Transcript Highlights:

• Program 342, Institutional Programs, Program Administration. 755 I A 578 258 697.5 FTE 716,929,758 16,920,467
• Adult financial programs, 36.9 FTE. Program Administration, 36.9 FTE, for cash assistance programs.
• Programs.
• </c> of Youth Services Institutional Programs of Youth Services Institutional Programs Program<02:04:
• Program costs, 15; 4.0 FTE. Program costs, 15; 4.0 FTE.

Transcript Highlights:

• Essentially, what this fund is set aside for is a program that we passed off this body last year.
• These buildings have been mapped, and that's what this money is for; it's for that program to make...
• We had a program called Rave at one point... You're recognized for clarification. Thank you, Mr.
• We're still using the Rave program. Okay, and we have moved the implementation of that over to DPS.
• The Joint Committee Report on Senate Bill 1167 does provide for Oklahoma's Pay for Success program.

Bills: SB1365 , SB2139 , SB1595 , SB1303 , SB2180 , SB2072 , SB1772 , SB1209 , SB137 , SB1944 , SB372 , SB1636 , SB1256 , SB1827 , SB2104 , SB1226 , SB1876 , SB1966 , SB80 , SB1148 , SB1147 , SB1149 , SB1161 , SB1162 , SB1164 , SB1159 , SB1165 , SB1174 , SB1156 , SB1158 , SB1163 , SB1175 , SB1176 , SB1166 , SB1167 , SB1157 , SB1146 , SB1481 , SB1144 , SB1145 , SCR20

Keywords: SB1365, Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act, procurement exemption, competitive bidding, state purchasing, Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department, tourism department, merchandise for resale, gift shops, lodges, golf pro shops, state parks, restaurant contracting, retail outlets, public procurement, purchasing flexibility, Title 74, emergency clause, restrictive covenants, discriminatory covenants

Transcript Highlights:

• I would like to thank the Legislature also for funding the Wright grant program, the Jails to Job program
• Farm Worker Housing Grant Program, and the Portfolio Reinvestment Program.
• rail capital program, and the low-carbon transit operations program.
• We are very appreciative of the allocations to the state LIHTC program and the MHP program.
• This will inherently impact our Tier 3 programs, which include our ASIC program, another flagship program

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, the programs that they oversee are the homeless programs, energy efficiency programs, and rehab programs
• program.
• Um, almost 19,000 families were helped through our programs or impacted through our programs.
• emergency housing programs.
• , about a year's worth of program. funding for that program.

Committee: House Mortgage Finance Authority Act Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• The family health programs include the California Children’s Services Program, or CCS, the Genetically
• All these programs do show slight reductions in caseload, but—” “All these programs do show slight reductions
• So the May revise assumed a lower Program 9...
• and the Accountability Sanctions Program.
• It's very early in this first-year program.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• The family health programs include the California Children's Services Program, or CCS, the Genetically
• So the May Revise assumed a lower Program 9...
• and the Accountability Sanctions Program.
• , and the Accountability Sanctions Program.
• It's very early in this first-year program.

Transcript Highlights:

• The family health programs include the California Children's Services Program, or CCS, the Genetically
• Yeah, I have a couple questions on the CCS program.
• and the Accountability Sanctions Program.
• , and the Accountability Sanctions Program.
• It's very early in this first-year program.

