Transcript Highlights:

• It is time-based, patient-specific, and often very unpredictable.
• profits continue to climb, while patients are left behind.
• It protects patients when surgery does not go according to plan.
• We're a nonprofit patient advocacy organization.
• We've helped approximately 40,000 patients apply for charity care.

Summary: The House Health Care & Wellness Committee held public hearings on several bills. House Bill 2232 would create a Department of Health-operated time-sensitive emergency data repository covering trauma, cardiac, and stroke events, with quality improvement reporting and support for rural facilities; it drew strong support from emergency physicians, nurses, and the Department of Health, while the Washington State Hospital Association said hospitals support the goal but lack the resources to absorb the added requirements. House Bill 1812, as a proposed substitute, would bar insurers and public plans from imposing anesthesia time limits or related reimbursement caps; the sponsor and anesthesia providers said it protects patient safety and fair payment, and the Washington State Society of Anesthesiologists asked for a clarifying amendment on physical status modifiers. House Bill 2250 would limit hospital charity care to Washington residents, while preserving emergency care access; supporters from rural hospitals and the Washington State Hospital Association said the change would help border hospitals facing rising nonresident charity care, and opponents from legal aid, patient advocacy, and LGBTQ groups warned it would create barriers, chill access for immigrants and other vulnerable patients, and conflict with Washington’s safety-net values. The committee also heard House Bill 2340, which would extend existing substance-use monitoring program protections and stipend eligibility to nursing assistants under the Board of Nursing’s CARES program. The sponsor described it as a simple equity measure, and the Board of Nursing supported it, saying it would improve access and reduce stigma; members asked where the stipend funding comes from, and staff and the board said it is currently general-fund supported at about $25,000 annually. House Bill 2577 would change hospital inspection law by requiring acute care hospital inspections every 18 months rather than on average, allowing some accredited inspections to satisfy the requirement every 36 months, and clarifying fire-protection reinspection standards; the sponsor and Department of Health said it responds to a JLARC audit and provides needed clarity, while DOH said it is still working to catch up from inspection delays caused by the public health emergency. The meeting ended after public testimony on the bills was closed and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Most of my patients will need lifelong therapy until a cure is found, and some patients are at high risk
• beings who provide patient care.
• It is not a patient safety mechanism.
• I believe the patient would still need to be seen and assessed before you let the patient go.
• We're talking about patient safety.

Summary: The committee heard AB 1887, which would speed prior authorization for FDA-approved rare disease treatments prescribed by specialists and, if a plan does not act within 30 days, deem the request approved. The author and supporters, including patients and clinicians, said delays can cause irreversible harm, hospitalizations, and death, especially for children and people with progressive rare diseases. Health plans and insurers opposed the bill’s automatic-approval provision and said the measure lacked safeguards for incomplete requests and shared responsibility for timely information. The chair encouraged continued work with opponents, and the author said the bill was narrowed from an earlier version that would have waived prior authorization entirely. The committee also heard AB 1979 on artificial intelligence in health care, AB 2161 on Medi-Cal work requirements, AB 539 on extending approved prior authorizations, AB 2311 on physician employment at public hospital districts, AB 1148 on banning phthalates and bisphenols in food packaging, AB 1825 on mental health offender reentry coordination, and AB 2282 on a temporary emergency stabilization unit in Patterson. AB 1979 would preserve licensed clinicians’ professional judgment, bar AI from directing unlicensed clinical functions, and protect medical records used by consumer chatbots; after amendments, several hospital, medical, and industry groups moved from opposition to neutral. AB 2161 would limit the harm of federal Medi-Cal work-reporting rules by using existing data, improving notices, and protecting due process; it drew broad support from patient, provider, and advocacy groups. AB 539 would keep prior authorization approvals valid for up to one year or the course of treatment, with supporters citing continuity of care and opponents warning about utilization, fraud, and cost concerns. AB 2311, as amended, would let certain high-payer-mix or distressed public health care districts directly employ physicians; CMA withdrew opposition after the bill was narrowed, while some hospital interests still objected to the carve-out. AB 1148 would prohibit two chemicals commonly used in food packaging, with supporters citing cancer and endocrine-disruption risks and opponents arguing DTSC should handle the issue through its existing regulatory process. AB 1825 would improve transition planning and Medi-Cal enrollment for offenders with mental health disorders leaving state hospitals, and AB 2282 would authorize a temporary rural emergency stabilization care unit in Patterson until a permanent hospital is built. Several bills were held for later action because the committee lacked a quorum, and the chair repeatedly noted that motions would be taken once enough members returned.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:41:02.440><c> be</c><00:41:02.520><c> able</c> patients and have your patients be able patients
• </c><00:42:11.319><c> and</c> patient the choice let's the patient and patient the choice let's the patient
• This should be a patient-and-provider, patient-and-nurse, patient-and-doctor-run health care system.
• This should be a patient-and-provider, patient-and-nurse, patient-and-doctor-run health care system.
• </c><00:47:23.680><c> in</c> provider patient in nurse patient in provider patient in nurse patient in

