Jordan Redman — Representative Jordan Redman is introduced to present the Medicaid hospital billing study, identifies himself, explains the issue of upcoding and why it merits study, and offers to answer questions. The discussion then transitions to his next study presentation, where he again identifies himself, introduces the Your Health Idaho plan selection study, and indicates he is available for questions. The committee continues to reference him during the question period.
Jordan Redman — Seconded Representative Birch's motion.
Douglas Pickett — Moved to approve the minutes of September 25, 2025.
Mr. Langrell — Explained the process for hearing seven requests for evaluation and the upcoming committee balloting.
Mr. Langrell — Confirmed the project is feasible and comparable to work done in other states.
Jordan Redman — The chair said Representative Redman is in another committee and will join late, and sent his apologies.
Jordan Redman — Was welcomed as co-chair after arriving late.
Richard Cheatum — Asked where funding is most lacking, such as staffing or equipment.
Daniel Foreman — Was asked if he would be willing to continue presenting.
Daniel Foreman — A senator is referenced as seconding the motion; the name appears to be a transcription error and is questionable.
John Gannon — Likely the intended speaker reference is Representative Birch; the transcript says 'Representative Birch' but no Birch is in the member list. No correction made beyond preserving the spoken text.
Sasha O'Connell — Sasha O'Connell, the state Medicaid administrator and deputy director with the Department of Health and Welfare, discusses the proposal in the context of program integrity and staffing resources. She indicates the department has requested additional resources and believes OPE staff could help oversee the program, while the surrounding exchange includes a brief question about bias and a follow-up asking for any additional questions.
constituent from Coeur d'Alene — A constituent is described as being engaged in plan selection and asking for the study request.
Jaron Crane — The transcript appears to intend Representative Clay Handy; corrected to Clay Handy below in the next section.
Clay Handy — Representative Clay Handy introduces himself as being from District 27 in Burley, Idaho, and explains that the issue is personally important to him. He describes his eight years of service on a local board of guardians, references a bill passed two years earlier that changed guardians’ responsibility to continue until internment rather than death, and cites his guardian manual and related funeral experiences as context. He concludes by urging a careful review of boards of guardians and greater participation across counties.
Dustin Manwaring — Representative Manwaring is credited with presenting a new manual.
Charlie Shepherd — Representative Handy describes his experience serving as a guardian and explains how the local board of guardians works in Rupert and surrounding rural areas. He says the setup is manageable for him because he prefers visiting wards over bookkeeping, and he gives examples from his own ward’s care, including repeated visits, hospice placement, and how that decision improved her condition and prevented further hospitalizations. He argues that the guardianship program is rewarding but could use some small improvements, and he emphasizes that the need for guardians will remain because many vulnerable adults lack family support. He also notes the board handles multiple requests and that a study or follow-up work could help improve implementation.
Ilana Rubel — Asks for a ballpark estimate of the number of vulnerable adults currently served as wards in the program.
Ilana Rubel — Addresses Representative Handy with a question.
Ilana Rubel — Is asked whether she has a question.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Ilana Rubel first moves to release the report, then follows up with a question about whether the funding concern is essentially staffing, indicating a brief continuation of the same discussion around the report and its funding implications.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Birch asked whether declaring a service as 'essential' would create a legal or statutory obligation for the state to fund it. She repeated and clarified the question, and the discussion then moved to having Director Langrell and others weigh in, with follow-up remarks directed back to her question.
Melissa Wintrow — The chair is addressed as 'Chair Wintrow.'
James Ruchti — Senator Ruchti presents and explains proposed OPE study requests related to Idaho corrections. He first outlines a study of sexual assault oversight and response in women's correctional facilities, emphasizing that it would evaluate the system's handling of allegations rather than the allegations themselves, and noting that comparative models from other states could be useful. He then transitions to a second study on drivers of incarceration and prison population growth, citing rising costs, out-of-state placement expenses, and population trends as reasons for the study. He explains that the study would examine factors such as sentence length, admissions, and length of stay, while staying at an aggregate level rather than evaluating individual judges, and he agrees that recommendations for reducing growth drivers should be included.
James Ruchti — Senator Ruchti emphasized the importance of conducting a follow-up on the Idaho Home Learning Academy report, warning that failing to do so could send the wrong message. He then made a motion for a follow-up study/report on the Idaho Home Learning Academy, which the chair acknowledged.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Birch asks a series of related questions about the scope of the proposed report: whether it should quantify the magnitude of the issue and compare Idaho with other states, whether OPE can obtain nonpublic data to strengthen the analysis, whether the report should include recommendations to address drivers of prison population growth, and whether the project can leverage prior work rather than duplicate recent efforts.
Doug Okuniewicz — Mr. Langrell discussed how the projects should be categorized by size and ranked, noting that the boards of community guardians would likely be on the smaller end. He then addressed whether OPE could handle the workload, saying they could likely manage four projects, and clarified the relative sizes of the top projects: boards of guardians as smaller, prison growth and agricultural growth as medium, and sexual assault as large.
Doug Okuniewicz — Director Langrell was asked to respond on the spot but declined to be put on the spot.
James Woodward — Asked to revisit study assignments if one proves smaller than the others.
James Woodward — Referenced as the person who would be working on the studies.
James Woodward — Referenced regarding whether he could take on additional studies if one is smaller.
James Woodward — Said the committee could receive interim updates and potentially assign additional studies later.
James Woodward — Was invited to present the follow-up discussion.
James Woodward — Explained that a children's residential care follow-up is already planned for June and raised the other two follow-up topics.
James Woodward — Asked to recommend a follow-up timeline.
James Woodward — Recommended an early December follow-up for the Home Learning Academy report.
James Woodward — Referenced as having noted discussion points about the direct care workforce.
James Woodward — Suggested aiming for a June release for the direct care workforce follow-up, with September as a fallback.
Brent Crane — Representative Birch seconded the motion, specifically the motion for an IHLA follow-up study.
James Petzke — Representative Pickett first indicated agreement with the director’s recommendation on timing, then raised the need for a follow-up to the 2023 direct care workforce study and formally moved for that follow-up study. The exchange continued briefly as the motion was discussed and then seconded.
James Petzke — Representative Pickett asked whether text-to-911 is commonly used and whether receiving 911 texts is a new phenomenon.
Tasha Schreter — Tasha Schreter is introduced to the committee to present on challenges facing Idaho's 911 system. She introduces herself as a senior evaluator at the Office of Performance Evaluations and notes she worked on the project. Later in the discussion, she responds to questions about funding concerns, explaining that the issue may involve multiple factors and emphasizing the significant cost of transitioning to NextGen 911.
Casey Petty — Named as a project collaborator on the report.
Rebecca Hoskins — Named as a project collaborator on the report.
Ms. Ryder — Ms. Ryder shifted the discussion from funding and technology costs to staffing, then continued by explaining that staffing challenges are not unique to Idaho.
Ms. Ryder — Explained that consolidation decisions are local and that cost and incompatible radio systems are major barriers.
Ms. Ryder — Explained that Idaho has text-to-911, but call volume is still much higher than text volume.
Ms. Ryder — Explained that text-to-911 exists in Idaho but is used less than voice calls.
Ms. Schreider — Answered a question about how 911 centers manage staffing shortages and call-taking.
Ms. Schreider — Said consolidation could save money over time, but upfront costs are a major barrier and would require cost analysis.