Transcript Highlights:

• Now it has that program, and then the act relates to federal rural health transformation program funds
• <00:02:09.119> income Health to reference that program income Health to reference that program
• agency 98 office of guardian adm. agency 98 office of guardian adm.
• agency 98 office of guardian adidum? agency 98 office of guardian adidum?
• grants program. It is a new $300,000. grants program. It is a new $300,000.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• /c><00:37:12.560> a<00:37:13.200> medically program, we can cover a medically program,
• > to<00:37:53.040> cover<00:37:53.280> a program now flexibility to cover a program
• part of the state's managed care program part of the state's managed care program at<00:57:42.720
• program? program?
• that this was a safe stations program. that this was a safe stations program.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Division 3 work session focused largely on amendment 1176 to HB 2, which would have incorporated the substance of HB 548FN, a House-passed bill creating a direct-pay or membership-based model for health care facilities. Representative Mlan described the proposal as a way to increase competition in health care by extending the direct-care model used in primary care to facilities, arguing it could encourage innovation and that concerns about widespread harm to critical access hospitals were overstated. He pointed to Oklahoma’s long-standing Surgical Center model as evidence that the approach had not spread broadly or displaced hospitals there. Several members and witnesses raised concerns. Representative Stringham questioned whether the model would shift profitable services and patients away from existing hospitals, potentially worsening their finances and affecting Medicaid-related funding. David Ross, speaking for county nursing homes, opposed the language because it also removed moratoriums on nursing home, skilled nursing, inpatient rehabilitation, and self-pay beds, warning that it could increase pressure on Medicaid rates and undermine community-based care. Ben Bradley of the New Hampshire Hospital Association said the proposal appeared to create a separate regulatory framework for direct-pay facilities and raised concerns about patient safety, CMS participation rules, and a separate patient bill of rights. The chair concluded that, because HB 548 was already moving through the Senate, the HB 2 process was not the best vehicle for the policy and that the issue should be left to the Senate’s more deliberative committee process. Representative Ferski moved to not accept or remove amendment 1176 from the agenda, and the committee approved the motion by roll call, 9-0, withdrawing the item from HB 2.

Transcript Highlights:

• , what is the purpose of the program?
• Number two, what specific services are provided by the program? purpose of the program?
• , and this is not an exhaustive list, scholarships, a guardian program, school recognition, and in this
• , and this is not an exhaustive list, scholarships, a guardian program, school recognition, and in this
• , and this is not an exhaustive list, scholarships, a guardian program, school recognition, and in this

Summary: The committee held its first meeting and received an overview of the Pre-K-12 education appropriations jurisdiction and base budget. Staff explained that education funding is driven largely by enrollment and per-student formulas, with most money coming from state and local sources. The presentation highlighted the major budget areas: early learning, the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP), non-FEFP K-12 programs, federal programs, and the State Board of Education. Members asked about instructional materials funding and how scholarship students who return to public schools are counted and funded; staff explained that instructional materials remain in the base and that funding depends on survey timing, with districts ultimately funded through the enrollment count process. The committee then reviewed federal IDEA funding for students with disabilities. Department of Education officials explained how IDEA Part B funds are split between state set-asides and local educational agencies, and noted that Florida ranked fourth nationally in total IDEA Part B funding and received a 95% state determination for meeting IDEA requirements. They also described the bureau’s responsibilities, including monitoring, dispute resolution, instructional support, and the Hope Florida unit for ages 3 to 5. Members asked for more information on student performance outcomes and how the state measures success beyond compliance, and the department agreed to provide follow-up data. The final major topic was the Florida Diagnostic and Learning Resources System (FDLRS), including associate centers, multidisciplinary centers, and specialized centers for deaf/hard of hearing and visually impaired students. Presenters described services such as child find, family support, assessments, professional learning, accessible instructional materials, and technical assistance. Committee members focused on whether families and schools have equal access to services across the state, how IEP disputes and reevaluations are handled, and whether more support is needed for parents, teachers, and rural districts. FDLRS representatives said they do not write IEPs but help connect families to districts, provide training and assessments, and support compliance and data collection; they also emphasized staffing and resource needs, especially for low-incidence disabilities and multilingual family outreach.

Transcript Highlights:

• Grant Programs, and L.A.
• grant programs, and L.A.
• this program.
• This includes even access to programs such as Head Start and other federally funded programs that are
• and home-based programs by leading to program disruptions and closures.

