Transcript Highlights:

• It's going to take a normal legislative process. And I'll even give you one more example.
• said about the bipartisan legislative said about the bipartisan legislative process<00:35:08.000
• to take a normal legislative process. to take a normal legislative process.
• regular legislative process to um come regular legislative process to um come up<00:38:11.920>
• legislative solutions come from legislative solutions come from deliberative<00:40:57.440> processes

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• PROCESS.
• RATIFICATION PROCESS.
• END OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION THERE IS CONFUSION REGARDING INITIATING THE RATIFICATION PROCESS.
• WE HAVE THE APPELLATE PROCESS.
• IT IS PART OF THE PROCESS FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE GETTING THROUGH THE PROCESS IF YOU HAVE A COMPLAINT

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I would, I guess, disagree with the process being the process since 1916.
• process now with the money Thank you. ...the process is playing out and who's able to access that process
• process.
• process.
• process does bring in.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a hearing on Initiative Petition 25-01, H.5-001, an act relative to election day registration. The co-chairs explained the Article 48 initiative process and noted that the committee must report on the petition to the legislature. The hearing focused on how election day registration differs from same-day registration, how it is used in other states, and what implementation would require in Massachusetts. Three expert witnesses testified in support of the concept. A Northeastern University political science professor said the research shows election day registration would likely increase turnout, especially among younger voters, renters, recent movers, and other underrepresented groups, while requiring planning, training, and funding. A National Conference of State Legislatures policy analyst described how election day and same-day registration work in other states, including proof-of-residency and ID requirements, provisional ballot options in some states, and the need for updated voter systems and staffing. An MIT election administration professor said the proposal is mainstream, likely popular with Massachusetts voters, and administratively workable if the state addresses workload, wait times, and system integration. Committee members asked about costs, residency documentation, use of Real ID, provisional ballots, rural polling places, and whether election day registration could increase lines or discourage advance registration. Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin and volunteer proponent Norma Shulman testified in favor of the petition. They argued that election day registration would help eligible voters who miss deadlines or move before an election, reduce reliance on provisional ballots, and improve participation. Galvin said the proposal includes a 10-day reconciliation period and would likely require additional staffing and possibly technology, but he viewed the reform as worth the cost and consistent with broader election reforms. Shulman said voters she encountered during the signature drive strongly supported the measure and viewed it as common sense. In questioning, Galvin said the measure would help voters who move within a community or arrive at the polls unregistered, and he said many provisional ballots are not counted because of eligibility or registration problems. Opponents from the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the Massachusetts Town Clerks Association argued that while expanding access is important, election day registration would add to already heavy workloads for local clerks, who are managing early voting, vote-by-mail processing, and election-day operations with limited staff and resources. They said any major election change should be developed through the traditional legislative process with direct input from local officials, and they urged caution until municipalities receive more administrative and financial relief. The hearing then moved into the public testimony section, beginning with a representative from Mass for Fair Elections.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a number of other processing plants that are growing in the process.
• process.
• that is similar to how some of our grant programs outside of the legislative appropriations process
• separate process?
• And obviously that legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• We typically have three rulemaking processes we follow.
• And there is a process that some cities, the city of Seattle, has a clear process of how you go through
• My understanding is there was a legislative direction.
• - or code-related legislation and give our input on it.”
• So I think that the legislative committee of the SBCC would be happy to meet with anybody on. legislative