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> bring our patients in. bring our patients in.
• </c> patients deserve. patients deserve.
• </c> these patients. these patients.
• . patients. patients.
• </c> trauma and burn patients. trauma and burn patients.

Bills: HF4841 , HF4234 , HF3697

Committee: House Taxes

Keywords: Hennepin County, sales tax, health care facilities, ballpark improvements, tax revenue, HF4234, Minnesota private activity bonds, tax-exempt bonds, bond cap, aggregate bond limitation, residential rental projects, multifamily housing, affordable housing finance, housing bonds, public finance, bond allocation, private activity bond cap, Minnesota Statutes 474A.02, tax committee, tax refund

Transcript Highlights:

• low-risk patients that we can care for.
• When a patient is determined to be of a higher risk, that patient is automatically transferred to physician
• Patients and doctors... Insurance plans cover and what patients must pay.
• It can compromise patient safety.
• This bill ensures patients can readily access it.

Committee: House Health

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> patients in because a seizure patient patients in because a seizure patient from<00:20:48.320><c
• We take care of our patients. Any patient that's in front of us, we're going to take care of.
• We take care of our patients. Any patient that's in front of us, we're going to take care of.
• </c> patient because that's not what we do. patient because that's not what we do.
• </c> patients and we want the best for them. patients and we want the best for them.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The goal is to make sure that we have the highest quality care for all patients in Idaho.
• Thank you. acute hospitalization of my patient. All right. Thank you.
• safety and by limiting the patient workforce.
• So how does that help you care for patients? Ms.
• It is critical that that patient return to get the care to treat that condition.

Committee: Senate Health and Welfare

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A qualifying patient is a person who is a patient of a health care provider, who has been diagnosed with
• And this is particularly important for patients in rural communities.
• This is in the best interest of the patient as well as the nurse.
• It prevents patients from timely transfer. ...is burdensome.
• Many patients being transferred between hospitals are critically ill.

Bills: HB2340 , HB2155 , HB2531

Committee: Senate Health & Long-Term Care

Keywords: HB 2340, nursing assistants, nurse aide, substance use disorder monitoring program, monitoring program, credentialing, licensure, disciplinary records, enforcement action, public disclosure, privacy, third-party website, stipend program, financial assistance, treatment costs, drug testing, peer support, recovery, rehabilitation, board-approved program

Transcript Highlights:

• By giving patients the option of sedation for IUD insertion, we can alleviate some of the anxiety patients
• But it is the right thing to do for our patients.
• provided it to over 500 patients.
• Patients are not just suffering but dying.
• Here's a product that a patient might use. Here's another product a patient might use.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Financial Services