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:

• Studies consistently programs.
• > contact guardians update their contact guardians update their contact information<00:43:24.800
• pickup or drop-off program.
• school program the state and the county? school program the state and the county?
• <01:34:20.639> the clear link between the program the clear link between the program the benefits

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 2485, which would require cardiovascular screening for student athletes. The Department of Education and Department of Health said they support the bill’s intent but noted that many screenings are already part of existing school-entry and well-child exams. The Attorney General’s office asked for clarifying language on who performs the screenings, where results go, how “positive findings” are defined, how referrals would work, and whether funding would be appropriated if DOE must hire health professionals. The American Heart Association strongly supported the bill, citing the risk of sudden cardiac arrest in young athletes and arguing that sports physicals are an effective opportunity for early detection. No vote was taken, and the committee moved on after testimony. The committee then heard HB 89, concerning a school psychologist working group and possible licensing or credentialing of school psychologists. The Department of Education and Board of Psychology supported the measure. The Hawaii Psychological Association said it supports licensing school psychologists but asked to be included in the working group, arguing it is an important stakeholder. The Hawaii Association of School Psychologists opposed including HPA, saying the issue is between school psychologists and DCCA and that HPA is not part of their organization. Testimony and discussion focused on the long-running disagreement over whether school psychologists should be regulated under the Board of Psychology or another mechanism, and on title protection and scope of practice. No action was reported during this portion. The committee also took up HB 2445, relating to standardized emergency responses for immigration enforcement at or near schools. The Department of Education said it already issued internal law-enforcement guidance and questioned whether the bill was necessary, while also raising concerns about the bill’s 1,000-foot buffer language and the limits of school authority over activity off campus. The Board of Education echoed those concerns and suggested the bill may need clearer definitions. Supporters, including the White Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the Legal Clinic, and an attorney testifying on Know Your Rights training, argued that recent federal changes have increased ICE activity near schools and that a law is needed to ensure clear, public protocols, staff training, and family protections. A student testifier said the measure was a top priority of the state student council. The transcript ends during testimony, with no vote or final committee action shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• free lunch through existing programs free lunch through existing programs whether<00:09:52.640><
• the those programs.
• The program the the those programs.
• We have so many ideas, schemes, programs, pilot programs in order to do this.
• We have so many ideas, schemes, programs, pilot programs in order to do this.

Bills: HB2117, HB2155, HB1832, HB1601, HB2297, HB2397, HB1893, HB2533, HB1890, HB2004, HB1810, HB2323, HB1691, HB1671, HB2619, HB1481, HB2314, HB2319, HB2214, HB2488, HB2009, HB2007, HB1964, HB2218, HB1535, HB1977, HB2054, HB2046, HB146, HB2094, HB2181, HB2515, HB2444, HB2385, HB1724, HB1733, HB2416, HB2001, HB1603, HB1753, HB2140, HB1962, HB1963, HB2096, HB1959, HB1960, HB2293, HB2288, HB1752, HB1573, HB469, HB2091, HB1851, HB1688, HB1696, HB2417, HB2375, HB2333, HB2152, HB1881, HB2395, HB1721, HB1921, HB1730, HB1697, HB1824, HB2282, HB2078, HB2321, HB2279, HB1522, HB2097, HB2433, HB2106, HB2274, HB2452, HB1764, HB2438, HB1860, HB2604, HB2118, HB2017, HB2216, HB1934, HB2454, HB2427, HB2207, HB1840, HB1644, HB1645, HB1946, HB1648, HB2324, HB1509, HB1514, HB1515, HB2164, HB2165, HB2283, HB2386

Keywords: arts education, data mapping, task force, creative economy, cultural preservation, workforce development, geographic information systems, agriculture, data collection, statistical program, sustainable practices, Hawaii, aquaculture, biosecurity, food security, sustainable seafood, regulatory framework, interagency coordination, environmental stewardship, invasive species

Transcript Highlights:

