Josh Tanner — The chair introduces Representative Josh Tanner to go over the budget, and Tanner then takes the floor, thanks the chair and members, identifies himself, and states that he is the representative from District 14 as he begins his presentation.
Josh Tanner — Representative Tanner is thanked for visiting, then responds to questions about budget cuts versus cost shifts, saying cuts should be sent to JFAC and that fiscal notes should accurately reflect any cost increases elsewhere within the fiscal year. He continues by explaining that budget decisions involve compromises, similar to any committee, and that not everyone will agree on every item.
Josh Tanner — Representative Tanner participated in a sustained discussion about Medicaid expansion and the health and welfare budget. He explained that decisions about reallocating funds or changing policy are up to the committee and the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, emphasized that he was not telling members how to vote, and noted that the committee can repeal one program and create another if it chooses. He also clarified that the discussion was about the state general-fund share used for Medicaid expansion, estimated the expansion cost at about $1.3 billion, and said his comments were largely personal opinions or assumptions rather than directives. He concluded by suggesting that the committee start with the governor's recommendations when reviewing the budget.
Alex Morgan — Identified as the budget analyst for Health and Welfare who will speak next.
Alex Morgan — Identified as the budget analyst who will present and walk the committee through the budget.
Josh Wheeler — Representative Wheeler is called on and asks for clarification about what JFAC needs in recommendations, emphasizing that proposals should include actual numbers showing both cuts and offsetting costs. The chair encourages the questions, and the discussion continues as others respond to Wheeler’s earlier point.
Megan Egbert — Representative Egbert asked whether House Bill 345’s eligibility rechecks and work requirements would address concerns about able-bodied adults, and Representative Tanner responded to that policy question in the same exchange.
Megan Egbert — Asked for a ballpark reduction target to keep in mind while reviewing budgets.
Megan Egbert — Asked what reduction target the committee should use when reviewing budgets.
Megan Egbert — Her question about the reduction target is answered with the committee's ballpark figure.
Megan Egbert — Requests a follow-up on revenue forecasting.
Mike Pohanka — Representative Tanner was thanked for his budget insight and then responded at length to questions about Medicaid and state budgeting. He argued that Medicaid growth should not be increasing so sharply in a strong economy, said the program should function as a safety net rather than a handout, and warned that continued growth could force cuts to education and other programs. Later, he explained how agencies build waiver-related items into budgets, how revenue estimates and committee decisions shape the budget process, and urged the committee to be more engaged in policy decisions so JFAC is not left making cuts.
David Leavitt — Representative Furman is introduced as having questions, then thanks Representative Tanner and begins asking about budget-related issues, including Medicaid eligibility system changes and how items that perhaps should not be in the budget can still make it into the budget.
David Leavitt — Asked for a projected timeline for presenting to JFAC and whether the Senate had agreed to the date change.
Steven Tanner — Representative Tanner discussed the need to identify real budget cuts and review older programs that may no longer be effective, stressing that any proposed reductions must produce actual savings rather than assumed ones. He also addressed questions about JFAC’s willingness to support policy changes that reduce Health and Welfare and Medicaid spending, and noted that JFAC must sometimes make difficult budget decisions based on current fiscal realities, including the 2026 budget and the 2027 budget under consideration.
Steven Tanner — Representative Kaler asks Representative Tanner for one more question about revenue forecasting. Tanner explains that revenue is handled by a separate committee and that he has served on it for several years. He describes how he prepared low, medium, and high revenue estimates, chose the low number, and how the committee ultimately arrived at a revenue figure by averaging members’ recommendations and passing a motion. Tanner then comments that JFAC has the final look at the revenue number, though he is mixed about that because it has become contentious, and he notes that the committee’s figure is about $135 million above the governor’s 2027 recommendation but about $550 million below the Tax Commission’s estimate.
Edward Hill — Representative Hall raised concerns about cost shifting when programs are cut, especially in behavioral health, and warned that those costs often end up in emergency rooms and county jails. The exchange continued with concern about the overall budget and the fiscal impact of these shifts.
Marco Erickson — Representative Erickson asked whether budget cuts should be treated as temporary reductions or incorporated into the base budget so that programs could later be restored without being counted as new government growth. He further suggested using a sunset date for paused programs and then reinstating them in the base budget to avoid the appearance of new enhancements.
Brent Crane — Representative Tanner discussed budgeting principles, emphasizing the difference between ongoing and one-time spending and saying the committee should not budget on hope or assumptions. He then responded to questions about state hospital funding, explaining how Medicaid expansion, federal standards upgrades, and the failure of expected federal funds shifted costs to the general fund and made projections difficult. The discussion then moved to FTEs and staffing in budget documents, where he explained how behavioral health managed care shifted positions off the books, noted that some agencies have federally funded positions while Health and Welfare retains some FTEs due to turnover, and advised looking at funded versus unfunded positions, referencing DOGE committee work and Keith Bybee’s explanation.
Robert Beiswenger — Raised questions about the psychiatric hospitalization budget and changing federal money amounts.
Robert Beiswenger — Asked how to factor in federal monies and whether changing administrations make funding a moving target.
Robert Beiswenger — Was being answered in the exchange.
Robert Beiswenger — Raised concerns about Medicaid cuts and constituent emails.
Rod Furniss — Representative Furman asked Representative Tanner to explain FTEs and how staffing appears to be shifted between programs, and then was addressed in Tanner’s response on that same staffing issue.
Chris Mathias — Representative Kaler asked whether money saved from meaningful Medicaid expansion reform or cuts could be reallocated to Medicaid to help people who legitimately need it, or whether that funding would simply go away. The discussion then continued with clarification from other members, including a question about whether the issue was specifically the 10% state funding share used for Medicaid expansion.
Jordan Redman — Thanked Chairman Tanner and said the committee should make policy recommendations because policy is upstream from funding.
Daniel Foreman — Representative Tanner said the governor’s recommendations were the key items to review, highlighting $22 million in general fund revenue and $45 million in federal funds. He then questioned whether the agency was underestimating projections or avoiding putting down the real numbers, suggesting that population growth and rising costs since the last budget may have contributed to the need for supplemental funding.
Alex Williamson — Alex Williamson introduced himself as a budget and policy analyst with Legislative Services and explained that his portfolio covers Medicaid, behavioral health, and central administrative support for Health and Welfare. He also noted that Morgan Poloni would lead the resource walkthrough.
Morgan Poloni — Morgan Poloni was introduced as a new team member and budget and policy analyst with the Legislative Services Office, responsible for Health and Welfare-related areas including child welfare, public health, licensing and certification, and independent councils. She then walked the committee through how to use budget resources, starting from the Idaho Legislature homepage, navigating to Health and Welfare base budget dashboards, reviewing appropriation history to track changes in base budget and FTP over time, examining enhancement history to identify ongoing enhancements, supplementals, and one-time requests, and locating LSO publications such as the Legislative Budget Book (LBB) as a key JFAC reference.
Ms. Williamson — Referenced as the presenter of the indirect support services budget presentation.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Ilana Rubel asks whether the committee has charts or reports showing expenditures on a per-capita basis, noting that population growth can make raw budget growth misleading. The discussion continues with references to her interest in inflation-adjusted analysis and whether similar trend data exists for agencies such as Health and Welfare, with others responding to her question about available reports.
Keith Bivey — Introduces himself as Division Manager of Budget Policy Analysis for the Legislative Services Office and responds to Representative Rubel's question about inflation-adjusted budget reporting.