Summary: The committee heard first from Ferndale city officials and a representative of FutureWise on annexation planning. Ferndale described its “annexation blueprint” or phased annexation plan as a way to tie urban growth area planning, capital facilities, and eventual annexation together earlier in the process. Speakers argued that counties often allow incremental development in urban growth areas without city-level standards, impact fees, or coordinated infrastructure planning, which can leave cities and taxpayers with higher future costs and make annexation less likely. Members raised questions about fire districts, county revenue loss, and whether annexation incentives or interlocal revenue-sharing agreements could help. FutureWise supported requiring annexation phasing in countywide planning policies, using pre-annexation agreements, and applying city standards in urban growth areas to make annexation more predictable and less contentious. The committee then received a primer and update from the State Building Code Council (SBCC). Staff explained the council’s composition, standing committees, technical advisory groups, and rulemaking process, including normal, expedited, and emergency rulemaking. They described the ongoing 2024 code cycle and the separate work underway on Senate Bill 5491 and related legislation concerning single-stair residential buildings and multiplex housing. Members discussed how the legislature can better direct the SBCC, the difference between prescriptive and performance-based code approaches, and the importance of involving technical experts early. The SBCC also addressed concerns about the wildfire urban interface code, noting that problems arose when code language and maps were developed on different timelines and applied to urban areas in ways that were not anticipated. Several members asked about regional differences, especially energy code impacts in eastern Washington and the role of natural gas. SBCC representatives said the council can use climate zones and appendices for some regional variation, but statewide statutory targets still constrain the energy code. They emphasized that the council is largely reactive to legislative direction and public proposals, and that clearer legislative intent would help avoid ambiguity in future code development. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• they do that process. they do that process.
• <00:14:26.959> we process on top of the new process we process on top of the new process we
• expedient legislation. expedient legislation.
• The motion on the floor is an expedient to legislate. >> The accreditation process, uh, a department
• . legislate. legislate.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• still maintained the bipartisan process still maintained the bipartisan process other<00:14:21.360
• can't probably take away legislators can't probably take away legislators ability<00:18:51.200><
• Of the grantees want to be legislatively named still because they don't trust the agency process
• from both parties, like the Legislative Audit Commission, and actually I think it should be the Legislative
• So you legislative audit commission.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House Fraud and State Agency Oversight Chair Kristen Robbins and Vice Chair Patti Anderson reviewed the committee’s first session, saying its work focused on exposing fraud, identifying gaps in statute and agency tools, and creating a public whistleblower portal (mnfraud.com). Robbins said the committee helped drive bipartisan opposition to legislatively named grants/earmarks, and that committee testimony from agencies, the Office of Legislative Auditor, and the Office of Grants Management led to late-session committee bills on issues such as a state kickback statute and required grants-management training. She also said the portal received 530 submissions in its first week, which the committee will review over the interim. Members emphasized the need for stronger statewide oversight of grants and fraud prevention. Anderson said existing agency inspector general structures have not worked well and described a bipartisan effort to create a statewide Office of Inspector General with full investigatory authority. Robbins said the Senate version was moving through finance and expected on the floor soon, with the governor indicating he would sign it. Walter Hudson argued that hearings showed agencies often focus on paperwork and compliance checkboxes rather than actually preventing fraud, citing conflict-of-interest attestations and the Feeding Our Future-related testimony as examples. Jim Nash said the state government finance bill includes funding for anti-fraud efforts through the Office of the Auditor and related provisions. In response to questions, Robbins said the committee tried to remain bipartisan despite a 5-3 Republican majority, and that members had handed significant allegations to law enforcement when appropriate. She said the committee did not need subpoena power this session because it is an oversight body, not a law-enforcement body. On legislatively named grants, Robbins said the goal is to change legislative culture rather than impose a formal ban, and she expects future policy to require front-end risk review, 990 review, and capacity checks before such grants are approved. Anderson added that the House and Senate versions of the inspector general bill differ on branch placement and law-enforcement authority, and that the House will decide whether to accept the Senate version once it comes back from finance and the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the Senate, we conduct the business of this legislative chamber through the committee process, and
• Let me speak briefly about my knowledge regarding public understanding of the legislative process, based
• And certainly as a legislator, I'm somebody that has a way of a thought process when it comes to passing
• Executive branch audits of the rules, processes, and procedures of the legislative branch have the potential
• to compromise the legislative branch's authority to determine its own structure, processes, and rules

