Transcript Highlights:

• <00:46:03.040> I the uh MCO pays for prescriptions. I the uh MCO pays for prescriptions.
• Um paying in this state to take care of paying in this state to take care of them. them. them.
• >> Yes, on what we actually pay. What is the amount that we do pay the MCOs?
• What >> Yes, on on what we actually pay.
• what is the amount that that we do pay what is the amount that that we do pay the<01:19:30.640><

Keywords: 958, all

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:

• for the rent and the funds to uh pay for the rent and the maintenance<00:07:55.800> and<00:07
• Do they pay that or something?
• But we can look out to the future and budget based on what our contracts are going to pay us.
• <00:39:57.040> us pay us pay us Miss<00:39:58.640> tapor<00:39:59.079> y<00:39:59.359
• there and why we're willing to pay there and why we're willing to pay $222,000<00:51:08.720>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee on Housing and Homelessness Prevention heard presentations focused on public housing and related funding needs, with testimony from Minnesota NAHRO and several local housing authorities. Melissa Taphorn described the role of housing authorities statewide, including public housing, vouchers, CDBG/HOME funds, Bridges, and HEAT, and emphasized that public housing serves over 36,000 low-income Minnesotans, many of whom are seniors, people with disabilities, or children. She said federal operating and capital funds are insufficient, creating deferred maintenance backlogs, and noted that Minnesota’s public housing capital needs over a five-year period were about $500 million, with nearly $200 million unmet. She also discussed federal uncertainty, including a recent HUD funding freeze notice, possible changes to fair housing requirements, RAD repositioning options, and Build America, Buy America costs. Committee members asked about tenant rent calculations and the populations served. Testimony clarified that public housing residents generally pay 30% of monthly income, with utility allowances factored in, and that the average tenant rent in Minnesota is about $399. Members also heard that about 65% of public housing households are seniors or people with disabilities, while about 35% are families. The committee then heard examples of how state POP grants have been used to preserve public housing stock. Kurt Kina of the Red Wing HRA described multiple POP-funded projects that replaced windows, upgraded heating and cooling, and modernized electrical systems in a 100-resident high-rise, saying the work was essential to keep the building viable. Louise Siba of the St. Paul PHA testified that St. Paul’s authority serves nearly 22,000 people through more than 4,200 public housing units and over 5,200 vouchers, with most townhomes and high-rises serving elderly or disabled residents. She said St. Paul PHA has received nearly $16 million in POP funding since 2012, including about $8.5 million last year, and that those funds enabled major life-safety and modernization projects such as the Denan Terrace renovation and boiler, plumbing, and interior upgrades in high-rises. Jill Keers of the Duluth HRA described a broader set of housing programs, including vouchers, rehab loans, emergency repair funds, construction training, and development. She said Duluth HRA is adding 128 housing units between 2023 and 2025, including mixed-income rentals, senior housing, and family townhomes, and stressed that state investment through POP and other programs is necessary to keep housing affordable and safe.

Transcript Highlights:

• California's working families will pay the price.
• We're paying for it with our tax dollars that aren't going to other things, but we're also paying for
• I pay a lot less for my gas prices.
• Royal Shell would pay 0.54%. Chevron, 0.53%.
• They're wondering, how do you pay for it? They're wondering, how do you pay for it?

