Transcript Highlights:

• Also, as you get sick patients, and we're paying the MCOs to manage patient care, if they keep switching
• patients every three years, they can't change Representative Miller: ...manage patient care, but if
• they keep switching patients every three years, they can't truly manage long-term health.
• All of those patients were dispersed to other MCOs.
• They don't want to leave, but they want some assurance that they can invest in the patients.

Bills: HR265 , HR266 , HR267 , HR268 , HR269 , HR270 , HR271 , HR272 , HR273 , HCR107 , HCR108 , HCR109 , HCR110 , HCR111 , HR257 , HR258 , HR259 , HR260 , HR261 , HR262 , HR263 , HCR105 , HCR106 , SCR30 , SB57 , SB157 , SB202 , SB237 , SB276 , SB450 , SB465 , SB501 , SB525 , HR3 , HR80 , HR197 , HR243 , SCR5 , SCR35 , HB4 , HB623 , HB944 , HB986 , HB1098 , HB1222 , SB34 , SB164 , SB172 , SB198 , SB208 , SB232 , SB281 , SB286 , SB317 , SB322 , SB334 , SB380 , SB385 , SB409 , SB417 , SB421 , SB430 , SB439 , SB447 , SB458 , SB510 , SB398 , HB646 , HR84 , HR188 , HR205 , SCR19 , SCR3 , SCR6 , SCR18 , SCR11 , SCR22 , SCR2 , SCR20 , SCR24 , HCR6 , HB301 , HB359 , HB657 , HB675 , HB680 , HB727 , HB302 , HB819 , HB1257 , HB1258 , SB8 , SB10 , SB11 , SB12 , SB13 , SB14 , SB16 , SB17 , SB18 , SB20 , SB21 , SB22 , SB40 , SB48 , SB55 , SB69 , SB75 , SB77 , SB78 , SB85 , SB102 , SB115 , SB133 , SB140 , SB148 , SB151 , SB165 , SB169 , SB170 , SB185 , SB197 , SB200 , SB217 , SB235 , SB278 , SB280 , SB291 , SB300 , SB303 , SB315 , SB324 , SB330 , SB411 , SB416 , SB420 , SB436 , SB438 , SB449 , SB455 , SB456 , SB477 , SB489 , SB521 , SB45 , SB58 , SB71 , SB81 , SB92 , SB100 , SB109 , SB141 , SB156 , SB181 , SB203 , SB204 , SB205 , SB207 , SB213 , SB214 , SB216 , SB229 , SB257 , SB274 , SB290 , SB304 , SB374 , SB379 , SB396 , SB410 , SB425 , SB427 , SB429 , SB479 , SB522 , HCR72 , HB633 , HB603 , HB940 , HB251 , HB775 , HB998 , HB1191 , HB625 , HB1255 , HB901 , HR20 , HR74 , HCR65 , HCR71 , HB284 , HB306 , HB341 , HB366 , HB393 , HB458 , HB577 , HB582 , HB605 , HB614 , HB733 , HB752 , HB773 , HB798 , HB911 , HB955 , HB996 , HB1035 , HB1069 , HB1113 , HB1140 , HB1180 , HB1240 , SB82 , SB89 , HB258 , HB842 , SB149 , SB382 , SB441

Keywords: Pineville High School, Lady Rebels, softball, LHSAA, Louisiana High School Athletic Association, Class 5A, state championship, high school sports, student athletes, commendation, resolution, athletics, girls softball, championship team, Pineville, school recognition, sportsmanship, coach Allison Frye, Louisiana legislature, House Resolution

Transcript Highlights:

• SB8 is intended to apply to public hospitals and their patient care areas.
• care spaces where patients are often in a state of undress, separated by curtains.
• designed to serve patients based on need, not sex.
• The same New York doctor also mailed abortion pills to patients in Texas.
• I'm here today speaking for myself and for my patients, the women of Texas.