Summary: The subcommittee heard a lengthy Department of Health Care Services presentation on the governor’s Medi-Cal budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds proposal, projected Medi-Cal enrollment declines as redeterminations continue, and several major cost drivers such as managed care growth, Medicare-related costs, pharmacy spending, and changes tied to federal policy. Members focused heavily on the elimination of Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, questioning the likely impact on provider participation and utilization. DHCS said it is completing the required rate reduction/access analysis for CMS, has been holding stakeholder meetings and issuing provider bulletins, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect. The committee also discussed a $50 million savings proposal tied to new hospice utilization management authority and asked about possible effects on emergency dental care and provider participation. The hearing then moved through the November 2025 family health estimate and several county and program administration issues, including CCS, GHPP, and Every Woman Counts. DHCS said family health costs are rising despite slight caseload declines because of higher utilization and medical costs, and members raised concerns about CCS website accessibility, county administrative funding, and the transition of youth aging out of CCS. The department said most CCS beneficiaries are also on Medi-Cal, that counties have long raised funding concerns, and that it had clarified use of maintenance-and-operations dollars to address some county workload issues. Members also asked about Every Woman Counts potentially seeing higher demand as Medi-Cal changes take effect; DHCS said that is possible and that the program has multiple funding sources including General Fund. A major portion of the hearing focused on provider taxes and federal changes under H.R. 1, especially the Medi-Cal managed care organization tax and the hospital quality assurance fee. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 restricts new or increased health care-related taxes, phases down allowable tax levels over time, and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, which could sharply reduce the state’s ability to use the MCO tax for Medi-Cal financing. Members asked whether the Legislature could amend Prop. 35 or whether voters would need to act; DHCS said a three-fourths legislative amendment may be possible if it aligns with the measure’s purpose, but the department is still evaluating options. The committee also discussed hospital financing, with DHCS describing recent increases in state-directed payments and the effect of H.R. 1 in capping those payments at Medicare levels, and the LAO noting the tradeoff between preserving provider taxes and maintaining Medi-Cal funding. The subcommittee also reviewed a series of DHCS budget change proposals and trailer bill items, including managed care final-rule implementation, managed care operations, a hospital value strategy, a one-year extension of skilled nursing facility financing, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability/prior authorization requirements. Members repeatedly questioned the use of limited-term versus permanent positions, the overlap among proposals, and the timing of new financing reforms. DHCS said the SNF extension would preserve current workforce standards, sanctions, growth limits, and the SNF quality assurance fee while the department develops a broader 2027-28 redesign. No votes were taken; items were repeatedly held open for later action. Covered California then presented on the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit and the resulting affordability crisis. The agency said Californians will lose about $2.5 billion in premium assistance for 2026, average premiums could nearly double for many enrollees, and as many as 400,000 people could eventually leave marketplace coverage. Open enrollment ended with 1.9 million sign-ups, down 3% from the prior year, with especially steep declines among middle-income consumers and increased movement into bronze plans. Covered California said the state’s $190 million affordability subsidy is helping lower-income enrollees retain coverage, but cannot fully replace the lost federal assistance. Members also asked about the Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund, repayment of loans from that fund, the status of federal review of California’s essential health benefits benchmark, and implementation of the new gender-affirming care benefit under AB 144.

Transcript Highlights:

• For item 13, in particular, this isn't really a program-to-program transfer.
• That would allow the department to transfer $3 million of general fund revenue program by program.
• get cut could be very helpful. my water program that doesn't get cut over to an air program that does
• So you said programs.
• Okay, explain to me what it means when they say between programs, transfers between programs.

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• I will also say there is a patient savings program or co-pay assistance program, those kinds of things
• Program.
• So what do we do with the Bill Pell Pledge program?
• that program has gone in a second.
• It would have been through the Medicaid program.