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The subcommittee hearing focused on whether the Office of the State Auditor may constitutionally audit the Massachusetts Legislature under Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 and what such an audit could include under generally accepted government auditing standards. Chair Cindy Friedman opened by explaining the background: voters approved Ballot Question 1 in November 2024, the law took effect in January 2025, and the Auditor then initiated audits of both chambers. The chair said the subcommittee was seeking expert testimony because the proposed audit scope, constitutionality, and possible bias concerns remained unresolved. Public testimony was invited, but no members of the public pre-registered; written testimony remained open for a short period after the hearing. The hearing then proceeded with invited experts on constitutional law/state government and auditing-related issues. Professor Lawrence Friedman testified that the ballot initiative’s approval by the Attorney General and by voters did not resolve constitutional questions, and he argued Chapter 250 violates the Massachusetts Constitution. He said the Legislature has constitutional authority to set its own rules and manage its proceedings, and that an executive-branch audit would intrude on legislative deliberation, speech and debate protections, and separation of powers. He also warned that even audits of supposedly administrative matters could become a vehicle for repeated document demands and litigation that would indirectly burden legislative functioning. In questioning, senators pressed him on the line between administrative and deliberative functions, the role of the Attorney General versus the courts, the possibility of retroactive audit scope, and whether prior legislative consent to audits mattered; he said prior consent would not bind future legislatures and that constitutionality is ultimately for the courts. Professor Ray La Raja also opposed the audit, framing it as a threat to institutional independence and representative democracy. He argued that allowing an executive-branch official to audit the Legislature without consent would upset separation of powers, chill internal debate, and create a precedent for broader executive intrusion. He said voters often support “transparency” reforms without fully appreciating institutional consequences, and that legislatures should defend their autonomy, especially amid what he described as broader executive overreach nationally. Senators asked about chilling effects, the practical distinction between administrative and core legislative functions, and whether the courts or the Legislature should resolve the issue; he said the courts would ultimately adjudicate disputes, but the Legislature should not waive its constitutional authority lightly. Jean Kempthorne took the opposite view, arguing the audit is permissible and should proceed. She said the state auditor is a constitutional officer accountable directly to the people, that the audit power can be expanded by statute, and that separation of powers does not require watertight compartments. She contended the audit would not displace core legislative powers because the auditor can only evaluate operations, report findings, and make recommendations. She also argued the Legislature itself already conducts audits of other branches, so it is inconsistent to claim an audit of the Legislature is unconstitutional. In response to senators’ questions, she said there are guardrails against truly intrusive requests, but that the administrative-versus-legislative distinction is not a workable bright line; she suggested disputes should be handled case by case, with objections, negotiation, or litigation if specific requests go too far. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• AND THEN ON THIS ESSENTIALLY WE WILL GO TO THE RULEMAKING PROCESS AND WHEN WE DO FINISH THIS PROCESS
• WE GET APPLICATIONS AND WE PROCESS THEM.
• THAT IS A NUMBER THAT REPRESENTS ALL OF OUR APPLICATIONS IN ALL STAGES OF THE PROCESSING PROCESS. >>
• THE LICENSURE PROCESS IS A COMPETITIVE COMPARED TO PROCESS. THESE ARE ALL BOUND UP TOGETHER.
• NO ONE HAD A PROBLEM IN PROCESSING.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• pre payment review process. Thank you. pre payment review process. Thank you.
• the process changed during the pandemic. the process changed during the pandemic.
• there's a process that is required. there's a process that is required.
• . process. process.
• committee on rules and legislative committee on rules and legislative administration.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House first adopted non-controversial motions, then approved an urgency motion to suspend the rules so Senate File 4476, the human services program integrity package, could move quickly to conference committee before the end of session. The House then adopted a DE amendment to insert House language into the bill, and proceeded to debate several amendments focused on program integrity, fraud prevention, and reporting requirements in human services programs. Representative Schultz offered Amendment A5 to remove a sunset on the periodic data matching report requirement, arguing the report helps ensure only eligible people receive medical assistance and welfare benefits and should continue to be delivered annually. Supporters said the report had been inconsistently delivered, cited past findings of ineligible recipients, and framed the amendment as a low-cost accountability measure. Opponents, including Representative Nor, said the report had been sent to the chairs, that the issue should be handled through broader HR1-related changes and negotiations with the Senate, and that the amendment was not the right vehicle. After roll call, A5 failed on a 63-67 vote. Schultz then offered Amendment A6, which would require reporting on homelessness programs, including how many people are served, total costs, outcomes, and possible recoupment of funds if reporting is inadequate. Schultz said the state spends tens of millions on homelessness programs without clear results and that better data would help the legislature make decisions and protect taxpayers. Several members supported the idea of more accountability, while others said the state already receives reports, that homelessness work is being done in partnership with stakeholders, and that the amendment was not the best approach. The discussion continued with further comments on homelessness data and program oversight, but no final vote on A6 is shown in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• As a result, these legislative changes and as I guess... audit.
• As I will describe next, the payment process for school districts differed significantly from the process
• But if they were to continue with that process, if they were to continue with that process, it would
• Legislators can get an attorney general's opinion.
• So we want to make sure to cover that in the legislation.