Bills: HB7 , SB 8 , HB7 , SB 8

Committee: House State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill clarifies existing law to ensure that patients can receive enteral formula directly to their
• To ensure that patients can receive their formulas regardless of how far they live from the pharmacy,
• This bill prioritizes patient comfort and access while keeping them in direct contact with their care
• Once diagnosed, most patients only live two to five more years and require...
• ... ...patients a year and the families stay committed for many years, but then they, you know, life

Summary: The Assembly met in session after a quorum call and opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a ceremonial observance for Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. Members from multiple caucuses spoke in support of House Resolution 107, which designates May as AAPI Heritage Month, emphasizing the community’s contributions, resilience, and the need to confront discrimination and hate. The resolution was adopted, and the chamber then recognized 13 honorees for the 2026 AAPI Heritage Month celebration, highlighting leaders in education, business, labor, media, cultural preservation, and public service. After guest introductions, the Assembly took up a series of bills. Measures discussed included HOA reserve funding for common interest developments (AB 2050), professional review requirements for lawsuits against design professionals (AB 2106), direct home delivery of enteral formula (AB 1794), expanded CalWORKs-related support for student parents (AB 1829), longer insurance moratoriums for wildfire survivors (AB 2038), election cybersecurity (AB 2281), medical privacy protections for reproductive and gender-affirming care (AB 2448), water district board compensation (AB 2568), county public contract change-order authority (AB 1658), and several other education, health, and licensing bills. Most measures passed with broad support; AB 2050 passed 44-6, AB 2038 passed 45-8, AB 2448 passed 49-13, and AB 1658 passed 61-2, while several others passed unanimously or near-unanimously. The Assembly also adopted AJR 29, a resolution opposing a federal executive order affecting vote-by-mail and affirming California’s mail voting system. The resolution prompted extended debate over election integrity, voter access, and federal versus state authority, with supporters arguing mail voting is secure and accessible and opponents calling for stronger voter list maintenance and verification. The resolution passed 47-13. In addition, ACR 141 and ACR 123 were adopted by voice vote after co-author roll calls, and the chamber continued or passed on numerous other file items as it worked through the daily file.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill clarifies existing law to ensure that patients can receive enteral formula directly to their
• To ensure that patients can receive their formulas regardless of how far they live from the pharmacy,
• This bill prioritizes patient comfort and access while keeping them in direct contact with their care
• Once diagnosed, most patients only live two to five more years and require Once diagnosed, most patients
• It's just when you have only 25,000 patients a year, and the families stay committed for many years,

Transcript Highlights:

• The typical Medicare patient is a completely different entity than workers' comp.
• The specific diagnosis and or treatment of these patients, The over-65 population.
• The specific diagnosis and or treatment of these patients are often different than the younger worker
• ' comp fee schedule threaten patient access to quality care and reductions in practicing orthopedics
• who are willing to treat workers' comp patients.

Summary: The Labor and Industrial Relations Committee first took up House Bill 680 by Rep. Weibel, which proposes a major overhaul of Louisiana’s workforce development system. The bill and a large amendment package were described as modernizing workforce planning, consolidating some state-level strategy and administration, and strengthening coordination with local workforce partners, employers, and regional stakeholders. A transition advisory team with an 18-month sunset was added to help implement the changes, and members repeatedly raised concerns about preserving local input for different regions, parishes, and cities. Rep. Weibel, the secretary of Louisiana Works, parish officials, and other supporters said the goal is to shift more resources from overhead to training and direct services while keeping local boards and parish involvement in place. Testimony from a Utah official and from local government and business representatives emphasized that similar consolidations can create efficiencies without eliminating local responsiveness. The committee adopted the amendments and then reported HB 680 with amendments. The committee then heard House Bill 780 by Rep. Furman on workers’ compensation. The bill seeks to streamline disputes over compensation and medical benefits, reduce litigation, and lower costs by restoring an expedited preliminary determination process and changing the standard for penalties and attorney fees to an arbitrary-and-capricious standard. Supporters, including lobbyists and defense attorneys, argued that the current process is outdated, overly technical, and too litigious, especially because adjusters now often work remotely and the statute still relies on fax and certified-mail procedures. They said the bill would speed up decisions, reduce unnecessary attorney-fee claims, and help employers and injured workers alike. Opponents, including attorneys for injured workers, argued the bill would make it harder for workers to recover penalties when benefits are delayed, shift the burden in favor of insurers, and fail to address understaffing and defense costs. Members debated whether the bill’s new standard should replace the current “reasonably controverted” language; an amendment to restore that language was offered but opposed by the author and other members and was not adopted. The committee adopted technical amendments and other committee amendments, heard additional testimony, and continued debating the bill’s substantive changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're providing hands-on care to California patients.
• They're providing hands-on care to California patients.
• Nurses see the impacts of corporate profiteering on patients.
• And how when these benefits are cut off, patients and their families... ...help patients and their families
• Programs that patients truly lean on to survive. Thank you.