Committee: Joint Health Care Committee

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and then heard a detailed annual presentation from Dr. Thomas Arnold, chair of the Maternal Mortality Review Committee, on maternal mortality trends and review findings. He explained the committee’s structure, the de-identified review process, and the distinction between pregnancy-associated and pregnancy-related deaths. He said national maternal mortality has declined from its 2021 peak, but mental health conditions, substance use, overdose, suicide, cardiovascular disease, hemorrhage, infection, and embolism remain major causes. He emphasized that many deaths are preventable, with especially high rates among non-Hispanic Black women and in the American Indian/Alaska Native population, and noted that a large share of deaths occur after 42 days postpartum. Committee members asked about suicide, domestic abuse, pregnancy testing in unexplained deaths, and the role of home births and midwife training. Dr. Arnold said the committee is adding a caseworker, exploring post-mortem pregnancy testing in suspicious cases, and working with coroners and forensic officials; he also said home births and untrained midwifery pose safety concerns and that better public education and facility-based care are important. The committee then heard from State Fire Marshal Dr. Matt Clark on cigarette ignition propensity standards and fire prevention. He recommended updating North Dakota’s cigarette ignition legislation to the current national standard and also considering legislation requiring fast-breakaway oxygen tubing, citing fatal fires involving smoking around home oxygen. He explained that his office verifies manufacturer testing and maintains certification for cigarettes sold in the state, but does not itself conduct the testing. Members asked about implementation, cost, and whether the standards apply in tribal communities; Clark said he would follow up with cost information and additional details, and that he had not seen evidence of a major issue on tribal lands but would look further. Christine Greff of the Department of Health and Human Services presented the North Dakota Stroke System of Care report. She described the statewide network of two comprehensive stroke centers, four primary stroke centers, and 30 acute stroke-ready hospitals, along with the stroke registry and quality-improvement efforts. She reported that most strokes are ischemic, that the median stroke patient age is 71.5, and that common risk factors include hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity, and diabetes. She highlighted improvements in door-to-CT, thrombolytic treatment times, dysphagia screening, EMS pre-notification, and interfacility transfer performance, and said new priorities include hemorrhagic stroke quality measures and standardized EMS stroke screening tools. Members asked about the VA hospital’s participation, and Greff said she would pursue outreach. After a break, the committee heard testimony from Taha Khan of Vertex Pharmaceuticals as part of the prior authorization study, focused on non-opioid pain treatment. He argued that prior authorization can delay access to acute pain treatment and may push patients toward opioids, especially in the critical 24- to 72-hour post-discharge window. He cited data showing that even short opioid exposure can increase the risk of long-term use and said prior authorization is often a barrier for physicians and patients. Khan recommended open access with a quantity limit rather than prior authorization, suggesting a 14-day limit supported by the product’s data and an episode-of-care approach. Members asked about dental use, payer discussions, and cost; he said the product’s wholesale acquisition cost is about $16.10 per tablet, with patient assistance available, and that he would follow up on payer and comparison-cost questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. health programs to fund tax cuts for the wealthy.
• care and discount programs.
• for this program.
• And I just want to... ...is really the indigent care program.
• for this program.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the cost of uncertainty in California health care, especially the effects of federal policy changes on coverage, access, and affordability. Opening remarks from committee leaders and members emphasized that California’s uninsured rate had fallen to historic lows under the Affordable Care Act and state policies, but that the expiration of enhanced federal subsidies, H.R. 1, and other federal regulatory changes could reverse those gains. Members repeatedly cited rising premiums, skipped care, medical debt, and the strain on low-wage workers, families, clinics, hospitals, and public programs. The first panel reviewed the federal landscape and state response. A federal policy analyst described the ACA’s coverage gains and consumer protections, then outlined current threats: H.R. 1’s Medicaid and marketplace cuts, the end of enhanced premium tax credits, shorter open enrollment, more verification requirements, and changes affecting preventive services and vaccines. Covered California reported that the loss of subsidies is expected to nearly double average monthly premiums, reduce enrollment, and push more consumers into bronze plans with higher deductibles; it also noted that California’s $190 million affordability fund is helping the lowest-income enrollees. HCAI’s Office of Health Care Affordability explained its work on spending targets, market consolidation review, and primary care investment, saying the goal is to slow spending growth rather than impose price caps. Committee members pressed witnesses on the practical effects of bronze plans, administrative burdens, immigration-related disenrollment, provider taxes, uncompensated care, and whether California can sustain current coverage levels without new revenue. Witnesses said bronze plans preserve essential benefits but shift more costs to consumers, and that H.R. 1’s verification and auto-renewal changes will likely reduce enrollment. They also said provider tax reductions could significantly weaken state financing over time, and that higher uninsured rates may increase uncompensated care and pressure premiums elsewhere in the system. The second panel, featuring UC Berkeley Labor Center and California Health Care Foundation experts, highlighted broader affordability problems across job-based coverage and Medi-Cal, citing medical debt, skipped care, and the role of underlying system costs, administrative waste, and lack of competition. They pointed to medical debt relief efforts such as Los Angeles County’s program as a short-term mitigation strategy while the Legislature considers longer-term policy and budget responses.

Transcript Highlights:

