Transcript Highlights:

• And you know right now we're paying for all students whether you qualify or not.
• It says school districts must pay at least, which is why we actually have some districts who are paying
• It would set a floor and would still allow districts potentially to pay more.
• We do not require that these programs pay for benefits.
• the undergrads. by what you're raising what you're paying the post-bachelors.

Transcript Highlights:

• I had my own way to pay my bills and pay the mortgage. Now it is challenging.
• I just had my own, like, you know, to pay my bills and pay the mortgage.
• Like many other providers, I pay my assistants wages, even though I can't afford to pay myself.
• I want my tax because I pay more taxes than some of our city leaders, right? I pay more taxes.
• I pay more taxes than some of our city leaders, right? I pay more taxes, sadly, but that's true.

Summary: The hearing focused first on how wildfires and other disasters affect child care providers, families, and early education infrastructure. State officials from the Department of Social Services and Department of Education described disaster response and preparedness efforts, including shelter coordination, licensing outreach, emergency waivers, distribution of supplies, and the statewide child care disaster plan. Testimony from providers and advocates emphasized major gaps in recovery funding, insurance coverage, rebuilding support, mental health services, and coordination with local rebuild plans. Several witnesses urged more dedicated disaster-recovery funding for child care facilities and suggested statutory changes, including allowing greater flexibility for rebuilding costs and requiring early childhood programs to be included in local disaster planning. The second panel addressed immigration enforcement and its impact on child care. Advocates from the Children's Partnership, Every Child California, and CHIRLA said enforcement activity is causing families to keep children home, disrupting continuity of care, reducing enrollment, and creating fear and trauma for children and providers. They argued that immigrant and mixed-status families need clearer protections, privacy safeguards, legal support, trauma-informed guidance, and safe-haven policies for child care settings. Speakers also stressed that the child care workforce is heavily immigrant and that recent state laws such as AB 49 and AB 495 will require funding, training, and technical assistance to implement effectively. Public commenters, including child care providers, described personal experiences with fire damage, displacement, permit delays, lost income, and the emotional toll of serving families during crises. Others described how immigration enforcement has made parents afraid to attend events, drop off children, or remain connected to providers. Committee members repeatedly noted that child care is often overlooked in emergencies and asked state officials how child care systems are being integrated into disaster planning and how local and state agencies can better coordinate. No formal votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We can cut taxes on overtime pay and tips. We can give our seniors a break.
• off debt, or put food on the table, or pay the utility bill.
• To pay for ongoing investments, I am proposing one key action: make data centers pay their fair share
• We've launched a war on the cost of housing, and it's starting to pay off.
• A war on the cost of housing, and it's starting to pay off.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The transcript is the opening joint session of the Arizona Legislature’s 57th Second Regular Session, featuring remarks from House and Senate leaders and Governor Katie Hobbs. House and Senate leaders emphasized a conservative governing agenda focused on affordability, public safety, parental rights, accountability, school choice, election integrity, and water policy, while also highlighting plans for tax cuts and cooperation across chambers. Governor Hobbs centered her address on the “Arizona promise,” stressing affordability, security, and freedom. She highlighted prior actions on job growth, medical debt relief, housing, public safety, border security, water management, and economic development, and announced new proposals including a middle-class tax cut package, a capacity and efficiency initiative to save state funds, a new active management area for La Paz County, a Colorado River Protection Fund, elimination of the data center tax exemption, a housing acceleration fund, and an Arizona Affordability Fund funded in part by a short-term rental fee. She also called for more accountability in the ESA program and for renewing Prop. 123 to support public schools. The governor and legislative leaders also addressed political violence, honoring retiring Senator Lela Alston and recognizing public safety and firefighting personnel. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken in the session; it concluded with the joint session being dissolved after the governor’s remarks.

Transcript Highlights:

• To date, the agency has spent approximately $21.9 million of the fund to pay for their contract costs
• This is for rate paying for both electric and water.
• Generally, in other states, staff pay is based on the executive director's pay.
• Do we want Oklahoma to pay their folks more than we do? I'll leave that there for you to consider.
• Overwhelming workload and comparatively low pay, why does our staff stay?

