Steve Berch — Asks whether anyone is signed up to testify.
Steve Berch — Steve Berch said he came into the hearing with concerns and skepticism, but found the discussion informative. He noted worries about unintended consequences, said he would support the motion, and added that he still wanted more conversations and information before making a final decision on the floor.
Jordan Redman — Jordan Redman, as sponsor, explained that the bill is intended to help curb health care costs by allowing insured Idahoans to negotiate a lower cash price with a provider and then submit the claim themselves so it counts toward their deductible and out-of-pocket maximum. He clarified that the provider would give the patient a coded, line-itemed statement to submit to insurance, that the provider does not send anything to insurance in the cash-pay scenario, and that the bill language was adjusted through friendly amendments to make it operational and applicable. He also noted that providers benefit from receiving payment at the time of service and said he did not have a breakdown of the percentage discounts but that cash discounts are commonly offered.
Jordan Redman — Jordan Redman, acting as chair, allows the discussion to continue and notes that more negative testimony may be heard, then invites Mitchell to elaborate further.
Jordan Redman — Jordan Redman is addressed as chair while presiding over the meeting and introducing witnesses, including the next witness and Ian Hoffman.
Jordan Redman — The chair appears to be asking the witness a follow-up question about differences between in-house collaboration and separate parties, though the transcript labels the speaker as 'Representative Birch' in earlier context.
Jordan Redman — The committee asks Representative Healy a closing question after the sponsor’s remarks; the transcript’s speaker attribution is unclear.
Jordan Redman — As chair, he asked whether there was any further discussion after the due pass motion on House Bill 790.
Jordan Redman — He asked whether there was any further discussion after the remarks.
Jordan Redman — As chair, he called for a vote on House Bill 790 and announced the result.
Jordan Redman — He announced the committee was adjourned.
David Cannon — Explained that the cash discount is offered to all patients and noted the time value of money and reduced administrative costs.
David Cannon — Referenced as a floor sponsor to be split with Representative Bruce.
David Cannon — Representative Crane asks about jurisdictions where the witness has done this work; the response lists several cities and states and notes Idaho experience has not yet occurred.
Joe Palmer — Representative Palmer moved to send House Bill 775 and later House Bill 787 to the floor with due pass recommendations.
Joe Palmer — Representative Palmer questioned the witness about the practical impact of the interior design bill, asking whether outside interior designers would need to pay a separate architect to review non-structural plans, how burdensome that review would be in terms of time and cost, whether most Idaho jurisdictions require permits for interior design work, and where the line is drawn between work that requires a permit or licensure and work that does not. He continued pressing for a clearer explanation of when an interior designer would know a permit is needed, then concluded his questioning and thanked the witness.
Jeff Ehlers — Representative Jeff Ehlers is introduced in connection with House Bill 773, described as a code cleanup bill, and noted as the floor carrier for that bill. The discussion then moves directly to House Bill 787, where Ehlers is again identified as the member who will carry the bill on the floor, with a brief exchange about support from the Board of Podiatry.
Richard Cheatum — Moved to send House Bill 773 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Birch is likely a transcription error for Representative Cheatum; the chair responds to a question and allows more testimony.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Birch asks a series of related questions about the relationship between architecture and certified interior design, including whether they are both professions, whether they can work together and complement each other, and what changes to the bill would address conflict concerns.
Faye Thompson — Asked whether the Board of Podiatry supports the bill.
Representative Healy — Representative Healy presented House Bill 790 as a narrow, targeted fix and answered committee questions about how the certification would be administered, explaining that it would fall under an existing board. He also described the broader need for the bill, noting that many Idaho-trained interior designers want to remain in the state but often leave because they cannot practice as intended.
Adrian Lane Martin — Adrian Lane Martin was introduced as the first public witness on House Bill 790, then testified in favor of the bill. She identified herself as the principal interior designer at Ersted Architects and explained that, as an interior designer, she supports the legislation. She described a McCall tenant improvement project where her team prepared technical drawings for permit, and said the new bill would allow her to stamp such work herself because she is already performing that work.
Ms. Lane Martin — Ms. Lane Martin responded to questions about architectural review and permitting requirements, explaining that review time for stamped plans depends on project size and can range from a few hours to several days. She said compensation for this work may be hourly or tied to the architect’s stamp, liability, project size, and risk. She testified that many Idaho jurisdictions require a licensed professional, typically an architect, and that projects requiring permits need stamped and sealed drawings. She added that interior designers may only cover a small portion of a project’s scope, while larger or permitted work often involves architects or engineers. She also explained that permits are usually triggered by changes such as moving walls or doors or altering egress, and distinguished interior design work on finishes from structural or layout changes that would require permitting.
Miss Lane Martin — Explained that permitted work requires stamped and sealed drawings and that the bill creates a specific scope for interior designers.
Ainsley Bauer — Ainsley Bauer, appearing virtually, introduced herself and testified in support of the bill as a University of Idaho student in interior architecture and design. She described the program as accredited and focused on health, safety, and code compliance, explained that professionals told her she would need a master’s in architecture to be taken seriously in interior design, and argued that removing the barrier would help graduates stay in Idaho, strengthen the state’s workforce, and encourage talented students to contribute to Idaho’s future.
