Melissa Wintrow — Called on for questions after the presentation.
Melissa Wintrow — Asked a question about the funding tables and general fund match.
Melissa Wintrow — Asked why the funding tables show zero general fund match.
Melissa Wintrow — Addressed by Ms. O'Connell while discussing the 2022 funding and future general fund adjustment.
Melissa Wintrow — Asked when the Legislature approved the general fund matching dollars.
Melissa Wintrow — Addressed by Ms. O'Connell in response to the funding question.
Melissa Wintrow — Continues asking about the year general fund matching dollars were approved.
Melissa Wintrow — Addressed by Ms. O'Connell and the chair during the exchange about the timing of the appropriation.
Melissa Wintrow — Asked whether the match was a 70-30 split.
Melissa Wintrow — Addressed in the response about the FMAP and match ratio.
Melissa Wintrow — Raised concern that a large cut could be too abrupt and affect providers who have already raised salaries.
Melissa Wintrow — Asked whether an immediate cut could set the system backward.
Melissa Wintrow — Asked about the timing of the audit and whether the funding reduction would disrupt the system.
Melissa Wintrow — Addressed by Director O'Connell in the response about audit timing.
Melissa Wintrow — Asked Ms. New whether the handout she was referencing was the one in front of the committee.
Melissa Wintrow — Asked whether the handout showed the pay rates and whether the provider pays health insurance; asked if the proposed cut would require salary reductions to stay in business.
Melissa Wintrow — Recognized by the chair; no question was asked.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow follows up on the proposed $21 million cut, asking what the practical implications would be if it goes through and whether the resulting unmet needs would put the state at greater risk under the lawsuit.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow participates in a continuous discussion on the bill, first asking questions about repealing the rules and its implications, then expressing that she is conflicted and wants more time. She later requests a roll call vote, makes a substitute motion to hold the bill in committee until the call of the chair, and ultimately votes aye in the roll call.
Sasha O'Connell — Sasha O'Connell, the Medicaid Administrator and Deputy Director at the Department of Health and Welfare, explained the funding structure for the bill, including the state's general fund share of the KW service array, the FMAP match, and the timing of the appropriation changes. She noted that the committee added cost-surveying and auditing language so the Legislature would have better information for future decisions, said audits could begin immediately but reporting would likely take about a year, and emphasized that the funding reduction would need to be monitored for impacts on access and provider networks. She concluded that ongoing reporting to the Legislature is essential to making informed appropriation decisions.
Sasha O'Connell — Sasha O'Connell from the Department of Health and Welfare explains that the rules being repealed concern how rates are developed, and she remains at the podium to answer additional questions from senators.
Jody New — Jody New, owner and administrator of Teton Supported Living in Nampa, Idaho, testified that Bill 863 misrepresents the purpose of the 2022 provider rate increase, which she said was driven by staff shortages and the COVID emergency rather than the KW lawsuit. She explained that the increase allowed providers to raise wages, offer benefits, and better staff services for vulnerable adults. She warned that cutting rates by 10% would force small residential providers like hers out of business, reduce service capacity, and harm participants. While supporting the audit, she said the proposed reduction would not cover basic business expenses, and she referenced handouts and budget figures showing the financial strain.
Ms. New — Ms. New confirmed the handout and explained that the business could not remain open without cutting salaries. She also stated that about 10 of the 30 staff members receive health insurance.
Hannah Liebke — Hannah Liebke was introduced as the next virtual testifier and then testified in support of amendments to House Bill 863, requesting language changes to Sections 1 and 2 so the department is directed to collaborate. She concluded by urging the committee to adopt the amendments to support a transparent, accountable, and sustainable path forward for Idaho's home and community-based services, and offered to answer questions.
Ms. Liebke — Chair thanks the witness after testimony.
Michaela Matlack — Michaela Matlack introduces herself as a CEO for a home and community-based provider and a certified family home caregiver, and she testifies in support of accountability, cost surveys, and transparency. The committee then concludes her appearance without asking questions.