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The real betrayal is to the working people in this country Who will pay the price so billionaires pay
• I can't go—if I miss work, I'll miss pay, and I can't afford to miss the pay.
• How will we pay for it?
• HOW WILL WE PAY FOR IT?
• And the American people are paying attention. The American people are paying attention.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, May 21, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• pay 35% of our income in health insurance.
• pay 35% of our income in health insurance.
• We pay 3.5% of our income in car insurance, whereas we pay 35% of our income in health insurance.
• I pay a lot more.
• Many said to me, 'I already pay for insurance. Why should I also pay you?' Thank you.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing with testimony on several health care bills, with most of the discussion focused on primary care access, community health center reimbursement, midwifery and birth centers, telehealth, hospital-at-home, direct primary care, and trans-inclusive health care access. Chair Feeney and Chair Murphy opened by noting the large number of signups and asking testifiers to keep remarks brief because of time constraints. Legislators and witnesses repeatedly emphasized that Massachusetts’ primary care system is under strain and that federal policy changes and reimbursement gaps are worsening financial pressure on providers. On community health centers, Representative Blay, Senator Lovely, Michael Curry, Bethany Keeley, Jag Deep Trevetti, Sean Cahill, and Christina Severin all supported H. 1096/S. 711, which would require commercial insurers to pay federally qualified health centers at least the MassHealth prospective payment system rate. They argued that commercial plans currently reimburse health centers below Medicaid rates, threatening sustainability, staffing, and access, especially as federal cuts and coverage losses could increase uncompensated care. Testifiers said the bill would stabilize health centers, protect primary care access, and not cost the state money. A second major topic was H. 1117/S. 784 on sustaining birth centers and the midwifery workforce. Senator Lovely, Senator Miranda, Emily Anesta, Rebecca Orden, Catherine Rushworth, Nishira Burrill, Joel Sutherland, Rachel Blessington, Joelle Ward, and others described the 2024 maternal health omnibus as an important first step, but said birth centers and midwives still face low reimbursement, workforce shortages, and financial instability. They urged reimbursement parity, a workforce development fund, and support for freestanding birth centers, citing improved outcomes, lower C-section rates, better patient experience, and racial equity in maternal health. Several speakers shared personal birth stories and said the bill would help preserve and expand birth options in communities like Roxbury, Worcester, and the North Shore. The committee also heard support for H. 1343 on direct primary care from Dr. Garofalo, Dr. Altman, Dr. Nair, Stephanie Cameron, Dr. Haley Moke-Blessed, and others, who said current insurance rules force patients to use a separate in-network primary care doctor for referrals and sometimes prevent physicians from dispensing medications. They argued the bill would reduce delays, administrative burden, and costs while improving continuity of care. In addition, Dr. Miklides and Sue Stempeck supported H. 1141 on hospital-at-home parity, saying the model has strong outcomes and should be reimbursed at the same rate as brick-and-mortar hospital care. Heather Myers and Katrina Cook testified on telehealth and digital health equity, urging broader coverage for asynchronous care, remote monitoring, interpreter services, and digital literacy supports. SEIU Local 509 supported H. 1188/S. 681 on trans-inclusive health care access, saying it would remove arbitrary insurance barriers to gender-affirming care. No votes or committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• If the school district was wrong, the school district pays. If the state was wrong, the state pays.
• And if they win, they pay nothing. If they lose, they pay $50. Under current law, yes.
• The district does not pay; the state pays.
• If the district is right, you don't pay. If the state is right, the school district. District pays.
• So that's... so the state would only pay for the state-created test? They pay for those tests.