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Committee on Pre-K-12 Education met for its first meeting of the 2025 session to hear the Auditor General’s operational audit on 2024-25 school funding accountability challenges, focused largely on the Family Empowerment Scholarship and its interaction with the FEFP. Deputy Auditor General Matthew Tracy described rapid growth in scholarship enrollment, timing mismatches between scholarship payments and public-school funding calculations, delayed membership survey processing, weak cross-check and recoupment procedures, inconsistent handling of parent survey responses, and limited documentation for withholding and returning funds. The audit said these issues contributed to funding inequities, duplicate-payment risks, and an unexpected draw on state education funds, and it recommended separating scholarship funding from the FEFP, aligning application windows with budget timing, strengthening controls and staffing, and creating clearer, documented recoupment and balance-limit processes. Committee members questioned whether current law gives the department and scholarship funding organizations enough authority and whether the system is effectively a pay-and-chase model. Several senators expressed concern about the lack of timely reconciliation, the size of the funds involved, and the absence of clear records showing how money was recovered or withheld. Adam Emerson, executive director of the Office of School Choice, said the department is working more closely with school districts and scholarship funding organizations, including pausing payments when districts identify students still enrolled in public schools, and said the office wants to improve the process. President Gates then previewed legislation he said would address the audit’s findings by funding Family Empowerment Scholarships as a separate FEFP categorical, expanding the Education Stabilization Fund, setting clearer application and acceptance deadlines, moving to monthly payments with eligibility verification before each payment, assigning student IDs for scholarship assistance, lowering SFO management fees, requiring annual audits, and requiring prompt return of audit-related funds. Public comment included a private-school attorney describing losses from unpaid scholarship amounts. Members generally supported the need for reform, with several senators saying the program should be preserved but better structured and more accountable. The committee adjourned after the discussion, with no vote taken on the legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• This, again, was legislatively ordered. We began this process.
• legislative session was preventing us from processing some of our revenue that was generated properly
• bank processing?
• We have, she talked about process.
• The application process... The application process does require only one form per household.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , democratic process, democratic process, can<00:03:34.720> do<00:03:34.879> so<00:
• It hosts tours, legislative complex.
• Our goal is a screening process public.
• But first, we're process looks like.
• experience be with this new process? experience be with this new process?