Summary: The joint informational hearing examined California’s taxation of multinational corporations, especially the state’s water’s-edge election versus worldwide combined reporting. The LAO and Franchise Tax Board explained the basic mechanics of unitary taxation, apportionment, and how water’s-edge generally excludes most foreign subsidiaries while worldwide reporting includes the full unitary group. FTB officials said water’s-edge filers are a small share of corporate filers but account for a large share of tax liability, and they described filing trends, industry mix, and the administrative steps needed to administer either system. Members and witnesses debated the policy trade-offs. Supporters of moving away from water’s-edge argued that it enables profit shifting, especially for large multinational and IP-heavy firms, and that eliminating it could raise significant revenue and improve fairness for smaller domestic businesses. They cited estimates of billions in potential revenue and said California already has the audit and reporting infrastructure to handle worldwide reporting, though some transition time would be needed. Opponents argued that worldwide reporting would tax foreign activity unrelated to California, create double taxation, increase compliance burdens and litigation, and could be difficult for foreign-based multinationals to document. They also warned that some of the revenue estimates are highly uncertain because foreign affiliate income is not directly observable. Committee members asked about foreign government pushback, the risk of companies leaving California, the effect on intellectual property shifting, and whether federal or Supreme Court action could block a change. Witnesses generally said major firms would be unlikely to leave because California taxes sales rather than physical presence, but some costs could be passed on to consumers. The panel also discussed alternatives such as conforming to federal international tax rules like NCTI/GILTI and adding anti-abuse rules. No vote or bill action was taken; the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• Earlier, my talking points said good afternoon, so I want to say thank you to all of you for patiently
• increases so doctors And health care providers can keep their doors open for our most vulnerable patients
• Their health centers provide more than a million patient visits annually for people from all 58 counties
• Eighty-five percent are patients enrolled in Medi-Cal and Family Pact.
• It's important to note that medical necessity is still evaluated, and if the patient or member requires

Transcript Highlights:

• I would prefer that route. Across the world so that people are still forced to be on Medi-Cal.
• I would prefer that route.
• questions as a senator, but also someone who still practices in the health care space, still has patients
• through Proposition 35 implementation should remain focused on increasing resources to providers for patient
• We urge you to reconsider this proposal with the patients and safety net providers in mind.

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review subcommittee heard four budget trailer bills: AB 110, AB 122, AB 125, and AB 177. AB 110 was described as a budget bill junior identifying budget-related legislation. AB 122 would extend sales tax to electronically delivered or remotely accessed prewritten software, extend and later limit business tax credits, reduce the annual LLC/LLP/LP tax for first-year businesses for three years, and impose a 100% tax on certain federal anti-weaponization fund settlements. AB 125 would renew the managed care organization (MCO) tax for three years beginning in 2027 to support Medi-Cal and targeted provider rate increases. AB 177 would require the Department of Finance to return by March 1, 2027 with options for assessing large employers for the Medi-Cal costs of employees enrolled in the program, including at least one employer-paid premium option for firms with 250 or more employees, and would appropriate $1,000 General Fund for implementation. Administration witnesses said AB 122 modernizes the tax system and helps create general fund revenue, while AB 125 is needed to preserve Medi-Cal financing and targeted rate increases under new federal constraints from H.R. 1 and to avoid a budget hole if the MCO tax expires. On AB 177, Finance said the bill is only a study and does not itself impose a tax, but would direct the administration to develop options for future consideration. Supportive members argued the package is part of a balanced approach to address the structural deficit, protect health care and other safety-net programs, and ensure large corporations pay more of their share. They also said AB 177 is a necessary step toward asking large employers to help cover public health care costs for workers who rely on Medi-Cal. Opponents, led by Vice Chair Niello and several other Republicans, argued the state does not have a revenue shortage but a spending problem, warning that the proposals would raise costs on consumers and businesses, discourage innovation, and expand taxes beyond their intended scope. They criticized AB 122 as potentially taxing labor-like services and limiting research and development credits, and said AB 125 would increase premiums for commercial enrollees and employers. On AB 177, they questioned the lack of definitions and specifics, saying the bill is too vague and could eventually burden employers, including hospitals and part-time workers, without clear standards. No votes were taken in the portion of the hearing provided; the committee heard testimony and questions before public comment and later action.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've also tried to make various network arrangements through preferred... ...prices.
• We've also tried to make various network arrangements through preferred providers like we have today.
• The first one we referred to as the About the Patient program.
• The first one we referred to as the About the Patient program.
• We work in conjunction with the pharmacy association on that About the Patient program.