Bills: HB8, HB12, SB 3, HJR1, SB 11, SB 16, SB 14, HB 8, HB 12, SB 3, HJR 1, SB 11, SB 16, SB 14

Keywords: HB 8, Texas public school accountability, school accountability, public school transparency, STAAR, state assessments, instructionally supportive assessment program, Student Success Tool, Texas Education Agency, TEA, accountability ratings, A-F ratings, through-year assessment, benchmark testing, norm-referenced assessment, college career military readiness, CCMR, local accountability plan, school district performance, campus turnaround

Transcript Highlights:

• All they have to do is go back and pay the claim that they would have had to pay to begin with.
• Yeah. ...committing fraud that they must pay back the claim. Yeah.
• All this bill does is it says if they're paying, they don't have to stop paying.
• And if they stop paying, then you force the suit, and then the employer's out.
• This allows them to keep paying without denying benefits.

Bills: SR145, SR146, SR147, SR148, SCR78, SCR12, HB302, HB221, HCR58, HB59, HB89, HB153, HB243, HB335, HB342, HB350, HB407, HB451, HB513, HB595, HB682, HB688, HB690, HB730, HB762, HB802, HB816, HB940, HB944, HB1003, HB1011, HB1029, HB1053, HB1058, HB1062, HB1064, HB1079, HB1084, HB1098, HB1161, HB1189, HB1203, HB1215, HB1247, HB1248, HB1251, HB1253, HB1257, HB1258, SCR3, SB393, SB401, SB415, SB426, SB435, SB487, SB488, SB523, SB56, SB163, SB341, SB504, SB322, SR125, SCR54, SCR59, SCR9, SCR58, SB35, SB65, SB215, SB246, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, SB514, HCR27, HCR28, HCR66, HCR67, HCR72, HCR5, HCR32, HCR49, HCR50, HCR53, HCR60, HCR62, HCR64, HCR68, HCR78, HCR81, HCR86, HCR97, HCR102, HCR31, HCR47, HCR3, HB1095, HB1096, HB1103, HB1129, HB1154, HB1166, HB1195, HB1230, HB316, HB511, HB799, HB1039, HB12, HB66, HB145, HB167, HB196, HB213, HB218, HB222, HB256, HB291, HB326, HB352, HB401, HB430, HB433, HB434, HB448, HB456, HB476, HB481, HB487, HB492, HB549, HB579, HB608, HB621, HB624, HB626, HB632, HB637, HB656, HB722, HB745, HB804, HB818, HB821, HB833, HB864, HB867, HB874, HB893, HB909, HB951, HB968, HB969, HB978, HB979, HB988, HB989, HB1001, HB1005, HB1007, HB1024, HB1032, HB1038, HB1050, HB1051, HB1056, HB1059, HB1077, HB1080, HB1081, HB1086, HB1108, HB1112, HB1153, HB1172, HB1173, HB1175, HB1192, HB1193, HB1204, HB1218, HB1242, HB1244, HB1249, HB1252, HB1254, HB1, HB2, HB3, HB42, HB45, HB71, HB79, HB158, HB160, HB169, HB227, HB251, HB289, HB312, HB313, HB314, HB330, HB383, HB394, HB410, HB429, HB769, HB971, HB983, HB1017, HB1126, HB1234, HB1235, HB17, HB27, HB36, HB41, HB47, HB73, HB126, HB133, HB140, HB159, HB166, HB205, HB211, HB226, HB259, HB271, HB308, HB310, HB324, HB337, HB351, HB399, HB403, HB571, HB712, HB723, HB726, HB740, HB750, HB759, HB812, HB844, HB966, HB1006, HB1009, HB1018, HB1036, HB1107, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB78, SB208, SB217, SB274, SB300, SB379, SB382, SB387, SB441, SB449, HB74, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB468, HB956, HB1117, SB149

Keywords: critical infrastructure, foreign adversaries, homeland security, task force, Louisiana Senate, military bases, oil and gas, refining facilities, energy generation, industrial manufacturing, agriculture, food supply, biosecurity, agroterrorism, Chinese Communist Party, People's Republic of China, Russia, Russian government, FBI, Secret Service