Summary: The committee hearing centered first on AB 1243, the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025, which would direct CalEPA to identify major fossil fuel companies, study California’s climate damages, and assess fees on the largest polluters to fund resilience, recovery, and related projects. The author and supporters argued the bill would make polluters help pay for climate harms, protect taxpayers, create jobs in construction and clean energy, and dedicate at least 40% of funds to disadvantaged communities. Support testimony came from environmental justice groups, labor, youth advocates, health organizations, and many individual witnesses, while opponents from the building trades, chambers of commerce, petroleum, and business groups warned it would raise fuel and consumer costs, threaten refinery jobs, and create legal and economic uncertainty. Committee members debated the bill’s impact on affordability, jobs, refinery closures, and whether cap-and-trade already addresses climate funding needs. The committee ultimately voted to give AB 1243 a due pass recommendation to the Judiciary Committee, with the roll left open. After AB 1243, the committee moved to another bill on wildfire mitigation and related resilience work. The author said the measure addresses a long-running wildfire problem and accepted committee amendments, describing the bill as a response to increasingly severe wildfire seasons and the need to help communities stay safe and rebuild after disasters. The transcript cuts off as that presentation begins, so no final action on the second bill is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• equals the cost that uh rateayers pay. equals the cost that uh rateayers pay.
• I thought, "I could never pay that." Yeah, I'm almost paying that now.
• They can't pay their bills.
• of motans can't are struggling to pay of motans can't are struggling to pay their<00:19:47.360><
• struggling to pay the bills right now. struggling to pay the bills right now.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• commercial insurers not paying. Right? commercial insurers not paying. Right?
• that they need or paying their bills. that they need or paying their bills.
• It ensures the plans pay reasons.
• Families are already paying premiums, and they deserve to get the care that they pay for.
• <05:01:04.280> I you need to pay for this program. I you need to pay for this program.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the rate of pay is higher, and so we do have to pay for additional...
• If their pay goes up, then the amount that we pay for the claims does increase a little bit.
• If their pay goes up, then the amount that we pay for the claims does increase a little bit.
• that get what it is they're paying for.
• that get what it is they're paying for.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Would exempt you from having to pay this fee.
• Well, if my car wasn't blocking the driveway, now I've got to pay a tow fee, I've got to pay storage
• I pay a subscription... I pay a subscription on that particular format, and I listen to music.
• Um, this is the pay raise for ...the pay raise for the SAOs. They will be a $5,000 pay raise.
• I've looked at The pay ranges, I've looked at the pay ranges.

Keywords: MS Senate Floor - 1 April, 2026; 10:00 AM, 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The project applicant would pay for these monitoring costs.
• We think that they should pay more.
• We think that they should pay more.
• We say we can pay our bills on it. That's labor-management negotiations.
• That’s what a first-year apprentice pays in addition to a base wage. We urge you to reject it.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the final three-party budget agreement and related trailer bills, with the Department of Finance outlining the major budget bill and omnibus measures. Finance described a package built around balancing the state budget amid economic uncertainty, preserving core health and safety-net programs, and making significant ongoing reductions in some state programs. The budget bill included major items such as shifting $1 billion from the General Fund to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for Cal Fire, funding universal transitional kindergarten, deferring some UC and CSU funding, supporting foster care and homelessness programs, providing Proposition 36 implementation funding, and achieving Medi-Cal savings through changes to benefits and eligibility. The committee also heard that votes on the budget bills were expected later in the week and the following Monday. Finance then walked through the trailer bills, including health, human services, early learning, education, resources, energy, transportation, labor, housing, tax, public safety, courts, general government, cannabis, and energy-related measures. Notable provisions included a Medi-Cal enrollment freeze for certain adults, new premiums and benefit changes for some immigrants, child care COLA changes, education funding for literacy, teacher support, universal meals, and community college student support, as well as resource and climate measures affecting Cal Fire staffing and energy permitting. The housing trailer bill drew the most discussion, with provisions on CEQA streamlining, a vehicle miles traveled mitigation banking program, a renters’ credit trigger, and a six-year moratorium on new residential building standards. Members also discussed a film tax credit expansion, cannabis enforcement funding, a tribal police pilot program, and changes to tax policy, including military retirement income exclusions and wildfire settlement payment exclusions. Committee members largely praised the staff and the budget process, but several raised concerns and asked detailed questions, especially about the housing trailer bill’s new wage standards, tribal consultation provisions, and possible effects on prevailing wage protections. Finance explained that the housing language was intended to set wage floors for market-rate projects receiving CEQA streamlining, with different county-based tiers and a notwithstanding clause preserving existing prevailing wage laws. Members also questioned the size and timing of funding for the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, Clean Cars for All, Proposition 36, and the film tax credit expansion. Other members highlighted support for public safety, veterans’ tax relief, child care providers, housing production, and higher education, while some expressed concern that the budget’s policy changes were being negotiated too quickly or without enough stakeholder input.

