew support from Representative Sullivan-Almeida, parents, and advocates who argued that the burden of proof should shift from families to school districts. Testimony described costly legal battles, delays, and parents having to become experts in reading instruction or hire advocates and attorneys to secure services. Brody Dwyer, a 10-year-old student with dyslexia, and his mother described how evidence-based instruction helped him after years of struggle. The committee also heard testimony on House Bill 546/Senate Bill 317, which would require DESE to publish cross-tabulated data on race, disability, gender, income, and other factors; advocates said this would better expose disparities and help address the school-to-prison pipeline. Finally, on House Bill 691/Senate Bill 430, school leaders, educators, and union representatives testified that special education costs are outpacing district budgets and that increasing circuit breaker reimbursement and creating a commission to study long-term sustainability would help prevent staffing cuts and service reductions. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee repeatedly closed testimony on individual bills as speakers finished and moved through the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• And do we have any data in that regard?
• And we looked at a good lot of data here, and it's great data. I love this data.
• Is there any data that shows that? I know there's definitely data that looks at that.
• Are we using this data maybe early, but are we using this data to maybe fund, give more funding to these
• Are we using this data maybe early, but are we using this data to maybe fund, give more funding to these

Transcript Highlights:

• to provide near real-time data reporting, develop uniform data governance policies, and system-wide
• Currently, different district data systems make it hard to manage and report data, causing extra work
• So our information could be fed from common cloud data platform into the cradle to career data system
• having our real time data readily The cradle-to-career data system is not necessarily focused on having
• The cradle-to-career data system may not be in that same real-time vein in terms of the data that it

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held a hearing focused on California Community College budget proposals. Chair Alvarez opened by emphasizing the system’s role in access, transfer, workforce training, and serving more than 2 million students, while also noting persistent challenges in enrollment, persistence, transfer, and graduation. Public commenters and system representatives broadly supported COLA, enrollment growth funding, deferred maintenance, student support block grants, and additional flexibility for districts facing uncertainty. The first major panel covered the student-centered funding formula, COLA, and enrollment growth. The Department of Finance said the Governor proposes a 2.43% COLA ($230.4 million) and 0.5% enrollment growth funding ($30.4 million). The LAO said the COLA was reasonable and recommended funding at least the proposed growth amount, citing uneven enrollment recovery and regional differences. The Chancellor’s Office supported both proposals and asked for additional changes, including using the greater of current-year or three-year average for apportionments and lifting the 10% local enrollment cap, arguing these would better fund growing districts. Members questioned how the formula works, whether SCFF is improving outcomes, and how much additional funding would be needed under different growth scenarios. The committee then reviewed categorical program COLAs, Rising Scholars, career education proposals, IT proposals, and student housing. The Governor proposed a 2.43% COLA for selected categorical programs ($31.9 million). For Rising Scholars, the Governor proposed $30 million ongoing and removal of the cap on participating colleges; the LAO urged waiting for outcome data before doubling funding, while the Chancellor’s Office said the program is serving more students and supports equity for justice-impacted students. On career education, the Governor proposed $50 million for credit for prior learning and $50 million for a career passport; the LAO supported more reporting on credit for prior learning but recommended rejecting the career passport as too undefined, while the Chancellor’s Office supported both. On technology, the Governor proposed $162.5 million for a common cloud data platform and $168 million for a common ERP system; the LAO said both were premature or lacked sufficient planning and recommended rejection, while the Chancellor’s Office argued they would improve real-time data, security, and systemwide efficiency. The committee also heard an update on student housing: the administration said the 2024 shift to a lease-revenue bond model remains in progress for 13 approved projects, with 11 still active, and members asked about withdrawn projects and possible use of any returned funds. No votes were taken, and several items were held open for further discussion and May Revision updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• Walters if we could provide, if I were to provide you with some data and showed you some data that we
• Because you said you didn't have the data, so I just want to make sure we have the data.
• that no data would change your opinion on this.
• If I showed you, we discovered data, irrefutable data, that shows that Colorado has better outcomes with
• Without this data, we cannot use our expertise to inform data-driven policies that support justice, safety