Summary: The Senate met with a quorum, received a Memorial Day guest minister introduction and prayer, and then moved through journal and legislative bureau matters. The chamber adopted or advanced several Senate resolutions, including SR 149 directing DOTD to study hazards from increased Norfolk Southern rail activity at the Alabo Street Wharf, SR 153 commending a Miss St. Tammany Parish Fair Queen, SR 154 asking LDH to study the in-home skilled nursing market, and SR 145 recreating the task force on protecting Louisiana critical infrastructure from foreign adversaries. It also adopted SCR 78 designating Bonfuca Museum and Research Center Day at the Capitol, and later adopted SCR 54 and SCR 59 memorializing Congress on the Mississippi River Basin Fishery Commission and Comite River Diversion Canal flood-risk map review, respectively. The Senate also considered a large number of House bills and Senate bills on concurrence or final passage, with most passing overwhelmingly. Topics included education and school policy, health care, criminal justice, natural resources, transportation, insurance, and local government. Among the measures discussed were bills on adolescent literacy, vocational training in graduation plans, special education due process, school crisis plans, autism therapy accommodations during the school day, Medicaid dental coverage, workers’ compensation procedures, prior authorization for certain generic drugs, boiler inspection authority, money transmission licensing, and alternative power sources for nursing facilities. Several bills drew brief explanations from sponsors about technical corrections or policy clarifications, while a few were returned to the calendar or recommitted to committee. A few measures prompted more substantial debate. Senate Bill 456 on workers’ compensation generated extended discussion over whether employers should be allowed to file actions to investigate questionable claims without first cutting off benefits; supporters framed it as a transparency measure, while opponents argued it would increase litigation and disadvantage injured workers. The bill ultimately passed 20-17. Senate Bill 401 on the Prescription Drug Affordability Board had House amendments rejected, and Senate Bill 487 on charitable gaming premises rental agreements also had House amendments rejected. Other bills, including SB 393, SB 415, SB 426, SB 435, SB 488, SB 523, and SB 163, had House amendments concurred in, while HB 1095, HB 1103, HB 1129, HB 1166, HB 1195, HB 220, HB 316, HB 511, HB 799, HB 12, HB 66, HB 145, HB 167, HB 196, HB 213, HB 218, HB 222, HB 256, HB 291, HB 326, HB 352, HB 430, HB 433, HB 434, HB 448, HB 456, and HB 1039 were among the House bills finally passed, many by wide margins.

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, you'll remember if I'm a local government and I issue bonds, I pay principal and I also pay interest
• They'll pay whatever their rate is.
• You know, if you're in a higher income tax bracket, you're going to pay.
• It'll be treated like ordinary income, and you'll pay whatever rate on that income that you would pay
• Same as you'll pay on any other type of income, including interest income.

Transcript Highlights:

• - they're making tons of sales in the United States and paying no taxes here.
• Every dollar of profit was earned offshore, and they're not paying it.
• They pay no tax. It's ridiculous. Hedge fund guys are getting away with murder.
• They have to pay taxes.
• to control their air pollution, but that which we do pay.

Keywords: Commerce, International Trade, Tax Policy, Nominees, Inflation, Middle-class, Trade Practices, Economic Concerns

Summary: The committee convened to discuss various bills and nominees, including the critical nominations of William Kimmett for Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade and Ken Keyes for Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the Treasury Department. Discussions highlighted the nominees' roles in managing critical trade and tax policies amidst rising economic concerns, particularly focusing on inflation and its impact on American families. Members expressed both support and skepticism, emphasizing the significance of fostering fair trade practices and ensuring tax policies that benefit the middle-class amidst claims of an agenda favoring affluent individuals and corporations.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we house it, we pay for our own instructors, they're our staff, and so we're paying for all of that
• Now we pay ABC a discounted rate; they give us a discounted rate because we're paying for our own instructors
• So we're, we house it, we pay for our own instructors, they're our staff, and so we're paying for all
• Now we pay ABC, a discounted rate; they give us a discounted rate because we're paying for our own instructors
• Like, we pay 100% of the fees for our students to go through the program.