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to approve prior minutes, hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave, and related policy issues, and then recess for lunch. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the long-standing state-paid family coverage, cost-control measures, wellness incentives, the current grandfathered PPO and high-deductible options, and the effects of recent benefit mandates such as insulin caps, prosthetic coverage, medication management, prescription copay changes, and ambulance balance-billing limits. Committee members questioned the fiscal impact of adding benefits and the possible cost of moving to a non-grandfathered plan, while PERS and HRMS emphasized that health insurance remains the top-ranked employee benefit and that any major plan changes should be considered carefully. HRMS also presented compensation comparisons showing state pay generally below private-market benchmarks, discussed targeted market equity adjustments, identified ongoing recruitment and retention concerns in fields like nursing, IT, engineering, and attorneys, and reviewed leave policies, tuition reimbursement, and family leave comparisons with neighboring states. Job Service provided labor market data showing low unemployment, high labor force participation, and wage growth that still trails some neighboring markets, and OMB explained that prevailing wage requirements apply to federally funded projects under Davis-Bacon, not to ordinary state contracts. After lunch, the committee took up the required process for health insurance mandate bills and adopted an amendment to Joint Rule 211. The amendment clarified that the deadline for submitting mandate measures is intended to allow time for all required reports, including both the cost-benefit analysis and any Employee Benefits Committee actuarial report, while leaving the existing deadline unchanged. The amendment was adopted on a roll call vote, with several members voting yes and a few no votes recorded. The committee then moved into its jurisdiction review of bill drafts, beginning with a bill that would automatically renew pre-tax dental and vision elections; members debated whether it had any actuarial or administrative impact on PERS or the state, and the chair explained that the committee’s role was only to decide whether further analysis was needed before later testimony and recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative, I've heard from a lot of NICA families that really prefer the House version.
• The NICA families do prefer the House version, and this amendment preserves all the material components
• And again, we're not mandating quotas or preferences, but local government should have responsibility
• And again, we're not mandating quotas or preferences, but local government should have responsibility
• It’s also about promoting the speech that is preferred.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, a moment of silence for Army Sgt. Benjamin Pennington, the Pledge of Allegiance, quorum call, and several recognitions, including law enforcement guests, a Spina Bifida Week presentation, and a salute to the 2025 IPSC Handgun World Shoot team. The chamber then adopted the special order report and moved to floor consideration of Senate bills. Members passed several bills unanimously or near-unanimously after brief debate and, in some cases, floor amendments. CS/SB 590 clarified that changes to the statute of limitations for mandatory reporters of child abuse apply prospectively and passed 111-0. SB 418 required law enforcement autism-interaction training and allowed the blue-envelope program to be offered in electronic or physical form; it passed 111-0. CS/CS/SB 1668 addressed NICA’s actuarial soundness and passed 112-0. CS/SB 1246 expanded the Linking Industry to Nursing Education fund to broader health science programs and passed 112-0. CS/CS/SB 1404 set baseline standards for memory care providers and passed 111-0. CS/CS/SB 1030 revised recovery residence rules, including MAT-related provisions, and passed 168-0. CS/CS/SB 178 changed FHSAA rules so school coaches may use limited personal funds for student welfare with parent consent and passed 112-0. CS/CS/SB 422 barred use of ADS-B data for airport billing and passed 108-2. CS/CS/SB 598 modernized funeral, cemetery, and consumer services licensing and passed 111-0. The House also considered CS/CS/SB 1134, a controversial bill restricting county and municipal DEI-related official actions and contracting. Sponsor Rep. Black described broad prohibitions with numerous exceptions, while members asked about effects on observances, special events, parade participation, and local economic-vitality offices. Rep. Gant offered an amendment to narrow the bill’s DEI definition by removing vague prongs, arguing the language was ambiguous and could chill local government action; debate on that amendment was underway when the transcript ended. The chamber then moved into farewell remarks, including an extended address from Rep. Eskamani reflecting on her service, family, staff, constituents, and policy priorities, followed by remarks from the Speaker praising her energy and preparation. Rep. Overdorf also delivered farewell remarks highlighting his work on environmental policy, human trafficking, development regulation, property rights, and property taxes, with the Speaker commending his contributions.

