Transcript Highlights:

• It also bases the Department of Social and Health Services' decision to issue a CCRC registration on
• review received by the Department of Social and Health Services in its online listing of registered CCRCs
• We have about four of those types of CCRCs in the state right now, and I think one or two more anticipated

Bills: HB2564, HB2599, HB1809, HB2242, HB2261, HB2384, HB2505

Keywords: healthcare, insurance, certification, state regulation, health plan, therapy, psychotherapy, mental health, regulation, professional standards, behavioral health, mental health crisis, crisis response, co-response, co-responder, first responder, EMS, emergency medical services, paramedic, EMT

Summary: The House Health Care & Wellness Committee held public hearings on House Bill 2564, concerning the health benefit exchange, and House Bill 2599, concerning the use of AI in therapy services. HB 2564 would let the exchange adopt annual market-factor certification criteria to address access and affordability issues, including requiring more meaningful plan differences, broader county participation, and availability of lower-premium options. Supporters, including the exchange, former Sen. Karen Kaiser, consumer advocates, rural and tribal representatives, and some brokers, said the bill could help prevent bare counties, improve affordability, and reduce confusing plan duplication. Opponents, including carrier groups, insurers, the hospital association, and insurance producers, warned it could reduce carrier participation, create uncertainty, overlap with OIC authority, and raise provider costs. HB 2599 would restrict licensed therapy providers from using AI to make independent therapeutic decisions, directly interact with clients, generate treatment plans without review, or advertise AI as therapy; supporters said it was needed to prevent deceptive or dangerous chatbot therapy, while several professional groups and Teladoc supported the intent but asked for narrower definitions and clearer carveouts for routine clinician-supervised tools. The committee also heard testimony on the bills’ details and possible amendments, but took no public-hearing votes on either bill. In executive session, the committee considered five bills. HB 1784, on certified medical assistants entering and activating orders, passed with a proposed substitute that added standing written protocols, annual review requirements, and a 24-hour countersignature deadline; it was reported out 18-0. HB 2242, on preventive services and immunization recommendations, had three amendments considered: two were rejected and one JLARC study amendment was adopted, after which the substitute bill passed 11-7. HB 2384, on actuarial reviews for continuing care retirement communities, passed as a substitute after technical changes and was reported out 16-2. HB 2505, creating an exemption from adult family home licensure for certain foster family situations, adopted an amendment adding disqualifying conditions and then passed 18-0. The committee deferred action on HB 1809 and HB 2261, and adjourned after completing its work.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then the CCRC statute down below, how CCRCs, along with a number of other like nursing facilities
• And this is where CCRCs are defined. Slide. And this is where CCRCs are defined.
• And CCRC, the people residing in CCRCs are able to access that resource.
• that we associate with CCRCs.
• that we associate with CCRCs.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Continuing Care Retirement Communities met for its third meeting, focused on regulations, oversight, and enforcement. Staff and agency presenters reviewed the current framework: the Executive Office of Aging and Independence explained that assisted living regulations generally do not apply to CCRCs unless an assisted living component markets itself separately, and that CCRCs must submit marketing materials, contracts, and disclosure statements for public posting. The Attorney General’s office described Chapter 93A consumer protection standards and noted it is working on draft assisted living-specific regulations. DPH outlined its oversight of licensed nursing facilities associated with some CCRCs, including routine surveys, complaint investigations, and enforcement tools such as admissions freezes, fines, receivership, and license actions, along with federal CMS sanctions for certified facilities. Commission members and presenters then discussed gaps and ambiguities in how CCRCs are defined and regulated, especially whether communities without on-site skilled nursing should still be treated as CCRCs, how assisted living-like services within CCRCs are classified, and whether residents have enough clarity about the services they are buying. A major theme was disclosure: members raised concerns about entrance fees, refund timing and conditions, whether skilled nursing is on-site or provided by contract, and how residents can compare communities. Several participants suggested more standardized disclosure and possibly broader consumer protection rules, while others cautioned that overly rigid requirements could affect community finances and development. The commission also explored enforcement and resident protections. Some members argued that independent living residents are already covered by landlord-tenant law and that existing complaint systems and community education may be sufficient, while others said residents in supported or assisted settings within CCRCs should have clearer access to ombudsman services and oversight. The discussion turned to closure and ownership transfer, with members citing recent national examples of sales and bankruptcies that changed resident terms. DPH explained its closure process for licensed nursing facilities, and members noted that Chapter 197 of 2024 adds oversight for facility transfers and financial disclosures. The meeting ended with logistics for the next session at Brookhaven at Lexington on June 2, a public hearing on June 16, and a request to circulate the hearing notice broadly to residents and stakeholder organizations.