Summary: The Careers and Workforce Subcommittee met to discuss apprenticeship education and workforce development, with panelists from Santa Fe College, the Florida Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association, ABC East Coast/ABC Institute, and Piper Fire Protection. Members heard that apprenticeships are growing in Florida, with panelists emphasizing that these programs offer paid, tuition-free training, progressive wage increases, and strong job placement in high-demand fields such as HVAC, electrical, fire protection, and construction. Panelists also described efforts to expand into new areas like accounting, cybersecurity, network infrastructure, and surgical technology, while stressing the importance of aligning programs with employer demand. A major topic was funding and reimbursement. Panelists said the current model is complicated and often leaves providers with only a portion of the funds appropriated for apprentices, with one provider saying reimbursement can be as low as 44% and others describing caps, contract delays, and inconsistent CareerSource support. They argued that more of the money should reach training providers, that small businesses need more support to participate, and that transparency and contract reform could help expand enrollment and improve program quality. Several also raised barriers such as instructor approval rules, paperwork, and facility costs. Members asked about admission criteria, program costs, employer incentives, outreach to high school students, and whether apprenticeships should have greater access to other funding sources. Panelists said the main requirements are being employed and willing to work and learn, and that outreach through schools, career fairs, community partnerships, and public awareness campaigns is essential. They also discussed articulation agreements that can provide college credit for apprenticeship training and suggested statewide credit recognition and possible direct funding to providers as policy improvements. No votes were taken, and the meeting ended with the subcommittee adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:50:26.359> us the feds opt to pay us the feds opt to pay us 80%<00:50:28.119> or
• contribute towards effectively paying contribute towards effectively paying the<01:11:14.679>
• <01:13:12.280> them $100 we would pay them $100 we would pay them $50<01:13:14.239> and
• question but regarding private pay question but regarding private pay insurers<01:27:25.800>
• And so we're going to pay them now.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Finance Division III held an informational hearing on Medicaid, Medicare, Choices for Independence, and related financing, while postponing nursing facility financing and the county cap discussion to a later date. DHHS officials Ann Landry, Jonathan Ballard, and Medicaid Director Henry Litman provided an overview of Medicaid’s role, noting it is a federal-state partnership with state-specific eligibility and benefits, and emphasizing that Medicaid is a major funding and programmatic support for other DHHS initiatives. They also distinguished Medicaid from Medicare and explained that Medicaid funding is not the same as grant funding, though some providers may also receive federal grants through other channels. The presentation focused on New Hampshire’s relatively small Medicaid program and why it differs from national averages. Officials said about 184,000 residents are covered, roughly one in seven Granite Staters compared with one in five nationally, and attributed the difference largely to the state’s higher per-capita income and older population. They highlighted that about 65% of Medicaid-enrolled adults in New Hampshire are working, that only 22% of births are covered by Medicaid versus 42% nationally, and that the state’s uninsured rate is lower than the national rate. Members asked about covered services, income limits, federal matching rates, and the names of optional eligibility groups; staff explained that New Hampshire offers the optional groups discussed, with matching rates varying by category, including 90% for Granite Advantage and certain other groups, and 65% for children above the required level. A substantial portion of the hearing covered eligibility rules and recent policy changes. Officials reviewed the history of Medicaid, including HCBS waivers, the CFI program, Katie Beckett, the Olmstead decision, the ACA, and the end of continuous enrollment after the public health emergency. They also discussed the 2023 legislative expansion of postpartum coverage from 60 days to 12 months and child eligibility changes. In response to questions, DHHS said it is tracking utilization and costs for the postpartum expansion and reported that many maternal deaths occur after the prior 60-day coverage period, often involving substance use disorder or suicide; they said the longer coverage is intended to improve access to treatment and prevention. The committee also walked through household-income examples, clarified that Medicaid eligibility is based on household income and categorical rules, and confirmed that Granite Advantage ends at 138% of the federal poverty level unless another categorical basis applies. No votes were taken, and the hearing remained informational.