Transcript Highlights:

• under the Office of Wellness and Resilience, and this one puts it under the Judiciary, which is preferable
• under the Office of Wellness and Resilience, and this one puts it under the Judiciary, which is preferable
• </c><00:27:07.120><c> um</c> Judiciary um which is preferable um Judiciary um which is preferable um
• My patient had a head-on collision, killing a tourist.
• killing patient had a head-on collision killing a<00:51:36.319><c> tourist</c><00:51:36.960><c> her<

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Summary: The joint Health and Human Services and Judiciary meeting heard testimony on several measures, with most of the discussion focused on SB 709 and SB 955. On SB 709, relating to mental health data and related appropriations, the Department of Health supported the bill’s intent and said the funding would help maintain a data dashboard and positions, though it had no suggested amount for one blank appropriation. Members also discussed whether sections of the bill were duplicative of existing data reporting. The committees later recommended SB 709 be passed with amendments, including technical changes, deferring the date to December 31, 2050, and blanking out the appropriation for later clarification. SB 955, relating to fitness to proceed, drew mixed testimony. Judiciary opposed portions of the bill, saying some changes could have unintended practical consequences. The Office of the Public Defender supported the bill’s intent but urged keeping a three-member evaluation panel rather than reducing it to two, warning that a two-panel process could create delays if a third evaluator had to be added later. A former Hawaii State Hospital clinician said the bill placed too much blame on the courts and should address institutional and administrative problems at the hospital more directly. The Department of Health supported the intent and said it appreciated efforts to address overcrowding. After discussion about examiner shortages and status hearings, the committees recommended SB 955 be passed with amendments reducing the number of qualified examiners from three to one and making related technical changes. The committee also heard SB 1228, a child welfare services measure creating a working group related to youth legal representation and child welfare reform. DHS requested adding a Child Welfare Services representative to the work group, and multiple advocates, including the National Center for Youth Law and Hawaii Youth Services Network, testified in strong support, emphasizing the need for youth voice and implementation of Malama Ohana recommendations. Members asked whether this working group overlapped with another recently passed working group bill; testimony indicated the two measures addressed different issues. The meeting then recessed and later resumed for decision-making on the 9 o’clock calendar, where SB 709 was adopted with amendments and SB 955 was adopted with amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• So please be patient with all of us, and hopefully we can get through this as quickly as possible.
• accurate information and allowing wineries and growers the flexibility needed to respond to consumer preferences
• Folks deserve honesty and transparency when shopping for their preferred wine.
• What about a person who won't use someone's preferred pronouns?
• Assembly Member Colosa, thank you for patiently waiting. Good afternoon.

Committee: House Governmental Organization

Transcript Highlights:

• ketoacidosis. is a life-threatening complication of untreated type 1 diabetes and can develop if a patient
• We have no preference.
• However, our version of the bill... does have SOA as the remedy for this; that's our preference.
• thank Senator Brandon Creighton for bringing... ...this forward and for working with us and being so patient
• And I don’t have any preference, just excited that we’re actually finally here.