Transcript Highlights:

• CCRCs are incredibly complicated.
• CCRC can, what changes the CCRC can make to the physical plant.
• But a lot of the CCRCs that we have in California, to me, don't really look like CCRCs.
• To me, that's not a CCRC, but somehow it is, has still been licensed as a CCRC.
• to be, CCRCs.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission’s fifth meeting focused on consumer protections and resident rights in continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with a presentation by Yvonne Choyah of UC Law San Francisco. She described California’s CCRC framework, including entrance fee structures, monthly fee increases, contract types (A, B, and C), disclosure requirements, and regulatory oversight. A major theme was that residents often do not understand the contracts they sign, while providers retain broad discretion over fees, transfers, terminations, and changes to the physical plant. She also emphasized that California’s regulator is understaffed and not well suited to oversee the complex financial and insurance-like aspects of CCRCs, and that resident complaints and litigation can be slow and difficult. Choyah and commission members discussed several consumer-protection issues, including refundable versus repayable-on-resale entrance fees, rising monthly care fees, the decline of life care contracts, and the need for clearer disclosures and better comparative data for prospective residents. She noted that California requires annual disclosure statements, resident bill of rights materials, and some fee-related reporting, but that enforcement and accessibility remain weak. Members raised questions about resident board representation, accreditation, refund requirements, and whether state agencies or resident associations could help explain contracts to consumers before admission. Choyah suggested stronger oversight, more financial expertise in regulation, and better transparency about ownership and fee-setting. The meeting ended with discussion of the commission’s next steps toward its August report. Staff said a draft report would be prepared from the commission’s discussions and circulated for comment before final revisions. The chair also announced staff transitions: Jennifer would be leaving the State House role, and Juliana Fernandez and Vicky Halal would be the main contacts going forward. The commission adjourned after thanking Choyah for her presentation and answering member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• of ownership of a CCRC.
• CCRCs. Right. Yeah.
• This is the definition of CCRCs.
• ..Senior Care, while we don't represent CCRCs, we represent the NIFs in CCRCs.
• So I think if a CCRC, the only, what CCRCs are fighting for now is the right to charge these What CCRCs

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission met to review its draft final report on continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with most of the discussion focused on whether recommendations required unanimous consensus and how to handle disagreements in the report. Members agreed that consensus meant no stated opposition, and several participants argued that unresolved issues should still be described in the report rather than omitted. The chairs said the report would include agreed-upon recommendations, note areas without consensus, and preserve written comments or dissent letters submitted by members. The draft report’s findings and slides were reviewed charge by charge, including CCRC definitions, financial condition, entrance fee refunds, regulatory oversight, advertising practices, and closure/change-of-ownership procedures. Members suggested several factual and wording edits, including clarifying financial data sources, correcting a presenter’s name, refining language about entrance fee use and refund timing, and revising statements about Attorney General authority and CCRC advertising. There was also discussion about the need to distinguish nonprofit and for-profit CCRCs and to better explain how different care levels and licensing structures are described. On recommendations, the commission kept the proposal to advance the disclosure bill (S. 478) and update the consumer guide, but removed a recommendation for annual open board meetings after objections that it was inadequate. The group spent considerable time debating whether to recommend resident representation on CCRC boards, timely refund requirements for entrance fees, and possible state registration or definition changes for CCRCs, but no consensus was reached on those items. The chairs said the final report would be completed by the statutory August 1 deadline, with final written comments due before then and the report and meeting materials posted on the legislature website.

Transcript Highlights:

• really a CCRC?
• and what makes a CCRC.
• and what makes a CCRC.
• CCRC and what makes a CCRC.
• How would they see CCRC?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission met at Brookhaven at Lexington to continue discussing continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with a focus on financial viability, entrance fees, refund policies, and how the industry is evolving. Speakers explained that nonprofit CCRCs have shifted away from building entirely new campuses since the 2008 financial crisis, and now more often grow through expansions, affiliations, mergers, or added home- and community-based services. They also noted that many newer CCRCs, especially nationwide, are being built without on-campus skilled nursing, relying instead on assisted living, memory care, or off-site arrangements, and that zoning and local approval can affect expansion plans. A substantial portion of the discussion centered on financial health and consumer protection. Panelists said the most important indicators of a strong CCRC are high occupancy, strong liquidity, and reinvestment in the property, with low occupancy and declining days cash on hand cited as warning signs. They described how actuarial reviews are used to estimate health care utilization and set pricing, and said staffing shortages are often a bigger financial pressure than resident care utilization itself. On refunds, speakers said entrance-fee refunds are generally paid when a unit is resold and the new entrance fee is received, and that resident refunds are usually protected even in bankruptcy, though residents are unsecured creditors. Massachusetts examples such as Reed’s Landing and the Groves were cited as cases where residents remained in place and refunds were ultimately protected. The group also discussed a pending disclosure bill on Beacon Hill related to entrance fees and refund transparency. LeadingAge Massachusetts said it supports clearer disclosure so residents understand refund provisions, and reported that among surveyed member CCRCs, the average time to provide an entrance-fee refund over the past two years was about 117 days. Participants emphasized the need to balance consumer protection with preserving the financial stability of the communities. The commission also reviewed upcoming dates: a virtual public hearing/listening session on June 16, the next commission meeting on June 23, and a later discussion planned on consumer rights, protections, and advertising practices. The meeting concluded with introductions of commission members and an invitation for attendees to tour the Brookhaven campus.