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services held a public hearing on a wide range of bills, with testimony first focused on H. 1315/S. 824, which would require insurance coverage for pain management options during IUD insertion. Representative Sabadosa, Planned Parenthood clinicians, and policy advocates said sedation can reduce fear and trauma, improve access to effective contraception, and should be reimbursed so providers can continue offering it. A Tufts OB-GYN resident also testified that pain control should be standard care for intrauterine procedures. No votes were taken during the hearing. The committee then heard extensive testimony on firefighter health bills, especially H. 1230/S. 690 requiring insurance coverage for cancer screenings for firefighters. Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts leaders, a Dana-Farber oncologist, and firefighters themselves described occupational exposure to carcinogens and personal stories of late-stage cancer detection, arguing that early screening can save lives and reduce long-term costs. Representative Crichton and Representative Howitt also spoke in support, and Representative Ayers testified for H. 4012, which would require neurological disorder screenings for firefighters. Committee members expressed support and sympathy, but no action was taken. The hearing also covered H. 3946/S. 756 on hearing aid coverage, with testimony from students, adults with hearing loss, disability advocates, and HLAA representatives describing the educational, social, and financial barriers caused by lack of coverage and urging broader insurance mandates. Later, Representative Donahue and Representative Vargas testified for H. 1337 to expand insurance coverage for opioid antagonists and related medications, including naloxone dispensed at discharge. The committee additionally heard testimony on H. 1134 to improve chronic pain care coordination and non-opioid access, and H. 4162 to improve ostomy supply coverage and access to certified ostomy care, with patients and clinicians describing denials, quantity limits, and non-medical switching. The transcript ends while testimony on H. 1315/S. 824 is still ongoing; no votes or formal committee actions are recorded in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• I come from the patient voice.
• The patient doesn't have a choice.
• And so we're going to have patient assistance programs.
• patients.
• Patients. We want it to go to patients. And that's our position.

Committee: House Health and Mental Health

Summary: The committee first heard House Bills 2365, 2490, and 2249, a bipartisan version of Elijah’s Law, which would require child care facilities to receive training and guidance on recognizing and responding to food allergies and anaphylaxis. Sponsors described the bill as a response to the death of Elijah, whose daycare did not administer epinephrine quickly enough after a food exposure. Witnesses in support, including a parent and food allergy advocate, said the measure would improve preparedness and save lives. Committee members asked about whether the bill should use broader epinephrine terminology, whether the requirements could also be handled through child care licensing rules, and whether the bill was already included in a larger measure. No opposition was presented, and the hearing on those bills was closed. The committee then heard House Bill 1965, which would require insurers to reimburse athletic trainers for covered services and add athletic trainers to the practitioner definition for billing purposes. The sponsor and athletic training witnesses said the bill would recognize athletic trainers as licensed health care providers, improve access in rural and underserved areas, and allow reimbursement when trainers work in clinics, hospitals, or other non-school settings. Committee members raised repeated questions about the difference between athletic trainers and physical therapists, whether school-based services were already paid through contracts, whether the bill would increase costs or create double payment, and how diagnosis and billing would work under the current scope of practice. Opponents from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City and the Missouri Insurance Coalition argued the bill would create a mandate, increase costs, and expand billing before clarifying the underlying scope of practice. No vote was taken in public hearing. The committee then moved into executive session and voted several bills do pass. A substitute was adopted for House Bill 1826 and the committee substitute for House Bills 1826, 2560, 2349, and 2194 passed 17-0. House Bill 1783 also passed 17-0. House Bill 2372, which incorporated multiple related provisions including changes to epinephrine terminology and other committee items, passed 17-1 after a substitute and amendment were adopted. House Bill 1827, the occupational therapy bill related to disabled placards and license plates, passed 18-0. The committee then returned to public hearing and heard House Bills 1941 and 2279, which would prohibit copay accumulator programs for fully insured plans so that third-party assistance counts toward a patient’s deductible and out-of-pocket maximum. Sponsors and a rheumatologist testified that the bills would prevent patients with serious illnesses from being forced to pay the same deductible twice and said similar laws have been enacted in many other states. Opponents from America’s Health Insurance Plans argued the measure would affect only a minority of plans, raise costs in the individual and small-group market, and could worsen affordability for remaining enrollees. The hearing ended without a vote on those bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• “We did a research study this year serving 500 patients with alopecia areata and found that patients
• Life is hard for head and neck cancer patients.
• Yeah, I've been a Hanger patient.
• were either very wealthy patients or patients who were coming to acupuncture after many other tries
• You've heard from several of my patients today.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Financial Services