Committee: Senate Judiciary B

Summary: The committee first approved the April 28 minutes and announced that Senate Bill 499 was voluntarily deferred. It then heard several House bills, beginning with HB 168, a reentry/transitional housing program for female parolees near release; supporters said it would improve public safety and reduce recidivism, and the bill was reported favorably without objection. HB 322, a cleanup bill from the Maggie Grace Act clarifying that victims or families requesting transcripts would not be charged, was also reported favorably without objection. HB 622, which aligns Louisiana criminal history information practices with federal rules, was amended and then reported favorably. HB 821, moving the School for Safe Centers from GOSEP to the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement, was reported favorably as well. The committee then took up HB 364, which directs State Police to partner on public awareness efforts about the illegality of discharging firearms, especially around holidays. An amendment removed a proposed printing cost and shifted the bill toward PSAs; the bill was reported favorably with amendments. HB 568, which strengthens enforcement of drug-free school zone laws by creating a clearer offense for openly smoking or vaping illegal drugs in school zones and setting a specific penalty for marijuana, drew extensive debate. Supporters, including the author and governor’s office, said it was needed to protect children and families and to give law enforcement a workable deterrent. Opponents argued it would impose harsh, geography-based penalties, sweep in medical cannabis patients and veterans, and worsen racial and fiscal disparities. After roll-call, the committee reported HB 568 favorably by a 3-2 vote. The committee also approved HB 296, a cleanup bill removing long-defunct programs from statute, without objection. HB 823, creating an Orleans Parish DA pilot diversion program for unhoused people accused of nonviolent offenses, was supported by Covenant House and others as a way to avoid criminalizing homelessness and was reported favorably without objection. Finally, HB 1038, a major bill revising the authority and liability structure of city marshals and local governments, prompted extensive testimony. The bill and amendments would limit some marshal powers in smaller jurisdictions, require local approval for certain staffing/insurance matters, and allow local governments to restore powers by ordinance. Supporters said it would reduce liability, clarify authority, and address problems in some marshal offices; opponents, including multiple marshals and law enforcement supporters, said it would undermine elected marshals, hurt small offices, and was too broad and under-studied. The transcript ends amid that hearing, with no final committee action shown on HB 1038.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is some data from the Pew Research Center.
• This is some data from the Pew Research Center.
• So I don't have that data here for you.
• We cannot share any data with you.'
• She's a data scientist.

Committee: House Privacy and Consumer Protection

Summary: The hearing was an informational session of the Consumer Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee on AI risks and mitigation, with the chair framing the discussion around two areas: automated decision systems used in high-stakes settings and frontier models with broader capabilities. The chair emphasized that California has already passed some targeted AI measures, but broader regulation has stalled, and criticized a proposed federal moratorium on state AI laws as a threat to public safety and state innovation. The hearing was organized into two panels, and members repeatedly returned to the balance between innovation, trust, and guardrails. The first panel focused on automated decision systems and algorithmic discrimination. Princeton professor Arvin Narayanan described predictive AI as often only modestly accurate and prone to reproducing historical bias, citing examples such as welfare fraud, criminal risk tools, hospital discharge predictions, and opaque hiring systems. Alondra Nelson, former White House OSTP official, outlined a spectrum of algorithmic discrimination—allocative harms, surveillance and privacy harms, targeting and profiling, and misrepresentation—using examples from IRS audits, Life360 data sharing, facial recognition misidentification, ad targeting, and health care. Cathy O’Neil described her auditing work as building a “cockpit” for AI systems to identify who could be harmed, measure disparities, and set thresholds; she argued that audits, impact assessments, and transparency can improve systems and reward better actors. Members asked about costs, whether AI is more biased than humans, the availability of auditors, and whether state regulation would drive business away; witnesses responded that compliance costs can be managed, that many harms are already occurring, and that companies often need outside pressure and access for meaningful audits. The second panel turned to frontier models. Joshua Bengio warned that frontier AI capabilities are improving rapidly, with planning and reasoning benchmarks advancing at an exponential pace, while alignment and honesty problems remain unresolved. He cited recent research showing models that appear to deceive trainers, preserve their own goals, or even blackmail in simulated settings, and said these behaviors are especially concerning as systems become more agentic and able to act over time without human oversight. The overall discussion ended with bipartisan remarks from members about the need for California to lead on AI safety, protect consumers, and support innovation in lower-risk uses such as agriculture while imposing stronger oversight in consequential domains like employment, housing, health care, and elections.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, I'm very grateful for the help of the Yale data science...
• It's sort of, you know, use all the data, but you can't use all the data.
• It's sort of, you know, use all the data, but you can't use all the data because you also have to get
• The year five data, yeah, the year five data for PCMH Plus. Yeah, yeah, okay, great.
• And as well as our PCMH Plus quality data update, if we can.