• discount programs.
• . and I funding within our health care space, within our Medicaid program.
• And so we spent a lot of time organizing a distressed hospital loan program.
• , and the fact that there is really the... ...indigent care program.
• for this program, it was dismantled back before ACA.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Senate and Assembly Health Committees focused on the cost of federal instability for California health coverage, access, and affordability. Opening remarks from members of both houses emphasized that California’s coverage gains under the Affordable Care Act are now threatened by federal policy changes, including the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits, H.R. 1, and new federal regulatory actions. Members repeatedly cited rising premiums, skipped care, medical debt, and the risk that low-income, immigrant, and working Californians could lose coverage or be pushed into less comprehensive plans. The first panel reviewed the federal landscape and state response. Don Joyce described the ACA’s coverage expansions and warned that H.R. 1, regulatory changes, and broader federal retrenchment could reduce coverage and weaken meaningful benefits. Covered California Executive Director Jessica Altman said the loss of enhanced premium tax credits is driving major affordability problems, with average monthly premiums projected to rise sharply and enrollment already down, especially among middle-income consumers. HCAI’s Elizabeth Lansberg explained the Office of Health Care Affordability’s role in slowing spending growth, monitoring consolidation, and setting spending targets, including lower targets for high-cost hospitals and new primary care investment goals. Members asked about bronze plans, high-cost hospitals, administrative burdens, provider taxes, and whether federal advisory changes could affect required benefits such as immunizations. The second panel examined population impacts and cost drivers. UC Berkeley Labor Center’s Miranda Dietz said most Californians get coverage through employers, Medi-Cal, or Covered California, and that affordability problems are widespread across all groups. She projected that California could have up to 2 million more uninsured residents by 2030, largely from Medi-Cal losses, and said higher premiums reduce wages and increase medical debt. Christoph Stremakis of the California Health Care Foundation highlighted survey data showing widespread concern about medical bills, skipped care, and medical debt, and argued that a large share of spending is wasted through administrative complexity, inflated prices, and underinvestment in prevention. Committee members pressed the panel on whether California can sustain coverage without new revenue, how cost-growth targets affect workers and families, how medical debt relief programs like Los Angeles County’s could be expanded, and how OCA can address uncompensated care, consolidation, and prior authorization burdens.

Transcript Highlights:

• So here we had a Medicaid program paying ...a Medicaid program paying one rate, the fee for service,
• Because it's a federal program, I thought it was worth just a brief explanation: the 340B program is
• We know that it has an impact on the Medicaid program.
• This program was actually developed after meeting with advocates in Colorado who created a Take 5 program
• for the Program for Language Equity.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Health Care Financing

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing on a large docket of bills focused on MassHealth benefits and reimbursement, health equity, behavioral health, public health, dental access, 340B drug pricing, tobacco cessation, and coverage for children. The chairs emphasized rising health care costs, provider shortages, administrative burdens, and persistent inequities by income, race, geography, and immigration status. Much of the testimony centered on H.1416/S.901, an act to advance health equity, with legislators and members of the Health Equity Compact arguing for statewide benchmarks, stronger health equity leadership, reimbursement for interpreter services, community health workers and patient navigation, Medicaid graduate medical education support, and a health equity zone trust fund. Witnesses described disparities in life expectancy, maternal mortality, access to primary care, and the impact of federal Medicaid and social service cuts, and urged the committee to report the bill favorably. The committee also heard strong support for H.1368/S.847 on rapid whole genome sequencing for critically ill MassHealth children. Testifiers from industry, academia, hospitals, and families said early sequencing can end long diagnostic odysseys, improve treatment decisions, shorten hospital stays, and save money, while also providing emotional relief and information for families. The hearing then moved to H.1407 on MassHealth rate parity for inpatient behavioral health providers, where Rep. Scanlan and the Massachusetts Association of Behavioral Health Systems said the bill would codify existing administrative parity so managed care plans cannot pay less than the MassHealth fee-for-service rate. On H.1392/S.853 to preserve and protect public health, witnesses supported higher vaccine administration fees to improve provider participation and immunization rates. The committee also heard testimony on H.770/845 to protect 340B providers in MassHealth, and on S.848 to require reporting and transparency around 340B revenues and outside administrative costs. Additional bills drew testimony on tobacco cessation coverage for MassHealth members, with advocates supporting broader access to counseling and medications through medical, behavioral health, and dental providers. On H.1409, a nursing home operator asked for more flexibility in a MassHealth staffing-related penalty tied to patient days per resident. On H.1401/S.888, supporters of the “Take 10” dental access proposal said adult MassHealth dental coverage is underused because too few dentists accept MassHealth, leading to long travel times and avoidable emergency room visits; they urged incentive payments for dentists serving new adult MassHealth patients. Finally, on H.1403/S.855, “Cover All Kids,” advocates and immigrant community members urged removal of immigration status as a barrier to full MassHealth coverage for children, while also backing a related bill to ensure 12 months of continuous coverage for children. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and asked questions on costs, reimbursement levels, and implementation details.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we do have a Celebrate 28 program.
• Our program will be called Celebrate 28. Okay. Thank you.
• The mayor mentioned the Clean Corridors Program.
• The mayor mentioned our Kick It in the Park program.
• We will have composting programs.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on planning for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic and Paralympic Games, focusing on infrastructure, transportation, sustainability, ticketing, community benefits, and legacy planning. LA28’s Joey Freeman reported on overall progress, including new soccer venues across the country, strong ticket demand, a volunteer program launched early, $2.5 billion in corporate sponsorships, and recently enacted state laws to support route networks, temporary infrastructure, medical staffing, and EMS coordination. He also said LA28 is sponsoring AB 2436 to extend in-state tuition eligibility for Team USA student-athletes training in California. Members pressed LA28 heavily on ticket affordability and access, saying the local presale and low-cost ticket rollout had not met community expectations. Several senators asked for clearer numbers on how many tickets were available, how many were under $100, and how community ticketing would work, with concerns that nonprofit distribution could still miss low-income residents. LA28 said $28 tickets were offered, roughly 500,000 low-cost tickets were placed with local residents during the presale, and a community ticketing program seeded by philanthropy would provide free tickets through nonprofits. Senators also raised concerns about gender parity data, security funding, and whether federal support would remain stable. Mayor Karen Bass said the city’s theme is “Games for All” and emphasized that Los Angeles wants the Games to benefit every neighborhood through small-business contracting, cultural programming, and lasting infrastructure. She described city-run small business summits, a broader Cultural Olympiad effort tied to murals and neighborhood storytelling, and watch parties and fan fests as free community alternatives. Bass also requested state help speeding approvals for key public-land improvements, allowing mutual aid for law enforcement without a state of emergency, and addressing freeway trash and encampments that could affect access to venues. Members asked for follow-up on those requests, including details on permitting, Caltrans coordination, and business participation. The final panel began with an infrastructure presentation from Councilmember Paul Krekorian, who said the Games are a no-build, transit-first event and outlined requests for street and sidewalk improvements, accessibility upgrades, energy and charging infrastructure, a joint operations center, active transportation projects, and cleanup of Caltrans rights of way. He argued the Games could generate $18 billion in economic output, support 90,000 jobs, and produce at least $700 million in state and local tax revenue, while also leaving behind permanent community benefits. He closed by pointing to Los Angeles’ history with the 1932 and 1984 Games as evidence that the city can deliver a successful and financially positive Olympics.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then when we looked back at the program, the pre-mandate program participation was around 6,000 members
• Post-mandate program participation was around 5,200 members.
• So this, again, is what we call the pilot program for PERS.
• Medicaid is an income-based program.
• Is there historically any programs? Senator Lee?