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing opened with the Senate and House chairs of the Joint Committee on Financial Services explaining that the day’s agenda would focus on health insurance and other insurance matters, with a large number of witnesses and a request for brief testimony. Legislators were taken out of order to accommodate their schedules, and the committee heard testimony on several bills, including coverage for hair prostheses for alopecia (H. 1223/S. 832), medically necessary oral and dental care for head and neck cancer survivors (H. 1258), modernizing fertility and family-building coverage (H. 715/H. 1190 and related bills), coverage for prosthetic devices to support physical activity for people with limb loss (the “So Everybody Can Move” bill), remediation coverage for home heating oil releases (S. 813/H. 1302), and expanded access to physical therapy for Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (H. 1170). A separate bill on sickle cell care and registry development (S. 788) was also discussed by Senator Liz Miranda. Witnesses largely offered personal stories and expert testimony in support of the bills. Advocates for alopecia coverage described the medical and emotional impact of hair loss, the high cost of quality wigs, and the argument that scalp and facial hair prostheses should be treated like other medically necessary prosthetics. Cancer survivors and supporters of H. 1258 said oral and dental care after head and neck cancer treatment is a quality-of-life issue and often not covered despite major out-of-pocket costs. Fertility specialists, LGBTQ+ advocates, and legislators supporting the modern family-building bills said the current infertility definition is outdated and discriminatory, excluding same-sex couples, people needing donors or gestational carriers, and others with medical barriers to conception. For the limb-loss bill, parents and adults with prosthetic needs stressed that activity-specific prostheses are essential for children and adults to run, swim, play sports, and stay healthy, but are often excluded from coverage. The home heating oil testimony focused on the financial devastation caused by residential oil spills and the need to make spill coverage automatic in homeowners policies. Environmental professionals and homeowners described cleanup costs ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, the strict liability homeowners face, and the fact that many policyholders do not know the rider exists. The insurance industry testified in opposition to the mandatory-coverage approach, arguing for clearer distinctions between first- and third-party coverage, risk-mitigation standards, a delayed effective date, and more emphasis on education and notification rather than mandates. Committee members pressed the industry witness on why agents do not routinely tell customers about the rider and suggested that the issue may require broader disclosure by insurers, agents, and fuel dealers. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee heard testimony and discussed possible compromise language and future action.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:15:11.840><c> their</c><01:15:12.000><c> care</c> patients and patients can get their care patients
• They've advocated for their patients to ensure that their patients receive the appropriate care.
• It protects patient a protocol.
• </c> patients and health systems. patients and health systems.
• . patients. patients.