Bills: SB614 , SB872 , SB1199 , SB1212 , SB1278 , SB1573 , SB1588 , SB1602 , SB1660 , SB1704 , SB1723 , SB1833 , SB1858 , SB1946 , SB2009 , SB2146 , SB2177 , SB2373 , SB2460 , SB2785

Committee: Senate Criminal Justice

Transcript Highlights:

• That could go toward patient care or staff wages.
• Sometimes... ...that could go toward patient care or staff wages.
• , I see daily the negative impact of poverty on my patients' health.
• Behind the smiling faces of our pediatric patients... ...health.
• Behind the smiling faces of our pediatric patients, health.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Financial Services

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services heard testimony on several bills focused on financial security, banking regulation, and payment-card fees. Treasurer Deborah Goldberg supported the Massachusetts baby bonds proposal (H. 48) and also endorsed bills on matched savings (H. 1158/S. 737) and retirement planning/Secure Choice (H. 1143/S. 722), arguing these measures would help address wealth inequality, build assets, and improve retirement readiness. Supporters of baby bonds included policy experts and health advocates from Children’s Health Watch and Boston Medical Center, who said early-life asset building could improve long-term economic and health outcomes for children in low-income families. AARP also urged passage of the retirement planning bill, citing the large share of private-sector workers without access to an employer retirement plan. Representative Donato testified for H. 1143, describing it as a voluntary retirement-savings opportunity for workers at small employers. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3933, concerning the Massachusetts Credit Union Share Insurance Corporation, from former Bank Commissioner Mike Hanson, who defended the state’s full deposit insurance system for credit unions and savings institutions as a longstanding consumer-protection model. The Massachusetts Bankers Association raised concerns about the bill’s technical provisions and broader credit union/bank competitive issues, while the Cooperative Credit Union Association supported related legislation allowing modest compensation for credit union directors (S. 821/H. 1338) and flexibility for state financial institutions to grow through partnerships (S. 723). Bankers opposed those credit union bills, arguing they would upset a level playing field and blur long-standing distinctions between banks and credit unions. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 1259/S. 688, which would prohibit card interchange fees on the tax and gratuity portions of restaurant transactions. Restaurant owners and the Massachusetts Restaurant Association testified in favor, saying the fees are a significant and growing expense, especially as most customers now pay by card; they argued the bills would save restaurants money without affecting state revenue. Credit union, banking, and payments-industry representatives opposed the bills, saying interchange helps fund fraud protection and payment infrastructure, that the proposal would create compliance burdens and likely litigation, and that it would mainly affect Massachusetts-chartered institutions while national banks could be preempted. Committee members noted that a commission on payment-card fees is being established and said the issue would be studied further. The hearing also included support for a separate bill on virtual credit cards for dental providers, with dentists saying automatic virtual-card payments impose hidden processing fees and fraud risks.

Transcript Highlights:

• We take care of patients with all different insurances and have quite a few patients on MassHealth.
• We take care of patients with all different insurances and have quite a few patients on MassHealth.
• ... ...that it can cause for patients' lives, both for cancer patients, for Alzheimer's patients, and
• It just shifts the cost back to the patients.
• I'm actually loath to use the word patient when I say patient satisfaction because the fact is pregnancy

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Financial Services

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services held a lengthy public hearing with testimony on a wide range of health insurance and access-to-care bills. Early testimony focused on prescription drug pricing and pharmacy reimbursement, with supporters of H. 1326 arguing that pharmacy benefit managers and MassHealth managed care arrangements reimburse independent pharmacies too little, contributing to pharmacy closures and “pharmacy deserts.” The committee also heard repeated support for H. 1151/S. 742 on cognitive rehabilitation for acquired brain injury, H. 1288/S. 716 on telehealth parity for nutrition counseling, H. 1309/S. 761 on full-spectrum pregnancy care without cost-sharing, H. 1312 on insurance coverage for doula services, H. 309 on prompt access to health care by removing deductibles for certain services, H. 809/H. 1227 on biomarker testing, H. 1162/S. 810 on reducing inequities in access to medical procedures by limiting insurer cuts tied to Modifier 25, and S. 726 on insurance coverage for mobile integrated health. Testifiers included legislators, physicians, pharmacists, dietitians, emergency and rehabilitation clinicians, and patients and family members. Supporters of the brain injury bill said cognitive rehabilitation is medically necessary, improves long-term outcomes, and can reduce institutional care and public costs; they noted the bill has been heard repeatedly and has support from the Brain Injury Commission and prior favorable committee action. Supporters of the pregnancy care and doula bills described out-of-pocket costs as a barrier to maternal health and shared personal stories of high bills and unmet support needs. Biomarker testing advocates and cancer patients said coverage gaps deny patients access to precision treatment, can lead to avoidable suffering, and should be standardized across insurers; several speakers said insurers often deny claims despite clinical benefit. Dermatology witnesses said insurers’ use of Modifier 25 cuts reimbursement for same-day evaluation and procedure visits, forcing separate appointments and increasing patient burden. Mobile integrated health supporters described home-based care as a way to reduce emergency department use and hospital readmissions, especially for patients with transportation or mobility barriers. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• Despite this, most cancer research is focused on adult cancer patients, leaving our kids behind.
• DESPITE THIS, MOST CANCER RESEARCH IS FOCUSED ON ADULT SENTENCER PATIENTS. LEAVING OUR KIDS BEHIND.
• Increasing innovative cures will increase positive outcomes for all patients, including kids, finally
• ELECTRONICALLY WHICH SHOULD BE THE PREFERRED METHOD OF COMMUNICATION IN THIS DAY AND AGE.
• The Black Angels who treated six T.B. patients and helped find the cure for this disease.