Transcript Highlights:

• Per our statute, the employers pay the PHIP contribution from the same source of funding as they pay
• of what we had to pay per member. of what we had to pay per member.
• We don't pay everybody pretty much what they pay in other states.
• We don't pay everybody pretty much what they pay in other states.
• We don't pay everybody pretty much what they pay in other states.

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:10:21.680> I'm<00:10:22.000> paying<00:10:22.320> this will pay for that
• I'm paying this will pay for that.
• will pay X amount for those services. will pay X amount for those services.
• <00:10:54.640> It's<00:10:54.880> much about um paying for services.
• It's much about um paying for services.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• it's trying to uh still achieve paying it's trying to uh still achieve paying for<01:18:51.600><
• uh with with paying U paying money to uh with with one<02:36:28.120> year<02:36:28.279> in
• the Statewide average the which now pay the Statewide average the pay<03:54:44.000> pay<03:54
• :44.199> the pay pay the pay pay the Statewide<03:54:45.840> uh<03:54:46.000> education
• the value that's available for paying the value that's available for paying for<05:27:25.718>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on HB 563, which would revise the education funding formula for pupils receiving special education services by replacing the current single special education amount with three differentiated categories. Representative Rick Ladd, the prime sponsor, said the bill largely tracks a House-passed version from the prior session with minor figure adjustments, and explained that the proposal uses projected FY26 amounts for three categories based on time in general education versus more intensive placements. He also noted that the bill does not address catastrophic aid directly, but that special education aid, CAT aid, and proration all remain issues for later work sessions. Ladd and supporters argued that weighted categories better reflect actual costs and are more sustainable than treating all IEPs the same. Representative Margaret Drye said the approach was one of the best ideas from the education funding subcommittee and urged the committee to support differentiated aid. Representative Ames asked how the category amounts were derived, and Ladd said Category A follows the FY26 base, Category B is a higher weight, and Category C is a still higher weight for more intensive services, though he acknowledged the exact multipliers were developed earlier and could be revisited. He also said the committee would continue discussing whether the weights are appropriate and how they interact with CAT aid. Testimony from Bonnie Dunham strongly opposed the bill. She argued that funding based on placement rather than actual service need would create incentives to move students into more restrictive settings, could stigmatize children with labels such as "Category C," and would undermine the least restrictive environment requirements under federal special education law. She described her son’s experience in inclusive settings as beneficial and said the bill would have penalized the district for serving him there. In response to questions, she said schools and parents should base funding on the child’s actual needs and costs, not on placement, and urged the committee to recommend the bill inexpedient to legislate.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:20:47.440> a And what's missing for me is we pay a And what's missing for me is we pay
• >> What are we paying for, and what are we actually paying for it? And who's paying what?
• paying for it? paying for it?
• And And the And who's paying what?
• So, we we cannot dictate what they pay. So, we we cannot dictate what they pay.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board met on January 12, 2026, to approve the December 10, 2025 minutes and continue finalizing its findings and recommendations. Members reviewed findings on administrative inefficiencies, Medicaid and workforce participation under HR 1, Medicaid budget growth, rural health transformation fund development, and provider tax/state-directed payment changes. The board approved a motion to change “pilot” to “partnership” in the workforce-related recommendation, and also adopted a technical amendment clarifying overlapping HCBS services by removing reference to adult daycare waiver services and revising the language to focus on reducing duplication, simplifying provider contracting, and standardizing processes across programs. A separate technical correction was noted to change “DMS” to “DPH” in the rural health transformation finding, to be handled in the final edits. Several findings drew discussion but no final substantive vote during the meeting. On the rural health transformation fund, Dr. Berg said Kentucky had done well in federal funding and noted limits on what could be shared publicly, while Commissioner Lee said a public website had been created and recommended the department reference be changed to the Department for Public Health. Finding five prompted extended discussion about provider taxes, state-directed payment reductions under HR 1, and whether the board should address the relationship between actuarial studies, MCO payments, and actual provider reimbursement more directly. Senator Meredith and others argued for a broader, more transparent baseline review of rates across provider groups, while Commissioner Lee said CMS will require certain fee schedule comparisons to Medicare beginning July 1, 2026, and that quarterly expenditure reports already go to LRC. The board did not finish resolving finding five during the meeting and agreed to return to it after staff prepared more explicit language. Members also discussed the possibility of an all-payers claims database as a better way to understand what is being paid across payers and services. No final vote on the full findings package was taken in the portion of the meeting provided, but the board did adopt the noted amendments and continued working through the remaining language.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we've got to look at better ways to pay these young people to pay off this immense student loan
• issue when we were talking about what is the right level of pay, you know, what do you need to pay somebody
• It's not pay per se. That's part of it.
• Um, it's not just a pay issue.
• The city or the county pays the the settlement.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. ...and making them pay for a public service and no one else has to pay for.
• public service and no one else has to pay for.
• When you take a look at who pays, it's not just the taxpayer that's paying.
• When you take a look at who pays, it's not just the taxpayer that's paying.
• When you take a look at who pays, it's not just the taxpayer that's paying.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• He knew it would be a pay cut.
• So in fairness, we pay up to 10 students. We pay per student.
• So we... and we have the cap on there so we're not paying any if they have 60 students, we're not paying
• Everybody pays the same, or subsidized, unsubsidized.
• So several years ago the state stopped paying for that.