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 1973 ensures patients get timely care from providers, AB 1973 ensures patients get timely care from
• Patients are often required to pay out of pocket.
• Most of my patients will need lifelong therapy until a cure is found, and some patients are at high risk
• That's how we do quality care for patients.
• They're critical for this patient population.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard a long agenda of health-related bills, with most items presented for later vote once quorum was reached. Early in the hearing, the committee adopted a consent calendar of multiple bills with motions for due pass to Appropriations, and it noted that AB 2029 had been pulled from the agenda. The committee also took up AB 1973, a bill by Aguiar-Curry to expand who may provide procedural abortion care. Supporters, including physicians and certified nurse midwives, argued the bill would align law with current training and improve access, while opponents said later-term abortion procedures require physician-level surgical training and raised safety concerns. The author emphasized hands-on training, consultation, and transfer protocols, and the bill was held pending quorum with a motion and second recorded. The committee then heard AB 1558 by Arambula, which would adopt the Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act to speed the use of out-of-state licensed volunteers during declared disasters. Supporters from the Uniform Law Commission and the Red Cross said the bill would reduce delays and clarify legal authority for volunteer health workers; there was no opposition testimony. AB 2282 by Alanis, a temporary rural emergency stabilization center for Patterson while a permanent hospital is built, drew support from local emergency responders and a late opposition from the California chapter of ACEP. The chair praised the bill as a creative local solution and agreed to coauthor it; a motion and second were recorded, with the vote to occur later. Several public health access bills followed. AB 1843 by El-Hawari would limit prior authorization and align hepatitis C treatment coverage with medical guidelines; supporters said it would remove barriers to a curable disease, while health plans opposed it as a mandate, citing premium impacts and the recent SB 306 prior-authorization process. AB 2247 by El-Hawari would create the THRIVE program for mental health services for youth affected by gun violence; Youth Alive and other supporters described trauma-informed, community-based care, and the chair and another member asked to be added as coauthors. AB 2138 by Krell would expand access to certified peer support specialists in enhanced care management and remove automatic disqualifications based solely on criminal history; supporters said peers are essential to engagement and recovery, and the bill was held with a motion and second. Later, AB 1682 by Hart would require coverage of scalp cooling for chemotherapy patients, with emotional testimony from cancer survivors and clinicians; insurers opposed it as another mandate, but the author stressed the modest per-member cost and the bill was moved with a motion and second. AB 1879 by Dixon would standardize data reporting for alcohol and drug treatment facilities, including private providers, to improve statewide information on outcomes and access; the bill drew broad support from recovery organizations and the prior opposition was withdrawn after amendments. AB 1906 by Aguiar-Curry would require coverage of at-home cervical cancer screening kits without cost sharing; supporters cited improved access for rural and working Californians, insurers opposed it on affordability grounds, and the bill passed on a recorded roll call after quorum was established. Finally, AB 1556 by Haney would clarify and support drug-free recovery housing and return-to-use policies; supporters said it would expand sober housing options, while opponents warned it could allow evictions after relapse and conflict with Housing First principles. The hearing ended with the bill still under discussion and opposition-unless-amended concerns noted.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's about 25,000 patients per week.
• We called our patients to find out; we have about 25,000 undocumented patients.
• Now that patient has...
• Again, we called thousands of patients, and we called hundreds of patients.
• half of the patients said yes.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on the impacts of H.R. 1 on California’s Medi-Cal program and on community health effects from recent immigration enforcement actions. Committee leaders said H.R. 1 would sharply reduce federal funding, increase administrative burdens, and worsen access to care, especially for Medi-Cal enrollees, immigrant families, rural communities, and reproductive health patients. The second half of the hearing examined how ICE raids and related federal actions are creating fear, reducing clinic and emergency department use, and disrupting children’s access to schools and early childhood education. Department of Health Care Services Director Michelle Bass outlined the main H.R. 1 provisions affecting Medi-Cal: work requirements, semiannual eligibility redeterminations, shorter retroactive coverage, new cost-sharing, limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments, reduced federal support for emergency and lawful immigrant coverage, and a one-year ban on Medicaid funding for prohibited abortion providers. She estimated millions could lose coverage, with tens of billions of dollars in federal funding at risk. Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California warned the defunding provision could force clinic closures, service reductions, and loss of access to family planning, STI testing, and cancer screenings. The California Hospital Association said the financing changes could cut hospital revenue by tens of billions over 10 years and threaten access, especially for rural and safety-net hospitals. The Western Center on Law and Poverty argued the law would increase churn, paperwork, and uninsured rates, disproportionately harming working adults and people experiencing homelessness. Committee members asked about implementation timelines, notification systems, administrative costs, the effect on immigrant eligibility, and whether California could delay or mitigate some provisions. Bass said the state was still assessing federal guidance, planning county and provider outreach, and exploring a possible delay for work requirements and a transition period for provider-tax changes. Members also discussed how state budget actions may need to be revisited in light of H.R. 1, and how California might preserve access through state-only funding or other policy changes. In the second panel, CHIRLA, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, and the Children’s Partnership described the health consequences of immigration enforcement. Speakers said raids and data-sharing fears are causing anxiety, trauma, and avoidance of care, with Los Angeles County reporting declines in emergency, urgent care, and clinic visits after enforcement actions. The Children’s Partnership said school and early childhood absences are rising in some communities and that enforcement is undermining children’s emotional well-being and access to education. Members asked for more data and discussed possible state protections, telehealth, mobile care, and legal and policy responses to reduce fear and preserve access to health and education services.