Transcript Highlights:

• Low pay and rising costs will lead to greater turnover, uncompetitive job openings, diminished quality
• serious without serious without serious consequences<00:05:08.560> low<00:05:08.880> pay
• c><00:05:09.080> and<00:05:09.240> Rising<00:05:09.639> costs consequences low pay
• and Rising costs consequences low pay and Rising costs will<00:05:10.039> lead<00:05:10.240><
• These taxes are significantly higher than what plans pay in the self-insured market, which are around

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Committee on Human Services Finance and Policy met to approve prior minutes and then take public testimony on the governor’s budget recommendations for human services. The chair explained the hearing format and noted that DHS declined to testify. Much of the testimony focused on proposed reductions or caps affecting disability waiver services, nursing homes, and elderly waiver programs, as well as related fee and tax changes in the budget. Representatives of ARM argued that the governor’s proposal would cap inflationary adjustments at 2%, limit rate exceptions, cap billable days, and restrict individualized home supports, which they said would worsen workforce shortages, reduce wages for direct support professionals, and destabilize disability services. They said the package would cut about $600 million over four years and could lead to group home closures, higher turnover, and families losing access to local homes and services. Committee members asked about real-world impacts and future rate adjustments, and ARM responded that providers have already planned around expected 2026 rates, so a cap would create immediate budget and staffing problems. Long-Term Care Imperative testified against nursing home-related cuts, saying the budget would cap future rate increases, limit health insurance costs in rate setting, phase out closure-related agreements and incentives, and fail to fully fund the Nursing Home Workforce Standards Board. They estimated the nursing home provisions could amount to a $218 million cut over four years, or roughly $350 million when combined with other underfunding, and said every nursing home and bed in Minnesota would be affected. They also criticized the lack of an inflation factor in Elderly Waiver, a proposed 54% increase in assisted living fees, and possible changes to provider-assessed fine and penalty funds. Members asked about staffing and bed availability, and the testifiers said reduced funding would likely force more beds out of service. A later testifier, Dan Andre of the Minnesota Council of Health Plans, raised concerns about the DHS budget’s proposed increase in the HMO surcharge and about carving pharmacy and non-emergency medical transportation benefits out of managed care. He argued the tax increase would raise premiums for fully insured and Medicare supplement enrollees and that managed care coordination helps members access care and medications. The hearing also included one unrelated, disruptive testimony about the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and other agencies, which the chair redirected back to the human services budget. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the minutes and receiving testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is it mostly check, or how do folks pay for their license?
• But in addition to that, we're paying out more because, on average, the benefit amount is higher.
• So that means 11% are continuing to pay by a paper check.
• It's really more of a technical item for how we pay for rental agreements based on bond funding.
• how we pay for rental agreements based on bond funding.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee 5 on State Administration held a May Revise hearing focused on state administration proposals, with the chair noting no actions would be taken and all items would remain open. The committee heard presentations on a range of budget proposals, including technical adjustments for the Governor’s Office of Service and Community Engagement and the California Workforce Development Board, security and election-related funding for the Secretary of State, modernization and loan-backfill requests for the Department of Consumer Affairs, and multiple Employment Development Department updates covering EDD Next, UI and DI/PFL benefit estimates, workforce funding, and an EMT training reappropriation. Several items drew discussion from the LAO and committee members. The LAO generally supported technical or modernization items such as PERB’s implementation requests, GoServe’s College Corps adjustment, the Secretary of State’s security and HAVA grant items, and the Board of Pharmacy modernization proposal, but raised concerns about the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education’s proposed $10 million General Fund backfill and interest-free loan language. For EDD, the LAO flagged the size of the DI/PFL benefit adjustment and the unusual structure of the document management system proposal within EDD Next, while EDD said the changes reflected higher participation and benefit levels after SB 951 and ongoing modernization needs. The Department of Industrial Relations drew the most extensive questioning. It proposed funding for legal unit reclassifications, EAMS and Cal/OSHA data modernization, a new Cal/OSHA emerging technologies unit, a COYA reappropriation, and trailer bill changes requiring electronic payment of employer assessments and adjusting the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board timeline. Members pressed DIR on high vacancy rates, long wage theft and workers’ compensation backlogs, low collection rates for fines, and the need for clearer workload and outcome measures. DIR said the requests were intended to improve efficiency, support audits and corrective action plans, and better address emerging workplace risks, while the LAO said the workload drivers behind delays remain unclear. The hearing also included support for CalHR’s employee assistance program consolidation and CDT’s proposal to expand “Poppy,” a statewide generative AI assistant for state employees.