Transcript Highlights:

• to protect the residents in that CCRC.
• Again, I think that I'm not an enemy of CCRCs.
• , and any potential new CCRCs.
• a CCRC.
• can call themselves a CCRC.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission meeting focused on continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), beginning with a presentation from Two Life Communities on its Opus Newton model, which is opening in the fall. Two Life described Opus as a middle-income, modern CCRC built around affordability, care coordination in residents’ apartments rather than separate care buildings, and resident-driven community life. Commissioners asked about financing, home care arrangements, affordability, Medicaid/MassHealth access, and the role of resident councils versus board representation. Two Life said it wants to remain within the CCRC framework, but expressed concern about proposals that would require multiple discrete care levels, impose deadlines on entrance-fee refunds, or require resident board seats. The commission then discussed possible recommendations. There was broad support for Senate Bill 478, which would require clearer disclosure of entrance-fee refund terms in a separate document for prospective residents. On refund timing, members were divided: some favored a one-year deadline or a deadline with waivers, while others opposed a fixed deadline because of financing risks and the potential impact on new development and current residents. Several members suggested keeping the status quo but adding better data collection and reporting on refund timing. On the CCRC definition and marketing, members debated whether the current statutory definition is too vague and whether the commission should recommend clearer standards or a certification-like process, while also noting resource limits for state oversight. Members also discussed the Age CCRC Consumer Guide, with general agreement that it should be updated and made more useful to consumers, possibly with clearer questions to ask and more information about facilities, though some cautioned against adding subjective financial-risk statements that would be hard to administer. On resident representation, several commissioners strongly supported requiring resident voting members on boards, while providers argued that strong resident associations and regular meetings with boards may be preferable and that communities should retain flexibility. The meeting ended with a request for written comments by July 11, draft recommendations to be circulated July 18, and a possible final meeting on July 21, with the commission aiming to finish by August 1.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are a group of people who live in CCRCs, which...
• We are a group of people who live in CCRCs, which usually include independent, almost always have independent
• We are the only unit within the CCRCs, which are called out specifically in the proposed bill, that do
• CCRCs, which are called out specifically in the proposed bill, that do not have access to an ombuds.

Bills: SB6091, SB6096, SB6153, SB6200

Keywords: SB 6091, Washington real estate, real estate broker, residential property, home listings, exclusive listing, limited marketing, open marketing, fair housing, brokerage law, consumer protection, housing access, MLS, seller disclosure, buyer representation, dual agency, designated broker, managing broker, short sale, real estate pamphlet

Summary: The committee heard public testimony on several housing bills. SB 6091 would prohibit real estate brokers from marketing residential property to a limited or exclusive group unless it is also marketed to the general public. The sponsor and supporters, including Washington Realtors, Habitat for Humanity, Zillow, the Fair Housing Center, and several brokers, said the bill promotes transparency, competition, and fair housing by preventing “pocket listings” and hidden inventory that can exclude buyers and reinforce segregation. Opponents, including Compass representatives and some brokers, argued the bill would restrict homeowner choice, harm privacy, and create legal risk for brokers; the Attorney General’s office said it supported the competitive goal but had concerns about using the Washington Law Against Discrimination as the enforcement mechanism. The committee then closed testimony on SB 6091 without taking final action. SB 6200 would protect renters and manufactured home residents from landlord restrictions on portable cooling devices, with limits for safety, building code compliance, electrical capacity, and liability protections for landlords. The sponsor and supporters framed the bill as a public health response to deadly extreme heat, citing the 2021 heat dome and testimony from physicians, tenant advocates, and nonprofits that cooling can save lives and is often the only realistic option for renters. Multifamily housing and property management groups supported the concept but raised concerns about window-mounted units in high-rise buildings, insurance, property damage, and neighboring-unit impacts, asking for narrower language or exemptions. Testimony on SB 6200 then closed. The committee also heard SB 6096, which would require cities and towns to offer deferred collection of water and sewer connection charges for qualifying residential construction until final inspection or occupancy. The sponsor said the bill would ease upfront financing burdens for builders without reducing what local governments receive. Builders and business groups supported the measure as a way to lower development costs, while water and sewer districts and city officials opposed it, arguing it shifts financial risk to utilities and ratepayers and could complicate infrastructure planning. After testimony, the committee closed the hearing on SB 6096. Finally, the committee heard SB 6153, which would create a senior independent housing ombuds program, require registration of senior independent housing facilities, and make certain landlord violations subject to the Consumer Protection Act. The sponsor said seniors in independent living settings often lack meaningful protections and need an ombuds similar to those available in licensed care settings. Supporters, including residents and advocacy groups, said the bill would provide oversight, complaint resolution, and dignity for older adults living in 55-plus communities and CCRCs. Testimony on SB 6153 was underway at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• While CCRCs are licensed by HHSC to provide care, CCRCs are regulated by the Department of Insurance
• progressive care to clearly disclose that they are not CCRCs.
• Out of the 39 CCRCs licensed by the Texas Department of Insurance, 33 are members of LeadingAge Texas
• their CCRC certification because of an outdated definition of continuing care.
• SB 1522 addresses that concern by updating the 30-year-old definition of a CCRC.