Transcript Highlights:

• office, not the patient.
• I've worked with patients suffering from severe infections, patients requiring sedation, and patients
• cost to patients.
• So on behalf of my patients, on behalf of their families, for the sake of my patients.
• We don't, and we get these patients. Correct. To take care of these patients, to admit them.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Health heard a series of bills focused on access to care, insurance coverage, and public health. AB 387 on youth sports AED access drew support from the author and safety advocates, but opposition from school, park, city, and county groups over liability, cost, and access concerns. The author said he would continue working on amendments to shift the bill toward requiring access to existing AEDs rather than mandating facility procurement. Committee members emphasized the life-saving purpose of the bill while also raising affordability and access concerns for youth sports programs. The committee also heard AB 1682, which would require health plans and insurers to cover FDA-cleared scalp cooling devices for chemotherapy patients. Supporters, including breast cancer survivors and health groups, described the emotional and quality-of-life benefits of preventing hair loss and said cost is the main barrier to access. There was no formal opposition, though one senator raised concerns about whether the mandate could exceed essential health benefits. The chair and members expressed support for the bill’s goals and said it would be taken up when quorum was established. AB 2093, a follow-up to the 988 crisis line law, sought to clarify statewide leadership, improve coordination among 988, 911, and mobile crisis teams, and create a more sustainable funding structure. Behavioral health organizations and crisis center representatives supported the bill, saying implementation challenges and demand growth require statutory fixes. Committee members generally supported the concept but noted the bill was a gut-and-amend and that additional work was needed with county and behavioral health stakeholders. The committee then heard AB 1843 on hepatitis C treatment, AB 1629 on dental assignment of benefits, AB 2540 on community college access to medication abortion services, and AB 1929 on disclosure of health plan investments. AB 1843 had broad support from medical and public health groups but opposition from health plans, which argued it conflicted with the prior-authorization framework in SB 306 and could raise drug costs. AB 1629 was supported by dental and patient advocates but opposed by dental plans and insurers over concerns about network participation and out-of-pocket costs. AB 2540 drew strong support from reproductive health advocates and student representatives, while community college health services and some others opposed or were neutral pending amendments; the author said the bill was about equity and accepted amendments to reduce burdens. AB 1929 was backed by labor and immigrant rights groups as a transparency measure, but opposed by health plans and insurers who said Covered California was not the right entity to administer the disclosures and that the information was already publicly available. Throughout the hearing, members repeatedly weighed public access and transparency against cost, administrative burden, and implementation concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• But I would argue that patient care, good patient care, was truly the end product.
• </c><00:40:40.880><c> A</c> a patient wearing a MAGA hat. A a patient wearing a MAGA hat.
• </c> patients receiving the care they need. patients receiving the care they need.
• </c> their patients interests and well-being. their patients interests and well-being.
• </c> that were written for patients. that were written for patients.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Health Services met with a quorum and first moved through administrative regulations without comment. The committee then heard Senate Bill 56, sponsored by Senator Gerald Neal, which would require Medicaid and its managed care entities to treat non-opioid pain medications on equal footing with opioid analgesics by prohibiting more restrictive coverage controls, prior authorization, or step therapy for non-opioids. Neal argued the bill would improve access to safer pain treatment options and reduce the risk of opioid use disorder, and Billy O'Brien of Young People in Recovery testified in support, describing personal experiences where non-opioid options were difficult to obtain despite a desire to avoid opioids. After discussion, the bill received a motion and second and passed the committee on a 10-0 vote. The committee then took up Senate Bill 72, sponsored by Senator Don Douglas and presented with Greg Chaffin of Alliance Defending Freedom. Douglas described the bill as a provider recruitment and retention measure intended to protect health care workers from being compelled to act against their conscience and to address workforce shortages and pressure in health care settings. He said the bill would protect individual beliefs while maintaining professionalism. A large number of witnesses then testified, and the chair limited public comments to two minutes each because of the number of speakers and the controversy surrounding the bill. Most public testimony opposed SB 72. Speakers including representatives of the Kentucky Council of Churches, a psychologist, an ordained minister and nurse, a nurse practitioner, and an ACLU policy strategist argued the bill was overly broad, could allow refusals of care by a wide range of health care workers, and could delay or deny treatment, especially for vulnerable patients and in rural or emergency settings. Several cited concerns about discrimination, patient safety, and the lack of adequate protections for patients. One witness recounted the death of an 18-year-old pregnant patient as an example of the harm that can result from delayed care. The transcript ends during additional testimony on SB 72, before any committee vote or final action on that bill is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• , one-to-ones with patients in seclusion and restraint.
• So we've... ...one-to-ones with patients in seclusion and restraint.
• And again, like I said, when you are releasing patients faster, there is a likelihood that patients are
• And for patients that... ...have two of them on our Salem campus.
• Patients will have adverse events, and we will absolutely do our best.