Richie Epnink / Richie Eppingk / Mr. Epnick (questionable spelling) — The next virtual testifier is introduced; the name is transcribed inconsistently and appears questionable.
Richie Eppingk — Identifies himself as a lead attorney in the KW versus Armstrong litigation and says he is testifying because the bill’s legislative findings and statement of purpose contain false statements.
Richie Eppingk / Mr. Epinick (questionable spelling) — The chair interrupts to end the witness’s time; the witness continues that the cuts do not affect individual budgets.
Mr. Epping / Mr. Epinick (questionable spelling) — The witness says the bill would not save the money in the end.
Mr. Epink / Richie Eppingk (questionable spelling) — The witness confirms that negative impacts could trigger one of the lawsuit options and adds that a provider may go out of business.
Richie Epnink / Mr. Ripnik (questionable spelling) — The chair thanks the witness using another variant of the name, which remains uncertain.
Mr. Maynard — Mr. Maynard is connected to the hearing, given his time to speak, and then delivers testimony arguing that House Bill 863 could undermine Idaho’s sustainable Medicaid system and increase reliance on crisis systems, before the chair thanks him for his remarks.
Caitlin Hodges — Caitlin Hodges testified about her experience as a participant in Legacy ResHab Services, explaining that community-based support has helped her move from a long history of institutionalization to living independently with a driver’s license, car, home, and job. She referenced Katie’s Law and her autobiography, then urged lawmakers not to cut the budget because it would reduce learning activities and caregiver hours that people rely on, and she asked to offer a prayer.
Ms. Hodges — The chair acknowledged and thanked Ms. Hodges after her prayer.
Sophie Crapo — Sophie Crapo introduced herself and explained that she was adopted and raised by her family. She then described how ResHab and its staff support her independence, community engagement, safety, anger management, and financial responsibilities. She also acknowledged her own challenges with impatience, anger, and impulsive spending, underscoring why continued support matters to her.
Angel Leida — Angel Leida introduced herself and explained that she has relied on services since age 28 and came to Legacy about five years ago. She said Legacy helped her get a job, lose 280 pounds, and reduce her need for hospital and ER visits, and she warned that cutting the budget would put people like her in jeopardy and danger.
Tiffany Wood — Tiffany Wood testified that she has been with Legacy for about five years and praised the agency and its trained staff for helping her build independence and life skills, including budgeting, daily living, household tasks, healthy eating, and communication. She said Legacy has also provided opportunities for community activities, trips, fundraisers, and social events that helped her make friendships, strengthen social skills, and feel included. She emphasized that community involvement helps others understand developmental disabilities and affirmed that Legacy has taught her she is a valuable and deserving member of her community. She concluded by saying none of this would have been possible without her Legacy reshab agency.
Van Burtenshaw — Senator Van Orden concludes remarks and offers to answer questions.
Van Burtenshaw — Members direct questions to Senator Van Orden.
Van Burtenshaw — Senator Van Orden answers that the homes are not collecting rent/payment from residents in addition to Medicaid, to his understanding.
Van Burtenshaw — The question is directed to Senator Van Orden.
Van Burtenshaw — Senator Wintrow directs questions to Senator Van Orden.
Van Burtenshaw — The chair thanks Senator Van Orden before moving to the motion.
Van Burtenshaw — Votes aye in the roll call.
Jordan Redman — Likely a mis-transcription of Senator Redman or another member; the speaker is addressing a senator by name in the question exchange, but the exact identity is uncertain.
Brian Lenney — Senator Brian Lenney makes a motion to hold House Bill 863 in committee and speaks in support of it. The discussion then references his motion again as the committee considers a substitute motion, and his name later appears in the roll call vote related to that same procedural action.
Kevin Cook — Senator Kaiser is referenced in the course of the motion and bill discussion, first as the member who seconded the motion and then again as part of the continuing exchange on the same matter.
Daniel Foreman — The speaker refers to the prior testimony and motion related to the bill.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Glenneda Zuiderveld is called on during discussion of the substitute motion and then votes aye in the roll call.