Bills: SB500, SB1522, SB1137, SB1266

Keywords: SB 500, Texas adoption law, Family Code, DFPS, Department of Family and Protective Services, child-placing agency, prospective adoptive parents, adoption records, confidential information, nondisclosure agreement, child history report, health history, social history, educational history, genetic history, termination of parental rights, permanency plan, single source continuum contractor, privacy, redaction

Summary: The Committee on Human Services met with a quorum and first voted out Senate Bill 1589, relating to contract requirements between a single-source continuum contractor and DFPS. The motion to report the bill favorably to the full House with a recommendation that it do pass and be printed prevailed on a 7-0 vote. The committee then heard Senate Bill 500, which would set deadlines for providing foster care adoption records, including health, social, educational, and genetic history reports, to speed adoptions. The bill’s author and witnesses from Addie’s Hope Social Services supported it, saying delays in redacted files can take months, slow permanency for children, and increase costs to the state. Members asked about redactions and sibling/family information, and witnesses explained the bill would mainly speed the preliminary file used to decide whether to proceed with placement. SB 500 was left pending. Members also heard Senate Bill 1266, which would require regular reevaluation of the Medicaid provider support team and add written notice of provider disenrollment at least 30 days in advance. There were no witnesses, no questions, and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 1522, concerning continuing care retirement communities, was then laid out and supported by LeadingAge Texas and counsel, who said it updates outdated definitions, clarifies licensing and disclosure rules, and strengthens consumer protections for seniors. It was also left pending. After a brief recess, the committee heard Senate Bill 1137, which would prohibit group home consultants from referring people to unlicensed or unpermitted group homes except in limited circumstances, require disclosure of complaints, and create a Class B misdemeanor for violations. Members discussed whether consultants are regulated and noted concerns about unlicensed referral practices. The bill was left pending, and the committee adjourned after completing its agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• But I'm really interested to learn more about CCRCs in general.
• I've been in the CCRC world for over 20 years.
• Can I ask what requires the nonprofit CCRCs to keep people?
• It looks like everybody's a CCRC. So it's really confusing.
• It's called NACRA, National CCRC Commission.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Aging and Independence commission meeting focused on continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with members and presenters discussing how the model works, consumer protections, and areas for future review. After member introductions, Jennifer Fuller summarized survey results showing the top priorities as financial viability and affordability, consumer protections and rights, and regulation/monitoring standards. The commission said those issues would guide its work plan, while also keeping staffing, definitions, and federal support on the radar. Alyssa Sherman of LeadingAge Massachusetts and Jim Freiling of Brookhaven at Lexington gave a detailed overview of CCRCs, explaining that they combine housing with health-related services under long-term contracts and typically require entrance fees plus monthly fees. They described the three common contract types: Type A/life care, where costs stay relatively stable if residents need more care; Type B, which offers some included or discounted care with higher costs later; and Type C, fee-for-service, with lower entrance fees but higher costs if care needs increase. They also discussed nonprofit governance, resident involvement, and the role of state and Attorney General disclosure requirements. Several members raised concerns about affordability, refund timing, and the need to distinguish true CCRCs from other senior housing marketed similarly; presenters said refunds are often tied to reoccupancy and that their organizations are collecting data on refund timelines and contract terms. The discussion also covered resident rights and governance, including whether residents should have seats on nonprofit boards. Christine Griffin said her community lacks resident board representation and urged the commission to consider a state requirement, while others said resident associations and direct engagement with boards can be more effective than mandatory board seats. Members also discussed transparency around monthly fee increases, financial screening before admission, and the importance of clear marketing so consumers understand what they are buying. No votes were taken. The meeting ended with logistical updates, including a tentative public hearing date of June 3, 2025, a note that the next meeting would focus on regulation and monitoring standards, and a reminder that the commission would continue refining its work plan based on survey feedback.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think I'm simply calling as a resident of a CCRC.
• The saying, when you see one CCRC, you've seen one CCRC.
• I hope the CCRC Commission can recognize the value of not-for-profit CCRCs in their position as best-of-breed
• As mentioned, you've seen one CCRC, you've seen one CCRC.
• We've talked here a lot about the CCRCs.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Continuing Care Retirement Communities held a public hearing focused on studying CCRCs in Massachusetts, including their financial viability, consumer protections, oversight, entrance fee and refund policies, advertising, and procedures for closure or ownership changes. Chair Rep. Tom Stanley and co-chair Sen. Pat Jehlen opened by explaining the commission’s mandate under Chapter 197 of the Acts of 2024 and asked speakers to keep testimony brief. Several commissioners and staff also emphasized the importance of hearing directly from residents, providers, and advocates. Resident testimony largely centered on two themes: the need for stronger resident representation and the need for clearer, faster refund protections. Multiple residents urged the legislature to require resident seats on governing boards, including full voting rights on national or nonprofit boards, and to make board minutes and meetings more transparent. Several speakers described long delays in receiving entrance-fee refunds after leaving a community, with one family reporting an 18-month wait and financial hardship; they called for a one-year refund limit, vacancy-order systems, escrow or reserve protections, and state oversight or guarantee funds. One resident also argued that CCRCs should be more clearly defined in state law and possibly licensed or certified so only approved communities can market themselves as CCRCs. Providers and operators generally described CCRCs as valuable models for aging in place and emphasized transparency, resident engagement, and the benefits of nonprofit ownership. Speakers from nonprofit communities said residents often serve on boards or committees, participate in budgeting and planning, and benefit from integrated care, amenities, and financial stability. A for-profit operator also said residents receive disclosure and input, while noting that CCRCs vary widely and that consumer education is important. Commissioners echoed several recurring issues at the end of the hearing, especially the need to define what a CCRC is and to address refund timelines and information sharing. No votes were taken; the hearing concluded with notice that the next virtual meeting would be on June 23 at 10:00 a.m., and written testimony was invited by email.