Keywords: 907, all

Summary: The joint Senate and House Behavioral Health committee met for informational presentations on the Oregon State Hospital and civil commitment, followed by a planned tour of the hospital. Oregon Health Authority and Oregon State Hospital leaders reported that Sean Murphy will become the next permanent superintendent on July 13, with Sarah Castle to follow as permanent chief nursing officer on July 20. They described recent leadership turnover, a major organizational restructure, and efforts to build a culture of safety, transparency, and accountability. Officials said the hospital regained Joint Commission accreditation and CMS compliance, and they highlighted daily safety huddles, incident review processes, stronger escalation procedures, and improved management of seclusion and restraint. Committee members pressed hospital leaders on past prolonged seclusion practices, falls, staffing, and the need for better public reporting; OHA said it is building a public dashboard of key safety and workforce metrics. The committee then heard a civil commitment overview from the Oregon Judicial Department. The presenter explained that civil commitment is a separate legal process from criminal cases, usually beginning with a hospital hold, investigation, court review, appointed counsel, and a hearing within five days. She summarized changes made in House Bill 2005, including revised standards for danger to self, danger to others, and basic-needs commitments, plus a second 14-day diversion option. She cautioned that the new law has only been in effect since January and that it is too early to draw firm conclusions from the data, though there has been a recent uptick in commitments and a decrease in diversions. Testimony from NAMI Oregon and a forensic psychiatrist emphasized that Oregon still relies too heavily on jails and state hospitals because community services, housing, and outpatient supports are insufficient. They argued that the state needs more less-restrictive alternatives, including better use of assisted outpatient treatment or outpatient civil commitment, and more supported housing so people do not cycle between homelessness, incarceration, and hospitalization. A family member described a relative remaining psychotic in jail for more than 120 days before ending up back at the state hospital, urging faster intervention and better collaboration among courts, counties, hospitals, and state agencies. Committee members and witnesses also discussed workforce shortages, the expansion of secure residential treatment beds, and the need for broader system reforms beyond the hospital itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> patients in New Hampshire. patients in New Hampshire.
• </c> for New Hampshire patients. for New Hampshire patients.
• </c> medical program for very sick patients. medical program for very sick patients.
• So several patients in that patient.
• c> their</c><01:37:50.159><c> designated</c> patients patients and their designated patients patients

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , along with about 170 ALS patients.
• , along with about 170 ALS patients.
• We just want to say thank you for making this real as a patient and patient advocate.
• of our patients like family.
• It simply expands patient choice.