Transcript Highlights:

• You pay them back over time.
• Now, there are two ways you pay them back.
• And if we pay... ...program through these private investors or pay them back, and if you pay them back
• You’re going to have to pay for the relocation of our businesses.
• You’re going to have to pay for trench plate up and down our streets.

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 2026 draft business plan and next steps for the project. Chair Cortese opened by noting major changes since the 2024 plan, including new leadership, a bottoms-up review, scope changes in the Central Valley, loss of federal funds, and renewed interest in private investment and value capture. The Authority’s CEO, Ian Chaudhary, presented the project as moving into a construction and track-laying phase, citing progress on Central Valley structures, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocations, and a new procurement for track and systems. He said the plan reflects a more disciplined, optimized approach, with the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment targeted for revenue service around 2033 and the broader Phase 1 corridor envisioned as commercially viable through ancillary revenues, public-private partnerships, and future private financing. Committee members questioned the Authority about station relocations, single-tracking, tax increment financing, utility relocation authority, transparency, and the feasibility of private financing. Chaudhary said the Merced and Bakersfield station locations were still under discussion with local governments and that no contracts had been finalized. He defended the reduced scope and single-track approach as a just-in-time strategy to avoid overbuilding, while maintaining high-speed standards. He also said the Authority was exploring land value capture, broadband, energy, and other corridor-based revenue sources, but acknowledged that some tools would require legislative action and that private financing options were still being evaluated. Several senators expressed support for the project but raised concerns about permitting delays, local opposition, constitutional and statutory limits, and the need for stronger accountability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the High-Speed Rail Inspector General then gave critical assessments of the draft plan. LAO staff said the plan assumes major statutory changes, understates risk, lacks transparency about scope changes, and may not fully fund even the smaller Merced-to-Bakersfield segment once borrowing costs and other uncertainties are considered. Inspector General Ben Belknap said the draft plan does not comply with newer statutory requirements in SB 198 and AB 377, citing three main deficiencies: unauthorized scope changes to the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment, an inadequate funding plan that omits financing costs, and missing procurement milestone dates. He said the Authority’s presentation obscures the true cost and schedule impacts of the project changes, and that incomplete reporting limits legislative oversight. The Authority responded that it would address the OIG’s findings in the final business plan, and committee members indicated they expected a written response on compliance issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we were already completely free, no co-pay, for up to 400% of poverty.
• Referrals are helping parents get employment so they can pay their child support...
• Fifty-seven percent of parents are able to pay their child support through that intervention.
• They are going to have an impact on how much other individuals pay for health insurance.
• Is it true that the funding has been reverted and those pay raises have not been given? Mr.

Transcript Highlights:

• centers, so that they can provide health care services to patients regardless of patients' ability to pay
• In FTC recent reports, they showed how PBMs pay their own pharmacies more than other pharmacies.
• They protect co-pay assistance programs that many patients rely on to afford their medications.
• They restrict our ability to pay for essentials and to support our children.
• We have a community member who pays more on medication than they do for rent.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a lengthy hearing on a large docket of pharmacy and drug-pricing bills, with most testimony focused on PBM reform, 340B drug discount program protections, specialty medication access, and medication adherence. Chair James Murphy and Senator Paul Feeney opened the hearing and took testimony from legislators, patient advocates, pharmacists, health center leaders, industry representatives, and policy groups. Several speakers described delays, denials, high out-of-pocket costs, and pharmacy closures tied to PBM practices, while others emphasized the importance of community health centers and independent pharmacies in serving patients. On the 340B program, supporters including Senator Eldridge, Senator Payano, Community Care Cooperative, Fenway Health, the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers, and several community health center leaders argued that bills such as H. 1107 and S. 819 would stop discriminatory PBM and manufacturer practices, preserve contract pharmacy access, and protect safety-net providers that say they reinvest savings into care, pharmacy expansion, interpreter services, behavioral health, and other services. Opponents including PhRMA, the Community Liver Alliance, and a public policy analyst argued the program lacks transparency and accountability, has grown beyond its original purpose, and may benefit large hospitals and for-profit entities more than low-income patients. They urged more reporting and oversight rather than expanding protections. On PBM reform, testimony supported bills including H. 1157, H. 1234, S. 724, S. 831, and related measures that would require rebate pass-through, ban spread pricing, limit steering to PBM-owned pharmacies, and improve reimbursement for community pharmacies. Independent pharmacists and patients said current PBM practices raise costs, create administrative burdens, and threaten access to local pharmacies. PCMA, representing PBMs, opposed the reforms, arguing PBMs lower costs, that plan sponsors choose to contract with them, and that the Health Policy Commission and CHIA should complete their ongoing study before new mandates are adopted. The committee also heard support for H. 1322 and S. 734 on specialty medications, and for H. 781 and H. 1305 on medication synchronization to improve adherence. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:12:56.160> are issue of temporary hazard pay are issue of temporary hazard pay are currently
• Um we did increase civil service pay.
• pay. Employees have long-term illnesses. pay. Employees have long-term illnesses.
• <00:33:10.880> leave don't have any leave without pay leave don't have any leave without pay
• <00:38:48.240> in requires a state or a county to pay in requires a state or a county to pay