Transcript Highlights:

• Recent CCRC bankruptcies in Florida and other states have resulted in CCRC residents like us losing our
• Better financial protection for CCRC residents would lead to more business for all CCRCs.
• I'm not an expert at CCRCs, but I pretty much am an expert at CCRCs, especially in Florida.
• I'm not an expert at CCRCs, but I pretty much am an expert at CCRCs, especially in Florida.
• It was a terrible situation for residents, and the failure of any CCRC is bad for the CCRC field in its

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several insurance, financial regulation, and public safety bills. The most extensive discussion centered on SB 1656, a major Office of Insurance Regulation bill covering reciprocal insurers, rate transparency, data calls, cybersecurity notification, and stronger oversight of continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs). The sponsor and OIR described the bill as aimed at transparency and preventing insolvencies, especially after recent CCRC failures. CCRC residents and industry representatives testified both in support and in opposition, with supporters emphasizing resident protection and opponents warning about liens, reserve requirements, management-company regulation, and higher costs. After debate and assurances that problematic provisions would be refined, the committee adopted a delete-all amendment and then reported the bill favorably. The committee also passed SB 1658, which creates a public records framework for the uniform mitigation verification of inspection form database while protecting policyholders’ personal information; a clarifying amendment was adopted before the bill was reported favorably. SB 1612 on financial institutions was approved after a substitute amendment restored current limits on credit union investments and kept only reimbursement, not salary, authority for certain board members and officers. SB 1740, an insurance bill intended to reduce premiums and insurer insolvency risk, was amended to prioritize rate-decrease filings and prohibit claim denials based solely on AI, then reported favorably. Two public-safety bills also moved forward. SB 1212 on firefighter health and safety would update OSHA-related protections, address toxic exposure in gear, encourage safer replacement equipment, and support best practices and mental health resources; an amendment refined terminology and added related provisions, and the bill was reported favorably. SB 1184 on residual market insurers was amended to preserve existing consumer protections and disclosure rules for excess and surplus lines and to clarify Citizens-related appointment requirements before being reported favorably. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly noted ongoing stakeholder negotiations and intent to refine several bills further in later committee stops.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so I think this issue comes up a lot with CCRCs for those who...
• “Not everybody might have the same level of familiarity with CCRCs or the statute surrounding CCRCs,
• CCRCs must also have a life contract.
• “And CCRC is also charged an entrance fee. This is very key to the definition of a CCRC.
• regulatory procedures involving closure or change of ownership of CCRCs.”