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 2433, which would require insurers offering Medicare supplement policies to also offer them to people under 65 who qualify for Medicare because of ALS or end-stage renal disease, with enrollment periods and premium protections. Supporters, including patient advocates and an ALS patient, said the bill would improve access to needed coverage and transplant-related care and could have only a small premium impact. Opponents, including Blue Cross Blue Shield/AHIP, argued it would shift significant costs onto older seniors and shrink the Medigap risk pool. The bill was ultimately given a do-pass recommendation on a 12-0 vote. House Bill 2593 would appropriate $1.5 million to the University of Arizona for the Arizona Perinatal Psychiatry Access Line. The sponsor and physicians testified that the line helps providers quickly treat pregnant and postpartum patients with depression, psychosis, OCD, and suicide risk, and also supports pediatric mental health care. Supporters said it improves outcomes and reduces emergency and referral costs. The committee approved the bill with a do-pass recommendation by a 10-1 vote, with one member present. The committee also passed House Concurrent Resolution 2013, proclaiming June 2026 as Celebrate Life Month, after emotional testimony from a woman born with spina bifida and another supporter. Several members objected that the state should focus on concrete supports such as health care and family leave, but the resolution still received a 7-5 do-pass recommendation. House Bill 4010, creating a licensing and regulatory board for genetic counselors, also advanced 11-1 after testimony from genetic counselors and a cancer survivor who said licensure would protect patients and improve access. House Bill 2196, addressing pharmacy benefit manager reimbursement and dispensing fees, passed 11-1 despite opposition from PBMs and employers who warned of higher costs; independent pharmacies argued the bill would help them cover costs and stay open. The committee then adopted a strike-everything amendment to House Bill 2182 requiring insurers and health plans to report claims denial and prior authorization data to DIFI, which would publish aggregated information and hold a later stakeholder review. Supporters said Arizona needs state-specific transparency data, while opponents called it redundant to federal CMS reporting; the amended bill passed 12-0. House Bill 2189, directing the Board of Nursing to update rules for licensed health aides and collect annual data, also passed unanimously after the board said it was already working on curriculum and implementation. The committee held House Bill 2813 and 2725, and began discussion of House Bill 2404, as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's service to patients.
• It's service to patients.
• </c><00:23:50.919><c> driving</c> region where we have patients driving region where we have patients
• </c> you guys do with your patient you guys do with your patient education<00:44:26.520><c> um</c><00
• those patients, and again, most of them are going to Maine. patients and again most of them are patients

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The work session focused on HB 54, which would allow New Hampshire’s alternative treatment centers to operate for profit. Chair David Nagel opened by identifying the main concerns: whether members agreed with the bill conceptually, whether the proposal could be shaped to avoid a gubernatorial veto, and whether it could lead to “big cannabis” taking over. He also emphasized that the bill would not change the existing oversight structure, which remained under RSA 126-X. Representative Wendy Thomas said the governor’s objections in past sessions appeared to center on the state’s preference for a state-run model and broader policy concerns, but no one present knew the current governor’s position. Several speakers argued the bill was primarily about financing and access, not expanding the number of dispensaries. Matt Simon of Granite Leaf Cannabis said the current nonprofit structure makes it difficult to raise capital, pay down debt, and open additional access points, and that the bill would be a corporate restructuring rather than a change in day-to-day regulation. Brandon Pollock of TASCAL Wellness said medical cannabis programs in most other states are for-profit, and that New Hampshire’s nonprofit requirement has left ATCs burdened with high-interest debt and higher prices that push patients to Maine, Vermont, or the street market. He said converting to for-profit status could allow conventional financing, lower prices, and help keep patients in the regulated program. Members also discussed whether for-profit ownership would invite outside corporate control. Witnesses said the bill would not open the market to new operators, would not change advertising rules, and would include restrictions on ownership transfers for a period of time; “foreign corporation” was explained as an out-of-state entity. One speaker noted that the bill is similar to earlier versions that passed both chambers with strong support but never became law. No vote was taken during the work session; the discussion was informational and aimed at addressing concerns before the bill moved forward.