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson and State Patrol Colonel Christina Bogey announced that weapon screening will begin Tuesday at the Minnesota State Capitol at the start of the 2026 legislative session. They said the change is based on an independent security assessment and the Axtell report’s top recommendation, and framed it as an added layer of protection rather than a weapons ban or a change in state law. Both emphasized that the Capitol will remain open, accessible, and welcoming while reducing preventable risks, citing heightened threats to public officials and the recent murders and shootings involving Minnesota lawmakers and their families. Bogey outlined the screening plan: visitors will use four public access points, with the south ground-level entrance as the primary entry, while other exterior doors will not be open for public entry. She said the process should take only seconds for most people, with bags going through separate scanners and additional screening only if needed. The Capitol will close to the general public at 4:30 p.m. on weekdays, though accommodations will be made when hearings or floor sessions run later. She also said the entrances and screening areas are ADA accessible and that staff will be available to help guide visitors. In questions, officials said prohibited items are defined by statute and administrative rules and referred reporters to the State Patrol website for the full list. They confirmed that lawful permit-to-carry holders may still bring firearms, but must declare the permit, show government ID, and go through screening; elected officials are exempt, while staff are not. They also said the State Patrol will fund the rollout from its own budget, with costs to be evaluated over time, and that tunnel key-card access will be restricted to everyone. The briefing ended with a plan to demonstrate the screening equipment upstairs.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have processes already in place to deal with that.
• In addition to the legislation that the Legislative Council Service drafts, we also draft all the certificates
• that are then processed through the Chief Clerk's offices.
• LCS staff has been analyzing current processes and envisioning a more efficient future state of the process
• . modernize our processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• the legislative process, and those things should be borne out.
• process, you go through the legislative process, you go through the legislative process,<00:15:26.320
• I think the failure of the legislative process should not be a problem for the governor.
• Uh I think the failure of legislative Uh I think the failure of legislative process<00:20:48.559
• So I will bring you down that rabbit hole with me and I am committed to fixing the process. legislative

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 4252 and first heard a walkthrough of a DE2 amendment that largely incorporated Office of Higher Education technical and statutory cleanup items, including reporting consolidations, updates to postsecondary registration and licensing statutes, and an anti-fraud provision. New provisions in the DE2 would require public postsecondary institutions to explain developmental courses before enrollment and obtain a written acknowledgement, revise the state grant tuition cap, add a $1.5 million ongoing appropriation in FY 2027 for an identity verification system to combat enrollment fraud, and provide $5,000 one-time funding for reforestation at Bemidji State University. Fiscal staff also noted additional special revenue fund revenue and expenditures tied to licensing and registration litigation response. The main debate centered on the A8 amendment offered by Representative Rarick, which would require the governor to appoint University of Minnesota regents only from candidates recommended by the joint legislative committee if the legislature fails to elect regents. Rarick argued the amendment was needed to address what he described as conflicts of interest and pay-to-play concerns in recent gubernatorial appointments. Several members questioned whether the language was constitutional, whether it actually addressed conflicts of interest, and whether it should instead refer to ARCAC-screened or ARCAC-recommended candidates. Nonpartisan staff said the governor’s appointment power is addressed in the university charter, not directly in the constitution, but could not definitively assess constitutionality if challenged. Members were divided: some supported the goal of cleaner governance but said the amendment was not ready or did not match the problem being described; others argued the legislature had failed to complete its own regent appointments and that the amendment was a response to that failure. No vote on the A8 amendment or the bill was reached in the portion provided, though a roll call was requested on the amendment and the chair indicated the bill would continue through amendment consideration before final discussion and vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Non-legislative options to mandates.
• process.
• , to Legislative Management and the Legislative Assembly.
• So a committee of the Legislative Assembly, again, once in session, cannot act on a legislative measure
• piece of legislation doesn't meet the definition of, Piece of legislation doesn't meet the definition

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:

• Is it good practice to keep a larger proportion of legislators who will then be implementing the legislation
• Is it good practice to keep a larger proportion of legislators who will then be implementing the legislation
• , non-legislators.
• The legislative process will be receiving a lot of attention in those areas, but Representative Christensen
• As part of the hearing process.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then in the legislative session, you all as legislators pretty much decide which one of those you
• In that same process, Mr.
• Process.
• And so that process has started again.
• Do you go through that same process?