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The meeting was the introductory session of the new Commission on Aging and Independence focused on continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs). Co-chairs Senator Pat Jehlen and committee staff introduced the commission’s purpose, and members and stakeholders from AARP Massachusetts, the Executive Office of Aging and Independence, LeadingAge Massachusetts, SEIU Local 1199, the Alzheimer’s Association, and the Attorney General’s office briefly introduced themselves and described their interests. Several participants emphasized the value of CCRCs for aging in place, while also noting concerns about affordability, accessibility, resident rights, dementia supports, and the need for clearer complaint and oversight processes. The commission reviewed the basic definition of a CCRC, including the requirement for housing plus health-related services, a life contract, and an entrance fee, and discussed how Massachusetts law defines entrance fees and their return. Staff explained that the commission was created by Chapter 197 of the Acts of 2024 and is charged with studying CCRC contracts, consumer impacts, financial viability, entrance fees, oversight and enforcement, advertising practices, and procedures for closure or change of ownership. The commission also outlined its deadline to submit recommendations by August 1, 2025. Because quorum issues and technical problems limited the session, no substantive votes were taken. Instead, the meeting focused on logistics: members will receive a survey to suggest priorities, site visits, and outside presenters; the group plans monthly meetings with two in June; and a public hearing may be held earlier in the process so feedback can shape the agenda. Staff also noted that ethics training for members was still being arranged.

Transcript Highlights:

• Recent CCRC bankruptcies in Florida and other states have resulted in CCRC residents like us losing our
• Better financial protection for CCRC residents would lead to more business for all CCRCs.
• I'm not an expert at CCRCs, but I pretty much am an expert at CCRCs, especially in Florida.
• I'm not an expert at CCRCs, but I pretty much am an expert at CCRCs, especially in Florida.
• It was a terrible situation for residents, and the failure of any CCRC is bad for the CCRC field in its

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several insurance, financial regulation, and public safety bills. SB 1656, a large Office of Insurance Regulation bill, was taken up with a delete-all amendment and extensive discussion. The bill would increase transparency in insurance rates and mitigation data, update reciprocal insurer rules, limit use-and-file rate filings, expand cybersecurity breach notification, and strengthen oversight of continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs). Residents and senior advocates generally supported stronger oversight to prevent bankruptcies like the Unison case, while CCRC operators and industry groups warned that lien authority, reserve requirements, and other provisions could raise borrowing costs and burden well-run communities. The committee adopted the delete-all amendment and then reported the bill favorably after debate and public testimony. The committee also passed SB 1658 on the public records database for uniform mitigation verification forms, with a clarifying amendment protecting policyholders’ personal information. SB 1612 on financial institutions was reported favorably after an amendment and substitute amendment dealing with credit union investment limits and reimbursement rules for board members. SB 1740, an insurance bill aimed at reducing premiums and insolvency risk, was amended to prioritize rate-decrease filings and prohibit AI as the sole basis for claim denials; it was then reported favorably. SB 1212 on firefighter health and safety was amended to add occupational disease language and other firefighter protections, including safer gear, cancer prevention, and possible telehealth mental health services, and was also reported favorably. Finally, SB 1184 on residual market insurers was amended to preserve existing excess-and-surplus line standards, strengthen consumer disclosures, and clarify Citizens-related appointment rules before being reported favorably. Throughout the meeting, committee members repeatedly noted that several bills were still being refined with stakeholders, and multiple public witnesses testified in support of or opposition to the CCRC and insurance provisions, focusing on resident protection, financial stability, and unintended cost impacts.

Transcript Highlights:

• CCRCs but do not offer progressive care to clearly indicate that they are not CCRCs.
• Senate Bill 1522 brings clarity to CCRC, CDI, and...
• their CCRC certificate because of an outdated definition of continuing care.
• SB 1522 addresses that concern. by updating the 30-year-old definition of a CCRC.
• if the applicant does not own the land on which the CCRC is located. which it intends to operate.