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:

• program program Nationwide<01:01:18.240><c> I</c><01:01:18.400><c> first</c><01:01:18.599><c> want</
• </c><01:02:01.160><c> is</c> well-being the school meal program is well-being the school meal program
• &R program is used statewide.
• </c><03:21:24.199><c> is</c><03:21:24.359><c> used</c> program yet the f&amp;r program is used program
• and</c><03:56:31.439><c> as</c> f&amp;r lunch program uh meal program and as f&amp;r lunch program uh

Summary: The committee took up HB 651, a school-funding bill that would raise the base cost of an adequate education and increase differentiated aid for students in poverty, English language learners, and special education. The chair opened with housekeeping notices about parking and eating in committee spaces, and noted a revised fiscal note would be distributed. Representative David Luneau presented the bill as part of a broader package of public school funding measures, explaining that HB 651 builds on HB 550 and is intended to respond to court rulings and the ongoing school-funding litigation by adjusting both the base adequacy amount and equity-based funding factors. Luneau said the bill would raise the state’s adequacy grant from about $4,100 to $7,351 per student and increase differentiated aid, while also updating statutory language so future recalculations include the court-identified resource elements. He argued the measure is about fairness and shifting more of the burden from local property taxpayers to the state, not about increasing overall education spending. He reviewed fiscal-note figures indicating the bill would add roughly $576 million to the state share of school funding, bringing the total state share to about $1.65 billion, and said the note also mentions possible effects on charter schools and vouchers. Committee members asked about the evidence supporting higher costs for low-income and English learner students, how long ESL funding should continue, why free-and-reduced-lunch aid remains higher than special education aid, whether the formula is based on enrollment or average daily membership, and whether the bill is truly equitable across districts of different sizes and needs. Luneau and later witness Zach Shen of the New Hampshire School Funding Fairness Project said the bill is supported by research and court findings, that the current formula relies heavily on local property taxes, and that shifting more funding to the state would reduce property-tax pressure and help address disparities among districts. Shen also cited broad public support for the related HB 550 testimony and said HB 651 is intended as a step toward a more equitable funding system. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the CHIP program, the childhood program the CHIP program, the childhood program and<00:13:34.000
• Advantage program.
• Advantage program.
• Advantage program.
• </c> this the brine program. this the brine program.