Bills: SB2119, SB3131, SB3069, SB3180, SB2137, SB2993, SB2778, SB2672, SB2014, SB2967

Keywords: reimbursement, public employees, travel costs, government travel policy, finance management, job title, administrative assistant, executive assistant, state personnel, civil service, modernization, employment standards, DAGS, Department of Accounting and General Services, comptroller, civil service exemption, collective bargaining exemption, public works special project branch, specialized public works, information technology modernization

Transcript Highlights:

• This will be a significant part of how you pay for everything moving forward.
• We are also paying for seventy-eight percent of all early childhood programming.
• else you want to pay for.
• They want to pay off their debts with cheaper money.
• What do they pay into their productivity or their business as miners? What do they pay?

Transcript Highlights:

• They either pay for it going in or they pay for it going out.
• pay ad valorem taxes, they pay the...
• Industry pays to plug wells.
• As Chairman Darby just said, our industry pays for it in the front, they pay for it in the back, they
• pay for it in the front.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:29:50.720> this have moorings are willing to pay this have moorings are willing to pay
• already paying already paying and<00:32:55.240> they<00:32:55.400> just<00:32:55.760
• Um you asked a willing to pay it.
• <02:34:41.880> They're<02:34:42.000> not<02:34:42.320> paying don't pay for
• They're not paying don't pay for it.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Drivers face harassment, unfair deactivations, and less and less pay.
• “You can have access and have to pay $2 a month for it.
• They must pay them on time every month.
• If they can’t afford internet, they can’t pay their bills.
• Shrewsbury is required to pay about $7,000.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy opened its hearing with testimony on several broadband, towing, and rideshare-related bills. The first major issue was H. 3470/S. 2259, which would add data privacy and integrity protections for transportation network driver information. Rideshare drivers and labor advocates strongly opposed the bill, saying it would delay implementation of Question 3, which Massachusetts voters approved to give rideshare drivers a path to unionize. Drivers described low pay, deactivations, harassment, safety risks, and the need for a union to negotiate fairer working conditions. Legal and labor experts testified that the bill was largely duplicative of existing law and regulations and would unnecessarily postpone drivers’ organizing rights. No vote was taken on the bill during the hearing. The committee also heard extensive testimony on broadband affordability and access bills, including S. 2318/H. 3527 and related measures. Supporters, including legislators, digital equity advocates, senior advocates, and service providers, said low-income households need a permanent affordable broadband option after the federal Affordable Connectivity Program ended. They argued that internet access is now essential for jobs, school, health care, housing, and daily life, and supported a flat-rate low-income plan around $15 per month with protections such as no installation fees or termination fees. Opponents from cable and wireless industry groups argued the bills would impose artificial price mandates, discourage investment, and reduce consumer choice, noting that providers already offer discounted programs. The committee also heard support for broadband deployment and pole-attachment streamlining bills, with providers and municipal broadband advocates saying permitting delays and pole access bottlenecks slow expansion and raise costs. Additional testimony covered H. 3566, which would exempt municipal broadband projects from surety bond requirements, and towing-related bills including S. 2235, H. 3507, H. 3516, and H. 3482. Insurance and anti-fraud witnesses supported stronger towing protections, saying some towers charge excessive fees and hold vehicles hostage, while one witness urged broader consumer safeguards. The hearing ended after the chairs shortened testimony to fit the room schedule, asked for final comments on remaining bills, and then adjourned by motion and voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Being paid enough means I can buy the things I need, pay my bills, like get groceries.
• So, Carrie likes her pay, you like what? I want to watch SWAT. She likes to watch SWAT.
• Well, you see, I'm like under my, where I work, I live in a house where I have to pay $700 and pay for
• "They gave us $17 an hour, and I can pay good money to pay all my bills and keep my car payment up."
• They had to pay the minimum wage at a minimum.