Ms. Bauer — Ms. Bauer stated that she had not yet reviewed the bill, and after no further questions were raised, the chair thanked her for her testimony.
Cassidy Lang — Cassidy Lang was announced as a virtual witness and then introduced herself as the founder and owner of Hatch Interior Design, testifying in support of House Bill 790.
Ms. Lang / Cassidy Lang — The chair thanks Cassidy Lang for her testimony and closes her testimony period.
Terran Mitchell — Terran Mitchell introduces himself as a licensed architect with offices in Meridian, Idaho, and Ogden, Utah, and says he is representing the Idaho chapter of the American Institute of Architects. He notes he has a handout, then continues his testimony by explaining that architecture and interior design involve different education and training, especially regarding building systems. He argues that when a stamp or review is required, interior plans must be overseen or reviewed by a licensed architect before submission, and reiterates that such plans still need licensed-architect review in Idaho and many other states depending on the scope of work.
Mr. Mitchell — Mr. Mitchell explained, using a movie theater example, how architects and building officials use plans to identify egress paths and calculate their sizing based on occupant load and code requirements. He said fire-protection-related plans are typically reviewed by an architect familiar with building systems and life-safety systems, and that architects are responsible for flow, egress, and quality control before plans go to the building official. He then shifted to the broader scope of architecture in Idaho, clarifying that he represents the Idaho chapter of the American Institute of Architects rather than the board, and arguing that the bill would effectively allow practice of architecture without clear oversight. He said the lack of a clear definition of architecture in Idaho creates ambiguity, that architects are responsible for the overall building design including building envelope and fire/life safety systems, but not fire alarm or sprinkler design, and that practices vary by jurisdiction. He also noted that in some jurisdictions fire suppression and fire alarm designs are reviewed by architects before being sent back to the engineers, and began describing his background and the jurisdictions he was referencing.
Eric Hagan — Eric Hagan, a licensed architect with nearly 30 years of licensure and over 30 years of practice, explains that his livelihood depends on stamping drawings as a professional architect and that he cannot legally stamp drawings produced by others. He says architects often coordinate with interior designers and engineers, and that projects may originate with interior designers, contractors, or other designers. He also notes architects must complete annual continuing education, including health, safety, and welfare requirements, and emphasizes the profession’s responsibility for public safety. He concludes that if interior designers want to perform this work, they should complete the education and licensure requirements to become architects, and he sees no need for the bill.
Ian Hoffman — Ian Hoffman, a licensed Idaho architect and small business owner, testifies that while he respects other speakers and values both architecture and interior design, he is concerned the legislation’s lack of clarity will create unintended consequences. He explains that architects compete with draftspersons, interior designers, larger firms, and others, and argues that clear definitions and roles are important to avoid confusion and protect small businesses.
Nicole Dovelmore — Nicole Dovelmore was introduced as a virtual witness and then testified as Director of Architecture at Cushing Terrell. She said her firm supports the legislation because it would allow interior designers to certify eligible work, elevate both professions, and clarify responsibility between architects and interior designers. She described her 24 years of experience in Idaho, noting she has worked alongside interior designers and that the professions share overlapping education in life safety, space design, accessibility code, materials, doors and hardware, user experience, finishes, and acoustics. In response to a question, she explained that she has worked with both in-house interior designers and outside consultants, and that interior designers can lead projects while a registered architect remains involved.
Brooke Green — The transcript says 'Ms. Dovelmore' and later 'Representative Birch'; the question is directed to the witness by a legislator, but the specific member name is unclear in this section.
Andy Erstad — Andy Erstad, founding principal of Erstad Architects in Boise, testified in support of moving the bill forward with a due pass recommendation. After his brief remarks, the committee asked if there were any questions, and with none raised, thanked him for his testimony.
Brent Crane — Referenced for having raised the topic of fire sprinkler drawings earlier.
Michael Veile — Representative Healy was named as the floor carrier for the bill, with the transcript repeating that he will carry it on the floor. The repeated mention appears to be a duplicate or transcription overlap.
Josh Wheeler — Moves to send House Bill 529 to general orders.
Josh Wheeler — Supported the motion and described a family friend's experience with interior design certification.
Vito Barbieri — Asks how insurance-company negotiation interacts with cash negotiation.
Vito Barbieri — Asks about the interaction between insurance-company negotiation and cash negotiation.
Vito Barbieri — The chair warns Representative Barbieri to go through the chair.
Vito Barbieri — Asked whether the bill should include a provision preventing insurance companies from using the reported discount information.
Vito Barbieri — The transcript appears to mishear 'Representative Birch' as 'Representative Birch'; the question is about whether insurers such as Regence or Blue Cross were consulted.
Vito Barbieri — The transcript again appears to mishear the questioner as 'Representative Birch'; the follow-up asks whether insurers supported the legislation and whether fraud concerns were raised.
Vito Barbieri — The transcript again appears to misidentify the questioner as 'Representative Birch' while asking about payment methods.
Vito Barbieri — Questioned whether providers discount cash payments because it is less work than processing insurance claims.
Vito Barbieri — Sought confirmation that the patient uses the receipt toward the deductible and that the provider does not send anything to insurance in the cash-pay scenario.
Vito Barbieri — Asked whether the individual submission would include codes or simply proof of payment toward the deductible.