Summary: The committee met at North Dakota State College of Science for a presentation from President Flanagan and campus leaders on the college’s mission, enrollment growth, workforce programs, facilities needs, and industry partnerships. Flanagan highlighted student success in national competitions, strong placement and retention, the college’s strategic plan, and new or expanding programs such as aviation maintenance, fire science, dental hygiene, community health worker, surgical technology, HVAC/plumbing, and precision agriculture. He also described the need for a new dorm and a remodel of the library into academic and allied health space, including a simulation center, to address capacity limits and support growth. Several committee members asked about program demand, faculty recruitment, pay competitiveness, and how the college shifts resources from lower-demand programs to high-demand ones. Industry partner Jim Albright of Comdell testified that the college has been essential to the local manufacturing workforce and that many employees and interns come from NDSCS. A major topic was dual credit. Flanagan said dual credit is important but financially challenging, noting that only a small share of dual credit students ultimately matriculate to NDSCS and that the college’s dual credit model is close to break-even. He explained that many dual credit credits are general education rather than CTE, and that the college pays instructors, supports high schools, and absorbs indirect costs. Williston State College President Bernal Herning added that his institution loses money on the front end but has shifted toward helping students complete associate degrees before high school graduation because many go directly to work after high school. Committee members questioned how dual credit is delivered, how instructors are qualified, and whether students are truly doing college-level work. The committee then received a University System presentation from Jamie Wilkie on the cost of delivering dual credit statewide. Wilkie explained the methodology used to allocate direct and overhead costs and said the analysis shows dual credit is not profitable at several institutions once tuition, instructor payments, and overhead are included. Members asked how much of the cost is borne by students, families, and the state, and whether K-12 funding should also be considered. Discussion also covered the difference between subsidized and unsubsidized dual credit, payments to high school teachers or schools, and the possibility of waiving tuition in the future. No votes were taken, and the committee mainly gathered information for the ongoing dual credit cost study.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we're already paying uh $21,821.
• increasingly being told we need to pay increasingly being told we need to pay for<00:16:22.399><
• a gas tax of 31.8 cents a gallon, paying a gas tax of 31.8 cents a gallon, would<00:34:19.280> pay
• only pay only pay $113<00:34:31.119> in<00:34:31.440> gas<00:34:31.679> tax.
• <00:34:39.040> about8 miles a year, uh would only pay about8 miles a year, uh would only pay

Bills: HF2438

Keywords: transportation finance, transportation policy, MnDOT, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Department of Public Safety, Metropolitan Council, highway funding, trunk highway fund, county state-aid highway fund, municipal state-aid street fund, state aid roads, local roads, bridge funding, road construction, transit funding, passenger rail, freight rail, aviation, airport development, safe routes to school