Summary: The Care Management Committee met to receive a status update on the DSS/CHN PCMH program and to discuss implementation of HR1, especially the new medical frailty requirements. CHN reported the PCMH program remained steady at 124 practices and 553 sites, with 54.6% of the HUSKY population attributed to PCMH providers, and noted ongoing recruitment, provider turnover, and recent practice consolidations/acquisitions that will shift some sites to Yale and Hartford HealthCare. CHN also reported strong quality improvement engagement for 2026, with 83% of contacted PCMHs engaged, and said preliminary 2025 results showed improvement across measures. The bulk of the meeting focused on DSS’s response to the June 1 CMS interim final rule on HR1. DSS explained that it had been building a medical frailty definition based on diagnosis codes and comparisons with other states’ approaches, but the new federal rule adds a requirement that the condition significantly impair a person’s ability to work or comply with community engagement requirements. DSS said it is still evaluating how to combine claims-based data with the new federal overlay, may submit comments to CMS during the open comment period through July 31, and is considering options such as self-attestation, especially given CMS’s allowance of self-attestation for calendar year 2027. Committee members raised concerns about the rule’s complexity, possible legal challenges, the need for a good-faith waiver or implementation delay, and the risk of noncompliance if the state gets the process wrong. Members also pressed DSS for broader outreach, clearer public communication, training, and better reporting on implementation impacts and costs. DSS said it is developing a website, webinars, and a communications plan, and is working with community-based organizations, community health workers, and administrative services organizations to reach potentially affected members. DSS said it is also building a Medicaid pre-screener to help people determine whether they may be subject to work requirements. In the PCMH Plus discussion, DSS said it was not yet ready to present the 2024 quality data but would try to bring the Wave 3, Year 5 results and related quality/shared savings information to the July 8 meeting, along with the regular PCMH update and another HR1 update. The committee also discussed future agenda items including community health worker reimbursement, peer support services, and the inmate medical program.

Transcript Highlights:

• SO ON THE NEXT FEW SLIDES WHAT I WANT TO DO IS SHARE WITH YOU A BIT OF THE DATA AND SOME OF THE GREAT
• OF THE YEAR WHAT WE CALL PMQ AND THEN THERE PROVIDING THESE DATA AT THE END OF THE YEAR WHAT WE CALL
• SO LET'S START HERE AS WE LOOK AT DATA BREAKING THIS DOWN.
• WE WOULD HAVE TO RUN DATA ON THAT TO DO SOME MORE ANALYSIS.
• WE AT THE APARTMENT FOCUS ON ANALYZING THE DATA DURING THE ONE ASSESSMENT.

Transcript Highlights:

• Public following when it becomes inactive, the data I would refer to the Data Practices Act in what it
• says about criminal investigative data.
• Inactive investigative data is classified as public; active investigative data is confidential.
• de-identified data to be shared.
• The data classification provisions are consistent with existing data classification of similar data reported

Bills: HF2354 , HF1672 , HF2389 , HF2870 , HF2743 , HF1918 , HF2551 , HF1671

Committee: House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law

Transcript Highlights:

• data do you depend on and where can we get that data quickly?
• Where can we get that data quickly?
• we don’t have good data, we’re not getting cooperation from agencies in terms of producing data, it’s
• So all that data is there.
• Can we request that data?