Committee: House Ways and Means

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 1596, which would raise New Hampshire’s cigarette excise tax from $1.78 per pack to about $2.80, using an inflation-based adjustment since the rate was last set in 2008. Representative Jerry Stringham, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure would keep New Hampshire competitive with neighboring states, generate revenue, and help offset other budget pressures. He also described the bill as repealing an income-based premium charge in Medicaid/CHIP-related programs and restoring cuts to the University System of New Hampshire, arguing that the combined package would still leave the state in a positive fiscal position. He said the tobacco tax increase would likely have some cessation effect but would remain low relative to other New England states, and he cited prior testimony from health groups supporting a larger increase. Members questioned the sponsor about how the new rate was calculated, the prior tobacco tax reduction and restoration, whether tobacco companies would absorb or pass on the tax, and the fiscal note’s estimates for Medicaid premium revenue and UNH funding. Stringham said he used Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation data, that the earlier 10-cent reduction did not produce the expected sales increase, and that the current bill would eliminate the premium charges now in the budget. He later clarified that the Department of Medicaid Services had updated the revenue estimate, but said the bill still showed a surplus overall. He also said the federal government already imposes a $1-per-pack tax and that New Hampshire would remain below neighboring states even after the increase. Two public witnesses testified in opposition to the tax increase. Anna Bettincourt, a tobacco category manager, argued that higher tobacco taxes would unfairly target smokers, reduce New Hampshire’s tax advantage, and likely shift purchases to other states or illicit markets rather than reduce use. She said tobacco companies generally do not lower prices and that Massachusetts’ flavor restrictions had not eliminated sales. In response to questions, she maintained that a smaller increase would still be harmful and that enforcement problems make bans ineffective. The sponsor and some members countered that smokers impose higher health costs and that tobacco taxes are a policy tool for both revenue and public health. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we have the program associate, Jaisland Jones, up here.
• Another graduate of their leadership programs, Barbara Carpenter, I know, is one.
• Another graduate of their leadership programs, Barbara Carpenter, I know, is one.
• Senate Bill 324 by Senator Reese: Water Sector Program administration; program subfund; emergency subfund
• administering the program.

Bills: HR94 , HR95 , HR96 , HR97 , HR98 , HR99 , HR100 , HR101 , HR102 , HR103 , HR104 , HR105 , HR106 , HR107 , HR108 , HR109 , HR110 , HR111 , HCR45 , HCR46 , HCR47 , HCR48 , HCR49 , HCR50 , HR92 , HR93 , HCR44 , SB11 , SB72 , SB78 , SB151 , SB207 , SB210 , SB219 , SB241 , SB286 , SB324 , SB351 , SB376 , SB409 , SB411 , HR74 , HCR26 , HB4 , HB98 , HB108 , HB131 , HB151 , HB161 , HB244 , HB288 , HB294 , HB305 , HB310 , HB320 , HB336 , HB380 , HB392 , HB403 , HB420 , HB459 , HB476 , HB513 , HB540 , HB596 , HB608 , HB615 , HB631 , HB637 , HB648 , HB665 , HB682 , HB789 , HB813 , HB815 , HB835 , HB870 , HB905 , HB915 , HB933 , HB938 , HB944 , HB971 , HB987 , HB1040 , HR15 , HR20 , HCR14 , HCR6 , HCR19 , HCR10 , HB81 , HB134 , HB154 , HB163 , HB170 , HB194 , HB217 , HB220 , HB254 , HB259 , HB290 , HB308 , HB311 , HB360 , HB382 , HB401 , HB410 , HB417 , HB463 , HB575 , HB592 , HB718 , HB723 , HB750 , HB755 , HB776 , HB812 , HB844 , HB882 , HB888 , HB961 , HB966 , HB980 , HB54 , HB67 , HB73 , HB125 , HB133 , HB158 , HB168 , HB169 , HB191 , HB195 , HB245 , HB280 , HB283 , HB296 , HB319 , HB339 , HB399 , HB407 , HB448 , HB550 , HB591 , HB826 , HB995 , HB1085 , HB1086 , HB722 , HB140 , HB468 , HB546 , HB746 , HB842 , HB923 , HB166 , HB349 , HB352 , HB429 , HB436 , HB588 , HB747 , HB780 , HB782 , HB911 , HB827 , HB953 , HB796 , HB901 , HB9 , HB52 , HB58 , HB193 , HB284 , HB400 , HB570 , HB577 , HB582 , HB605 , HB733 , HB735 , HB868 , HB952