Transcript Highlights:

• New Hampshire patients' costs.
• and their patients’ families.
• and their patients’ families.
• </c><03:50:36.560><c> so</c> patients and their patients families so patients and their patients families
• </c><03:54:08.239><c> patient</c> also be sent to every um patient patient also be sent to every um patient

Committee: House Health, Human Services & Elderly Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• If we in fact lose 35 hospitals, those patients are going to go someplace.
• </c> patients are going to go someplace. patients are going to go someplace.
• I think it comes down to, with your secret shoppers, your patients are happy.
• </c> with your secret shoppers, your patients with your secret shoppers, your patients are<01:10:11.440
• ><c> serves</c><01:10:15.960><c> in</c> The patients that Medicaid serves in The patients that Medicaid

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board received a presentation from Dr. Stack and Commissioner Langfeld on Kentucky’s application for a federal Medicaid-related funding opportunity tied to House Resolution 1. They described a compressed six-week stakeholder process that produced more than 50 responses and letters of support, and said the application was organized around five broad priorities: maternal health, behavioral health and substance use disorder, oral health, EMS/trauma response, and chronic disease. They emphasized that the proposal was designed to align with CMS goals, use allowable funding categories, and focus on sustainability rather than a short-term grant. Commissioner Langfeld outlined five core initiatives: rural community hubs for chronic care innovation, beginning with obesity and diabetes; a maternal and infant health effort called POWER; a behavioral health and substance use model called IMPATH; an oral health initiative called Rooted in Health; and an integrated crisis-to-care EMS and trauma response effort. He said the chronic disease work would include prevention, food-as-medicine concepts, and technology tools, while the maternal health effort would expand team-based care around mothers and infants using community health workers and doulas. The behavioral health proposal would build on existing crisis intervention models, oral health would address workforce and access gaps through training, mobile vans, and telehealth, and the EMS proposal would better connect emergency response with home-based and community care. Several senators questioned whether the proposal would meaningfully address rural hospital closures or the broader rural health care crisis. Senator Meredith said the plan was not transformational and would not save rural hospitals, while Senator Berg asked how success would be measured. In response, the presenters said they would use both lagging and leading indicators, with an emphasis on rapid-cycle feedback and data use that is more actionable in real time. They also said the work could help existing models that already show promise, such as behavioral health units and dental workforce expansion, even if it would not solve the larger funding gap created by HR1. Senator Douglas asked how the proposals would motivate patients to participate in their own health care. The presenters responded that the chronic disease prevention work would focus on obesity, diabetes prevention, nutrition, and consumer-facing technology tools to help people engage in their own care, and that EMS-community health worker partnerships could identify unmet needs in the home and reduce preventable problems. The board then moved on to its next agenda item, Medicaid managed care delivery models, with Tom Stevens, Katherine North, and Dr. Patel scheduled to present.