Summary: The meeting was a 14(c) Task Force hearing focused on employment experiences of Oklahomans with disabilities and the state’s use of subminimum wage. Numerous self-advocates and workers testified about their jobs, accommodations, pay, transportation barriers, and the importance of community integration. Several speakers described positive experiences in competitive or community jobs, while others recounted being underused, fired without explanation, or paid by piece rate or minimum wage in sheltered or enclave settings. Many emphasized that fair pay, independence, ABLE accounts, and supportive employers matter to them, and several said they want future careers, promotions, or even to own businesses and help others with disabilities find work. Task force members discussed recurring themes from the testimony: transportation as a major barrier, the importance of community and self-advocacy, employer misconceptions and stigma, the need for better transition services from school to work, and the difficulty families face navigating benefits and employment systems. Members also raised concerns about people being fired without explanation and about the need for meaningful options for those not ready for competitive employment. Suggestions included more employer education, reverse job fairs, job coaching, benefits planning, better coordination between DDS and DRS, and stronger transition supports in schools and through programs like Project SEARCH. Staff then presented research on how other states have phased out or eliminated 14(c) certificates. Examples included Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington, with common approaches such as phase-out timelines, technical assistance, provider transition plans, and support for competitive integrated employment. The presenters noted that Oklahoma still has 40 entities using 14(c), most of them DDS providers, but many providers are already moving away from it. Members discussed potential unintended consequences, the need for a clear timeline, the possibility of blending or braiding services, and whether Oklahoma should create a more one-stop, employer-friendly system. No votes were taken, and the group agreed to continue gathering information and return in June to begin shaping priorities and possible policy directions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there an intention to pay the $10 million back to the Florida taxpayers in some way?
• If we pay on results, we pay on value, and if we can measure value, do you have the resources available
• If we pay on results, we pay on value, and if we can measure value, do you have the resources available
• So why would we pay $38 million if we didn't get to keep all of that $67 million? Secretary Harris.
• And someone has to pay the price.

Summary: The committee met to consider a large slate of appointments, with the main discussion centered on the confirmation of Chavon Harris as Secretary of the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). Harris testified about her background in state service and outlined agency priorities including Medicaid financial accountability, transparency, managed care oversight, behavioral health redesign, rural health access, workforce recruitment, and use of technology and AI. Senators questioned her extensively about the Hope Florida/Medicaid settlement controversy, opioid settlement-funded advertising campaigns tied to marijuana prevention and the 2024 Amendment 3 election, public records compliance, abortion reporting and enforcement under the Heartbeat Protection Act, managed care denials, value-based purchasing, and Medicaid funding pressures. After debate, the committee voted to recommend her confirmation, with Senator Polsky voting no. The committee then considered Anna Ortega and Robert Payne for the Florida Public Service Commission. Ortega, a current PSC commissioner and former staff advisor, discussed utility regulation, data center load issues, ratepayer protections, transparency in PSC decisions, and lessons from other states. Payne, a former legislator and longtime utility co-op employee, emphasized his technical background and the need to balance utility returns with consumer affordability. Both nominees were confirmed by unanimous or near-unanimous votes and recommended favorably to the full Senate. Next, the committee heard from Jeffrey Aaron for reappointment to the Public Employees Relations Commission. Aaron described PERC’s role in public-sector labor disputes and said his work had been upheld in appellate courts without reversal. Senators questioned him about his law firm’s state contracts, his role as chairman of Attorney General James Uthmeier’s PAC, and his connection to the Hope Florida Foundation matter; he declined to discuss the pending investigation. Public testimony included opposition from Florida Voice for the Unborn. The committee nevertheless recommended his confirmation, with several no votes. Finally, the committee approved the remaining appointees on tabs 5 through 46 in a single vote, postponing Dr. John Littell and DCF Secretary Hatch, and then adjourned.