Summary: The joint Senate Public Safety and Transportation hearing focused on DUI, impaired driving, traffic violence, speed management, and how criminal and administrative systems interact. Chairs Jesse Arreguín and Dave Cortese said the hearing was intended to inform upcoming legislation and noted that no bills would be acted on that day. They emphasized the scale of roadway deaths and serious injuries, the need for a holistic Safe System approach, and the importance of hearing from law enforcement, researchers, victims’ advocates, judges, and DMV officials. The first panel reviewed current DUI law and research. Thomas Nozowitz of the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code outlined California’s DUI penalties, including escalating misdemeanor and felony consequences, ignition interlock device requirements, license suspensions, Watson advisories, and homicide-related offenses. Stephanie Doherty of the Office of Traffic Safety described statewide crash trends, the role of alcohol, drugs, speed, and vulnerable road users, and the state’s Safe System and safety corridor efforts. Dr. Julia Griswold of UC Berkeley presented research supporting systemic interventions such as self-explaining roads, safer speed limits, speed safety cameras, ignition interlocks, sobriety checkpoints, and treatment for chronic offenders; she also noted that many DUI fatalities involve first-time offenders and that punitive measures alone have limited effect on high-risk drivers. Members pressed witnesses on ignition interlocks, speed governors, DUI treatment, diversion, and whether current penalties are strong enough. Several senators, including Archuleta and Blakespear, argued for stronger immediate consequences and better use of in-car technology, while witnesses said chronic offenders often need treatment and that some existing programs may be underused or inconsistently effective. The discussion also touched on data gaps, the need to distinguish alcohol- from drug-involved crashes, and the possibility of allowing diversion for some first-time DUI cases while preserving consequences for repeat offenses. The second panel addressed DMV and court processes. DMV Director Steve Gordon said the department handles mandatory, court-ordered, and administrative actions, and that recent process changes have reduced DMV hearing delays from roughly 170 days to under 70 days in many cases. Judge Lisa Rodriguez explained that county-by-county court practices, case filing delays, sentencing timelines, and paper or mixed electronic systems can slow reporting to DMV, especially for misdemeanors and felonies. She said courts are reviewing reporting requirements, training, and case-management coding to improve transmission of DUI orders, while DMV said it is open to simplification and better coordination but is constrained by aging systems and the motor vehicle account’s financial limits. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is again 2023 data.
• Which data? VAERS data, the vaccine injury data. And you see that spike? Right.
• Which data? VERS data, the vaccine injury data. And you see that spike? Right.
• But the data, the numbers that I gave you guys, is the raw data from this year.
• , by the pharmacokinetic data, by the clinical data." "...is supported by the data, by the pharmacokinetic

Summary: The committee first approved the previous meeting minutes and then heard a detailed annual report from Dr. Thomas Arnold, chair of the Maternal Mortality Review Committee, on maternal mortality trends and policy issues. He explained the committee’s review process, confidentiality protections, and national and North Dakota data showing that most maternal deaths are preventable and that mental health conditions, substance use, cardiovascular issues, infection, hemorrhage, and embolism are the leading causes. Members asked about suicide, domestic violence, midwife training, home births, and whether pregnancy testing at death scenes should be expanded; Dr. Arnold said better coroner education, more investigation of unexplained deaths, and possible post-mortem pregnancy testing could improve case identification, especially in rural areas. He also noted that deaths often occur well after 42 days postpartum and that mental health-related deaths remain a major concern. The committee then heard from State Fire Marshal Dr. Matthew Clark on cigarette reduced-ignition-propensity standards and related fire prevention issues. He recommended updating the state’s cigarette propensity law to current national standards and also raised a separate recommendation to require fast-breakaway oxygen tubing for home oxygen users, citing fatal fires linked to smoking around oxygen. Members asked about implementation, cost, insurance coverage, and whether the standards apply in tribal communities; Dr. Clark said he would provide follow-up information and was willing to help with any legislation, but no agency bill had yet been planned. Next, Christine Greff of the Department of Health and Human Services reported on the North Dakota Stroke System of Care. She described the statewide network of stroke-ready hospitals, registry-based quality improvement, and performance data showing continued improvement in stroke recognition, imaging, thrombolytic treatment, transfers, and EMS pre-notification. She highlighted new quality measures for inter-facility transfers and intracerebral hemorrhage care, and said the system remains strong but depends on continued legislative and hospital support. Committee members asked about participation by the VA hospital and were encouraged to consider outreach to include it more fully in the stroke system. Finally, the committee began a presentation on prior authorization and non-opioid pain treatment from Taha Khan of Vertex Pharmaceuticals. He argued that prior authorization can delay access to non-opioid acute pain medications, especially in the 24- to 72-hour post-discharge window when pain is most severe, and said delays can push patients toward opioids. He emphasized that prior authorization has a role in utilization management but should not create barriers in acute pain care, and he noted that current use of the company’s non-opioid product remains very low. The discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.