• In this pilot program, patients who visit one of three licensed medical programs receive multiple psychiatric
• A drug stewardship program is basically a program that takes unused medications and safely disposes of
• Guardians and courts, being forced on a person without their consent, guardians and courts can approve
• These pilot programs could effectively change that.
• These pilot programs can begin to change that.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing opened with remarks from House Chair Mindy Domb and Senate Vice Chair Robyn Kennedy, who outlined procedures for the hybrid public hearing, noted the committee would hear testimony on 15 bills related to treatment settings, and recognized members present. The first major bill discussed was H. 4200, authorizing a pilot program for psychedelic-assisted treatment in licensed facilities. Representative Jim O’Day and witnesses from Control Z supported the bill, describing it as a tightly controlled, medically supervised pilot with DPH oversight, limited sites, and screening requirements. Committee members asked about the number of sites and whether Column Health still existed; witnesses said the bill contemplated three separate pilot programs and that Column Health no longer existed after being purchased by another company. The committee also heard testimony on S. 1405 to make the drug stewardship program permanent by removing its 2026 sunset date. Senator John Keenan and others said the program helps collect and safely dispose of unused medications, reduces diversion, and should remain in place because manufacturers should bear disposal costs. A member from Boston added support based on local concerns about people searching through bags for drugs, and Keenan explained the original sunset reflected pilot status and industry pushback. A large portion of the hearing focused on S. 1394 and H. 2193, which would strengthen implementation of the 2023 Roadmap for Behavioral Health Reform. The Children’s Mental Health Campaign, Parent/Professional Advocacy League, Massachusetts Association for Mental Health, and Elliott Community Human Services testified that the roadmap’s helpline, community behavioral health centers, and crisis services are important but unevenly implemented. They urged a single point of accountability within EOHHS, regular strategic planning, a public data dashboard, and financial analysis of the behavioral health system and the access and crisis intervention trust fund. Witnesses said commercial insurance often does not fully reimburse community behavioral health center services, making sustainability difficult, and asked for better coordination across agencies and crisis response systems. Committee members asked whether the roadmap includes substance use disorder; witnesses said it is intended to cover behavioral health broadly, including mental health and substance use. The committee also heard testimony on bills to ban aversives and on suicide prevention signage. Lisa Jean Graff testified in support of S. 1394 by urging a statewide ban on aversive practices, including electric shock, withholding food or bathroom access, and other painful interventions, arguing disabled people deserve the same protections from harm as others. Fonda Bryant and Carol McLean supported a bill requiring suicide prevention signs on tall parking garages, describing personal experiences and saying the signs could create a brief pause and connect people to 988 or other help. McLean said her son died by suicide from a parking garage and that signage might have made a difference. The committee also heard strong testimony in support of creating intensive stabilization and treatment units within DMH facilities (S. 1398/H. 2204), with the Massachusetts Nurses Association and a DMH nurse arguing that highly assaultive patients need specialized, more secure units to protect staff and other patients and to improve care. Additional testimony supported creating a dedicated board for licensed mental health counselors (H. 4696/S. 1382), with Rep. John Badger, the Mass Mental Health Counselors Association, and others saying LMHCs are a large and growing workforce that needs its own licensing board, clearer standards, and faster implementation of existing licensure reforms. The committee also heard extensive testimony on H. 2223 regarding benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepine hypnotics. Survivors and advocates described severe withdrawal, lack of informed consent, cognitive harms, and long-term disability, while a physician supported the bill as a way to improve disclosure of risks. Finally, the committee heard multiple witnesses in favor of H. 2231/S. 1383 to establish peer-run respite centers statewide. Advocates and people with lived experience said peer respites provide non-coercive, home-like alternatives to hospitalization, can reduce trauma and repeated admissions, and may be especially important for marginalized communities; they also cited cost savings and existing positive outcomes from current respite programs. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the hearing portion reflected in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• child with an adult their Guardian child with an adult their Guardian acting<00:34:25.119> on
• um income-based disability program um income-based disability program um<03:18:17.520> for
• the homeless youth and young adult programs.
• But we do have a mediator program going on before they get to Family Court.
• 50% but um we do have a mediator program 50% but um we do have a mediator program going<04:49:20.520

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Children and Family Law Committee opened with a brief prayer for Representative Grossman’s son, Oscar, who was reported to be in critical condition after a traumatic fall. The committee then took up House Bill 430, which would reduce DHHS retention of unfounded abuse and neglect reports from 10 years to 3 years. Prime sponsor Chairman James Spain argued that 10 years is excessive and burdens families with a long-lasting stigma, while emphasizing that founded reports and reports with reasonable concern would still be retained indefinitely. Committee members questioned whether longer retention helps identify malicious reporting or patterns of abuse, and whether parents understand the distinction between unfounded and unfounded with reasonable concern. The Office of the Child Advocate and DCF opposed the bill. Child Advocate Cassandra Sanchez said historical reports are important for identifying patterns, reviewing critical incidents, and understanding family dynamics, and that screened-out and unfounded reports can be essential context when later reports arise. She also noted that the records are highly confidential and not publicly accessible. DCF General Counsel Susan Larabe added that the bill could create inconsistencies by retaining screened-out reports longer than unfounded reports, and explained that unfounded reports can be used in court and in administrative reviews when there are multiple prior reports. The committee discussed how other states handle retention, with testimony that some keep records indefinitely and others for long periods. The hearing on HB 430 concluded, and the chair said the bill would not be executed until early March, leaving time for amendments. The committee then opened House Bill 187, concerning restraining orders sought by a parent on behalf of a minor child. Prime sponsor Representative Mike Belcher said the bill is intended to correct a gap in the law so children can access the same restraining-order protections adults can, through a parent or guardian, and framed it as an equal-protection issue. Members questioned why the proposal was placed in the child abuse and neglect statute rather than the civil restraining-order statutes, and whether it should instead be handled as a broader civil-law fix. Alanda Peterson, who said she created Jade’s Law, testified that the original wording was meant to protect all children, not just those harmed by family members, and supported expanding the language. The hearing continued with additional discussion of the bill’s scope and purpose.