Keywords: Sanfilippo Syndrome, awareness, genetic disorder, cognitive impairment, Louisiana, Alzheimer's, dementia, caregivers, public health, health education, civil bench warrants, judgment debtors, notification process, judgment debtor examination, Louisiana State Law Institute, Knock Knock Children's Museum, early childhood education, economic development, community engagement, Louisiana legislature

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill also creates a psychology internship program, think of a psychology residency program.
• had to leave the state of Nevada because there are no internship programs.
• In order to have an internship program, you have to have an accredited program, which means that you
• We do not have a program. We have no internship potential here at all.
• Our job is not to share in the profits of rebates or pricing.

Bills: AB52 , AB76 , AB163 , AB388 , AB483

Committee: Assembly Commerce and Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, the elderly parole program is a really good program. I'm very supportive.
• You know, the elderly parole program is a really good program.
• I'm very supportive of the elderly parole program.
• The Senate bill had to do with creating neighborhood pilot programs, whole neighborhood pilot programs
• , the CASA program, our shared loves and passions.

Summary: The Assembly convened, established a quorum, and opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance before moving through the daily file. Several measures were taken up and passed, including bills on county jail accountability (AB 2257), claims against public agencies (AB 2529), affordable housing management metrics (AB 2689), digital wellness instruction in schools (AB 2071), pedestrian and bicycle safety project streamlining (AB 1976), manufactured home transport permits (AB 2012), a Surplus Land Act amendment tied to an Inland Empire soccer project (AB 2139), a Monterey Bay stewardship authority (AB 1548), online electrician licensing (AB 1707), a Caltrans study of navigation apps’ traffic impacts (AB 2105), coastal resiliency permitting reforms (AB 2051), downtown housing streamlining and financing (AB 2074), Cal Fire compensation (AB 2129), emergency care authority for Del Puerto Health Care District (AB 2282), charter school facilities hardship relief (AB 2316), theft by a peace officer under color of authority as serious misconduct (AB 2337), an Asian American and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander-serving institution designation (AB 2374), energy and cannabis support bills (AB 2464, AB 2537), and a suicide prevention plan requirement for treatment facilities (AB 2562). Most of these measures passed with broad bipartisan margins, and several were described as support bills with no opposition. The floor also debated a major criminal justice measure, AB 2727, which would raise the threshold for elderly parole eligibility for people serving sentences for violent sex offenses and add screening safeguards. Supporters from both parties emphasized child protection, survivor trauma, and specific local cases involving offenders who had become eligible for release; the bill passed 66-0. Another significant debate centered on AB 1958, which would clarify procedures under the California Racial Justice Act by refining how disparity claims are established and rebutted; the author said he would take Senate amendments to address concerns from district attorneys. The Assembly also considered AB 2313, a gas-to-electric transition bill allowing customers with planned service line replacements to opt out of gas service and use funds to electrify their homes. Members raised concerns about cost shifts and equity, and the author responded that the bill includes no-cost-shift language, larger credits for disadvantaged communities, and would not proceed if the math does not work; it passed 41-21. The final major item was AB 1709, a high-profile social media safety bill creating a minimum age of 16 for accounts on platforms using addictive features and establishing an e-safety commission. The author and many supporters from both parties framed the bill as a response to youth mental health harms, addictive design, and the need for age-based safeguards, while some members raised concerns about impacts on LGBTQ youth and other isolated young people who rely on online spaces. Supporters said the bill targets addictive design rather than speech and is intended to preserve safe online connection while limiting harmful features. The measure drew extensive bipartisan support and was still under debate at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• As with any government program, you take your risk that it could be discontinued in the future.
• As with any government program, you take your risk that it could be discontinued in the future.
• As with any government program, you take your risk that it could be discontinued in the future.
• That's the risk one takes when it's dealing with government programs.
• That's the risk one takes when it's dealing with government programs.

Committee: House Science, Technology and Energy