Transcript Highlights:

• He waited patiently and he finally became an American citizen. He raised his hand. He was sworn in.
• ><c> finally</c><00:53:44.319><c> became</c> waited patiently and he finally became waited patiently
• Bottom line is that more than 400,000 Maryland voters who expressed a preference on their ballot for
• by voters in a protected class and the choice of candidates and electoral choices that are preferred
• </c> the electoral choice that are preferred the electoral choice that are preferred by<01:36:43.760>

Summary: The Senate opened with an invocation by Reverend Dr. Patrick Claybourne of Bethl AM Church in Baltimore, introduced by the senator from the 40th district, who highlighted the church’s long history, community work, scholarships, food pantry, school partnerships, and a planned rise center. The Senate journalized the invocation and then recognized several guests, including the Bethesda Roosters U16 rugby team, which was congratulated for winning the Maryland state title and the 2025 National U16 Championship, and members of the Joint Veterans Committee of Maryland. The chamber also welcomed a Johns Hopkins Police Accountability Board appointment letter, which was referred to the Executive Nominations Committee, and later a delegation from the Ghana Parliament legislative staff visiting with the Department of Legislative Services and NCSL representatives. The main floor business centered on Senate Bill 1, which would prohibit law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings. The minority whip argued against the bill, saying it was unenforceable, an improper use of legislative time amid other state crises, and could create a system where local officers detain federal officers for a civil violation; he also said officers mask themselves because of threats and doxxing. Senators in support argued the bill was needed to address masked ICE agents, protect public safety, and respond to concerns about civil rights abuses and intimidation. After debate and vote explanations from senators, including one emphasizing immigrant heritage and another supporting the bill as a protection measure, SB 1 passed with 31 affirmative votes. The Senate then passed Senate Bill 17, an emergency bill on alcoholic beverages related event promoters permits, by unanimous affirmative vote. It next took up Senate Bill 245, an emergency bill prohibiting immigration enforcement agreements. The minority leader questioned whether the bill would eliminate formalized 287(g) agreements and replace them with county-by-county policies, arguing that this could reduce uniformity, weaken safety, and create a patchwork of local practices. The bill’s sponsor responded that counties would still be bound by constitutional and legal limits, that the agreements provide minimal training and resources, and that the state should stop formally cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. The sponsor also said the bill would not increase profiling and that public safety would remain intact. The debate continued with concerns about Montgomery County’s evolving policy and the impact on smaller counties, but the transcript ends before final action on SB 245.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we understand certain communities prefer certain print media, for example, and radio.
• Aging in one's own home and community is not only the preference of the overwhelming majority of older
• I told the doctor I would prefer to go home with an IHSS provider and ask the public authority to find
• I'm going to say it again: $4.2 million to administration for $300,000 to patient care.
• One of the unique things about our coalition is that we have both care providers and patients.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the impact of H.R. 1 on older Californians and related county administration issues. Chair Jackson and Chair Addis opened by emphasizing California’s rapidly aging population and the need to protect seniors’ access to food, health care, housing, and in-home support services. Testimony from the Department of Social Services, Department of Health Care Services, and Department of Aging described how H.R. 1 would expand work and reporting requirements in CalFresh and Medi-Cal, increase redeterminations, and create new eligibility barriers. Witnesses and advocates warned that these changes could lead to large coverage losses, especially for adults ages 55 to 64, people experiencing homelessness, caregivers, and some immigrant groups, while also increasing administrative burden on counties. The LAO noted that many provisions do not directly apply to Californians 65 and older, but highlighted indirect effects and some direct impacts, including a new home equity limit for certain long-term care recipients and narrower immigration eligibility rules. Committee members pressed the administration and counties on how exemptions would be identified and implemented, whether data systems could automatically protect eligible people, and how outreach would reach older adults, women, LGBTQ seniors, and people with limited digital access. DHCS and CDSS said they are working to use existing data, cross-program information sharing, and human-centered communications to maximize exemptions and reduce churn, including text outreach, print and radio campaigns, and navigator support. Members also raised concerns about the need for legal aid and county eligibility workers to help people navigate complex rules, and requested updated analyses on the number of people likely to lose both Medi-Cal and CalFresh and the broader human and system impacts. No votes were taken. The second major topic was the administration’s proposal to shift some future IHSS costs to counties by establishing a statewide baseline for average authorized hours per case. CDSS said the proposal is intended to improve consistency in assessments and not reduce services, while counties and labor groups strongly opposed it, arguing that rising hours reflect real increases in need, an aging and higher-acuity caseload, and state-mandated assessment tools rather than county error. County representatives said the proposal would strain already limited local revenues, worsen the effects of H.R. 1, and could force cuts to other safety-net services. Committee members questioned the proposal’s timing and impact, but the hearing ended without action, with the chairs asking for continued updates, additional analysis, and more information before May Revision.