Bills: SB500, SB1522, SB1137, SB1266

Keywords: SB 500, Texas adoption law, Family Code, DFPS, Department of Family and Protective Services, child-placing agency, prospective adoptive parents, adoption records, confidential information, nondisclosure agreement, child history report, health history, social history, educational history, genetic history, termination of parental rights, permanency plan, single source continuum contractor, privacy, redaction

Transcript Highlights:

• An entity must be registered as a CCRC by DHS if it operates a CCRC, enters into a residency agreement
• An entity must be registered as a CCRC by DHS if it operates a CCRC enters into a residency agreement
• Only entities that are registered as a CCRC may advertise or market themselves as a CCRC or registered
• CCRC.
• It's been a great conversation, both with the residents of CCRCs and the CCRC Association, as well as

Bills: HB2540, HB2113

Keywords: emergency medical services, EMT recertification, healthcare, first responders, public health, radiologic technologists, diagnostic imaging, healthcare regulation, professional supervision, state licensing, 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• An entity must be registered as a CCRC by DHS if it operates a CCRC, enters into a residency agreement
• Only entities that are registered as a CCRC may advertise or market themselves as a CCRC or registered
• CCRC.
• It's been a great conversation, both with the residents of CCRCs and the CCRC Association, as well as
• Assurance by the state that these CCRCs are financially sound organizations is important to CCRC residents

Summary: The Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee held a Friday morning hearing with several House bills and then took executive action on three measures. In executive session, the committee voted do pass on Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2242, Substitute House Bill 2152, and Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2168, sending the first two to Rules and the overdose-mapping bill to Ways and Means. The committee also waived the five-day notice rule for several bills on the agenda. Public hearings focused on hospital inspections, continuing care retirement communities, radiologic technologist supervision, music therapy licensure, nursing regulation, ambulance billing after motor vehicle accidents, and EMT recertification. Representative Macri presented HB 2577 to require hospital inspections at least every 18 months, allow limited pauses during emergencies, and clarify when CMS or accrediting-body surveys may substitute for state inspections; DOH supported the bill, citing JLARC recommendations, while many people signed in opposed. Macri also presented Second Substitute HB 2384, which would require actuarial analysis review for certain CCRCs; OIC supported the transparency goal, while CCRC representatives opposed the added cost, though residents and association witnesses argued the oversight would protect seniors and their life savings. Representative Engel’s HB 2113 drew strong support from radiology, hospital, and provider groups for allowing virtual direct supervision for IV contrast procedures and aligning state law with CMS practice. Representative Ryu’s HB 1187 would bar ambulance services from sending motor-vehicle-accident medical debt to collections for 120 days; she described a personal experience with an ambulance collection issue, and the hearing was closed after no testifiers appeared. Representative Reed’s HB 2363 would let music therapy applicants practice under supervision for up to six months while exam results are processed; music therapy witnesses said it would prevent workforce gaps. Representative Simmons’ HB 2339 would update nursing title and transcript requirements and allow the board to issue interim permits directly, with the Board of Nursing and ARNP groups calling it a technical cleanup. HB 2540 would extend EMT recertification intervals to six years for long-tenured EMTs, and firefighters supported it as an administrative simplification without changing training requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 2384 adds a new requirement to CCRC registration standards: CCRCs that offer life care contracts
• Basically, this type of CCRC contract includes health care services on a prepaid basis.
• The OIC will look at the actuarial reports from the very few CCRCs in our state.
• Many CCRC residents have paid an entrance fee to a CCRC in exchange for future health care, should it
• We do support having greater transparency for residents residing in CCRCs.

Bills: HB2384, HB2402, HB2505, HB1904, HB2145, HB2182, HB2211, HB2242, HB2247, HB2329, HB2339

Keywords: continuing care retirement community, CCRC, life plan community, senior housing, retirement community, long-term care, assisted living, nursing home, actuarial analysis, solvency, financial oversight, resident contracts, entrance fee, disclosure statement, registration, insurance commissioner, DSHS, consumer protection, elder care, aging services