Transcript Highlights:

• this process. And you say it's 5%. this process.
• process and then we were asked to extend process and then we were asked to extend it<00:13:54.639>
• Everything we do is we try to make it better for the legislators and easier for the legislators.
• legislative members? legislative members?
• <00:24:54.320> A against a setting legislator. A against a setting legislator.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first established a quorum, approved the minutes from the November 10 meeting, and then approved a large agenda of contracts and related items, with the total agenda amount stated as $359,638,393.88. Most items were approved without objection, but two contracts were pulled for discussion: attorney general panel counsel contingency fee contracts and a Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission personal services contract. For the attorney general’s office, Chris Lewis explained that the contracts were panel counsel contingency fee agreements, with 14 qualified awards from 16 applicants. He said the contracts were contingency-based, so no money would be paid unless cases were successful, and that the fee structure worked out to roughly 5% under the statutory waterfall. Senators asked about the size of the contracts, whether the terms were uniform, why no Kentucky firms were among the awardees, and how the public should understand the large dollar figures. Lewis said one Kentucky firm applied but was disqualified for a late submission, other Kentucky firms had inquired but did not apply, and local firms could still work with national firms on cases. The committee then approved the contracts. The Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission contract drew more extensive questioning. Commission representatives said they had previously had a contract disapproved because the proper process was not followed, so they used an RFI process posted on the state and commission websites for at least three weeks. They received one applicant, a Kentucky firm, and set the rate at $125 per hour. Members questioned whether the commission was acting beyond its ethics mission, whether staff were helping draft complaints against legislators, and whether the commission was taking on a prosecutorial or human-resources role. The commission said its role is limited to enforcing the legislative code of ethics, providing advisory guidance, and following the formal complaint process; it does not pursue matters outside that code. Members also raised concerns about the earlier procurement misstep and the commission’s credibility, and the commission apologized, said it had corrected the process, and pledged to comply going forward. The committee then approved the contract.

Transcript Highlights:

• The intent of this legislation is to ensure that the existing rate-setting process works and provides
• This legislation creates a simple process. Providers submit an action.
• This legislation creates a simple process. Providers submit an action.
• This legislation creates a simple process.
• This legislation would clarify the rate-setting processes for home health and home care services.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing focused on two broad sets of issues: home- and community-based care, and school-based Medicaid reimbursement. In the morning session, legislators and advocates testified on bills affecting children and disabled enrollees, including proposals to clarify rate-setting for home health and home care services (H. 767/S. 870), allow family members and spouses to be paid caregivers under MassHealth (H. 1394/S. 886 and related bills), extend MassHealth coverage for applied behavior analysis and other therapies beyond age 21 for adults with autism and developmental disabilities (H. 1351/S. 871), and protect medically fragile children by improving access to continuous skilled nursing. In the later portion of the hearing, testimony shifted to a bill to improve MassHealth reimbursement for schools (S. 862), with speakers describing the school mental health crisis and the need to reinvest Medicaid funds directly into school health services. Witnesses on the home care rate-setting bill said current reimbursement methods are opaque and outdated, contributing to workforce shortages, unfilled shifts, long waitlists, and patients remaining in hospitals longer than necessary. Home care providers and trade groups argued the bill would not set rates directly but would require more transparent methodology and fuller consideration of real costs such as wages, benefits, taxes, training, and technology. On caregiver bills, many family members and provider organizations described the financial and emotional strain of caring for disabled or medically fragile relatives, especially when parents, spouses, or guardians are barred from being paid caregivers. They argued the bills would recognize existing unpaid care, help families remain at home, and reduce reliance on more expensive institutional care. Advocates for adult ABA coverage said services remain medically necessary after age 21 and that ending coverage at that age creates an inequitable “cliff” for MassHealth members compared with those with private insurance. For the PACE/community care bill, elder law attorneys and PACE advocates said current MassHealth income rules force some older adults with modestly higher incomes to spend down to $542 per month, making community living unrealistic and pushing people toward nursing homes. They supported changing the eligibility structure to a premium-based approach that would allow more people to remain in the community. On the school Medicaid bill, advocates said schools are providing effective, preventive mental health care, but reimbursement currently flows to municipalities rather than directly back to school health budgets, limiting districts’ ability to hire and retain staff. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee heard testimony and several witnesses requested favorable reports on the bills.