Summary: The committee held public hearings on three bills. HB 2384 would require continuing care retirement communities that offer life care contracts to submit actuarial analyses every other registration cycle for review by the Office of the Insurance Commissioner, with results sent to DSHS for registration decisions and an appeal process through DSHS. Supporters said the bill would improve transparency and protect residents’ financial security; LeadingAge Washington supported transparency but raised cost and implementation concerns. HB 2505 would exempt certain foster parents and child-specific foster care providers from adult family home licensure when former foster youth remain in the home as adults and other conditions are met. The sponsor and DSHS said the bill would help vulnerable young adults stay with caregivers and avoid unnecessary licensure barriers. HB 2402 would phase out DEHP in IV solution containers and later IV tubing, with exemptions for certain blood and cell therapy products; testimony largely supported removing phthalates for health and environmental reasons, while manufacturers, hospitals, and AdvaMed raised supply chain, timing, and implementation concerns and requested later phase-out dates and exemptions. In executive session, the committee adopted amendments and advanced several bills. HB 1904, prohibiting cat declawing, was amended to remove recordkeeping, reporting, fines, and disciplinary references tied to declawing and was reported out with a do pass recommendation. HB 2145 on the 340B drug pricing program was advanced as a proposed substitute after a lengthy discussion about transparency, reporting, and concerns over authority and litigation. HB 2182, concerning abortion medications held and distributed by the Department of Corrections, was amended to require appropriations for purchases, restore cost-based distribution language, prioritize Indian health providers, add annual reporting, and remove the emergency clause; the substitute bill then passed out of committee. HB 2211 on medically tailored meals also passed out, with one member opposing due to concerns about limiting participation to certain nonprofits. The committee also passed out HB 2247 on veterinarian-client-patient relationships and telehealth after adopting a substitute that clarified recordkeeping, telehealth prescribing, clinical practice requirements, and the effective date. HB 2329 on supervision of medical assistants and lactation consultants by licensed midwives passed after a cleanup amendment clarified that midwives are not prohibited from coordinating with lactation consultants. HB 2339 on nurse licensing passed after a technical amendment updated definitions and terminology for nurse practitioner and clinical nurse specialist credentials. The meeting concluded with all of these measures reported from committee, mostly on strong bipartisan votes, though several bills drew mixed votes or dissent over scope, costs, or implementation.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 2384 adds a new requirement to CCRC registration standards: CCRCs that offer life care contracts
• Basically, this type of CCRC contract includes health care services on a prepaid basis.
• The OIC will look at the actuarial reports from the very few CCRCs in our state.
• Many CCRC residents have paid an entrance fee to a CCRC in exchange for future health care, should it
• We do support having greater transparency for residents residing in CCRCs.

Summary: The committee held public hearings on several health-related bills. House Bill 2384 would require continuing care retirement communities that offer life care contracts to submit actuarial analyses every other registration cycle for review by the Office of the Insurance Commissioner, with the Department of Social and Health Services using the review in registration decisions. The bill sponsor and residents’ advocates said it would improve transparency and protect seniors’ prepaid care promises, while the CCRC industry supported the goal but raised concerns about scope, cost, and implementation details. House Bill 2505 would exempt certain foster family homes and child-specific foster care homes from adult family home licensure when former foster youth remain in the home as adults and certain safety conditions are met; DSHS supported the narrow exemption as a way to avoid displacing vulnerable young adults. House Bill 2402 would phase out DEHP and other orthophthalates in IV solution containers and later IV tubing, with exemptions for certain blood and cell therapy products; supporters cited health and environmental risks and the availability of safer alternatives, while manufacturers and hospitals supported the goal but asked for longer timelines, supply-chain protections, and implementation assistance. In executive session, the committee took action on a series of bills. It adopted an amendment and passed House Bill 1904, which prohibits cat declawing, on a 13-3 vote. It passed a proposed substitute for House Bill 2145 on the 340B drug program on an 11-5 vote after debate over reporting requirements and the state’s authority. It rejected several amendments to House Bill 2182 on abortion medications held by the Department of Corrections, adopted an Indian health care provider priority amendment, and passed the bill on a 10-6 vote. House Bill 2211 on medically tailored meals passed 15-1. The committee also passed Substitute House Bill 2247 on veterinarian-client-patient relationships, Substitute House Bill 2329 on midwives and lactation consultants, and Substitute House Bill 2339 on nurse licensing, each with technical amendments and broad support.

Transcript Highlights:

• RECENT CCRC BANKRUPTCIES IN FLORIDA AND OTHER STATES HAVE RESULTED IN CCRC RESIDENTS LIKE US LOSING OUR
• BETTER FINANCIAL PROTECTION FOR CCRC RESIDENTS WOULD LEAD TO MORE BUSINESS FOR ALL.
• WE INVITE EACH OF YOU TO VISIT OUR COMMUNITIES AND SEE WHAT A CCRC IS LIKE.
• THAT PROVISION ALLOWS THE OIR TO PLACE A LIEN ON ALL THE PROPERTIES OF THE CCRC.
• THE FAILURE OF ANY CCRC IS BAD FOR THE CCRC FIELD IN ITS ENTIRETY SO WE ARE COMMITTED, WE MUST REMAIN

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is not a knee-jerk reaction to troubled CCRCs that's going to burden other CCRCs that are performing
• </c><01:48:55.280><c> is</c> that on the other hand if a CCRC is that on the other hand if a CCRC is
• </c> ccc's that's going to burden other ccrcs ccc's that's going to burden other ccrcs that<01:49:10.199
• </c> and their nursing care um as our ccrcs and their nursing care um as our ccrcs for<02:00:19.079><
• </c><02:04:10.400><c> in</c> bankruptcy of the CCRC in bankruptcy of the CCRC in Keen<02:04:12.199><c

Keywords: 1191, senate, all