Melissa Wintrow — The question is directed to Senator Wintrow, asking about the eligibility process and how it works in practice.
Melissa Wintrow — The question is directed to Senator Wintrow about the difference between a one-month and three-month look-back period.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow proposes a substitute motion to send the bill to the 14th order for possible amendments.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow opposes the motion, warning of administrative errors and coverage losses.
Todd Lakey — Senator Todd Lakey introduces himself and presents House Bill 935, then explains that the bill is part of an occupational licensing reform and consolidation effort.
Todd Lakey — Raised as the senator who might answer whether denturists would still have representation on a combined board.
Todd Lakey — Asked why the board is in the red and whether there is a solution without the merger.
Todd Lakey — Called on to close the presentation.
Todd Lakey — Identified himself and argued that the bill does not devalue the occupation and does not control scope of practice.
Todd Lakey — Explained that practice requirements are set by code or regulation and contrasted Idaho's rule review authority with Montana.
Todd Lakey — Said Idaho's legislature can control anti-competitive concerns and that educational requirements are set in rule.
Todd Lakey — Was referenced as having pointed out that rules are reviewed every year.
Amanda Roe Bronson — Amanda Roe Bronson is called as the first witness and introduces herself as president of the Idaho Denturists Association, a practicing denturist serving patients in North Idaho, and an instructor at the American Denturist College.
Van Burtenshaw — The chair is addressed as Chairman Van Orden.
Robert Van Giffen — Robert Van Giffen is introduced as the next witness and identifies himself. He then testifies in opposition to House Bill 935, explaining that he is a Boise business owner and co-owner of First-Class Dentures with his wife, a denturist for nearly 20 years, and implying concern about the bill’s impact on denturists.
Elizabeth Criner — Testified in support of House Bill 935 on behalf of the Idaho State Dental Association.
Heidi Van Giffen — Testified in opposition to House Bill 935 as a licensed denturist in Idaho and Oregon.
Ms. Ben Griffin / Giffin (likely Heidi Van Giffen) — The senator addresses the witness, whose name is misheard in the transcript.
Ms. Van Giffen — Explains that denturists are independent practitioners and says dentists and denturists can be in conflict because patients choose between them.
Ms. Van Giffin — Ms. Van Giffin discussed how board composition can affect denturists’ scope of practice and influence, noting that board influence can be used to steer work toward dentists and limit denturist practice. She confirmed that denturists’ scope involves making dentures and partials, then explained that even when denturists have a seat on a board, they can still be outvoted by dentists and allied members, citing Montana as an example. She emphasized that a licensed denturist’s vote on the board is important, especially on issues involving licensure, education, and practice.
Unnamed committee speaker — The witness questioned whether combining boards would actually change denturists' scope of practice and asked if denturists would still be represented on a combined board. The discussion continued with the point that combining the boards did not appear likely to change scope of practice as long as denturists still had a seat at the table.
Angelo Giovanni — Introduced as the next witness, though the name is later spoken differently.
Angelo Jovenini — Angelo Jovenini introduced himself and testified about the bill from the perspective of denturists. He explained that denturists specialize in making, fitting, and repairing removable prosthetic dentures, noted that dentists can also make dentures, and described the bill as creating conflict while still moving forward. He said denturists do not view dentists as adversaries, but they are concerned about dentists having too much control over denture-related issues. He also asked for more seats on the board as a way to feel more secure if the merger proceeds, and briefly repeated his name when asked.
Mr. Gianvini — Mr. Gianvini explained that the denturist board is operating in the red because membership numbers are low. He attributed the low numbers to a lack of reciprocity and a longer internship requirement, while noting some growth from the American Denturist College. He added that, speaking as vice president of the Denturist Association, the group could address the shortfall by increasing membership and, if necessary, raising fees to help keep the board afloat.
Amanda Rowe — Identified as the witness's partner and president who had previously addressed the issue.
Annalisa Talmont — Introduced as the next witness and then identified herself.
Annalisa Talmud — Introduced herself as Angelo's intern for the state and began explaining concerns about the bill.
Christy Zito — Christy Zito made the motion to hold the bill in committee and then spoke in support of it, citing concerns raised by board members and others. She said she hoped the interim year would allow time for a compromise or other solution, with the possibility of the bill returning next year if necessary.
Christy Zito — Senator Christy Zito asks about how Medicaid recipients will be notified and how the three-month look-back/redetermination process will work, including what the department’s workload and administrative cost will be compared with a one-month look-back.
Mark Harris — Seconded the motion to hold the bill in committee.
Mark Harris — Senator Harris is identified as seconding the motion.
Kent Marmon — Referenced as the House-side contact who is connected to the community and has discussed the issue multiple times.
Brian Lenney — Brian Lenney was called on to make a substitute motion and moved that House Bill 935 be sent to the floor with a due pass recommendation. He then requested a roll call vote on the motion.
Treg Bernt — Identified as the senator who seconded the substitute motion, though the transcript says 'Burkey' which appears to be an error.
Shawn Dygert — Responded to Senator Wintrow and said he did not often echo her thoughts.
Shawn Dygert — Senator Shippey is called on and then makes a motion to send House Bill 913 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Britt Raybould — Voted no on the substitute motion.
Julie VanOrden — Her name was called during the roll call vote.
Jordan Redman — Jordan Redman discusses the bill’s implementation of work requirements and redetermination timing, saying it is a good step forward and that he will answer questions. He explains that he has spoken with Health and Welfare and hopes to influence federal CMS guidance, noting that the federal bill allows either a one-month or three-month look-back period. He prefers the three-month option because it is more long-term and gives people time to determine eligibility, correct issues, and stay enrolled. He adds that early notice and correspondence would be required, that proper advance notification must occur before redetermination, and that the department has budgeted for the transition and may handle notifications in a staggered way similar to post-pandemic redetermination.
Mark Hand — The committee chair announces the first online testifier, Mark Hand.
Mark Han — Testified on his own behalf and identified himself as a social worker.
Marc Han / Mark Han — Continued testimony in support of the bill, arguing it encourages responsibility and self-sufficiency.
Brian Whitlock — Brian Whitlock was introduced as the next witness and then testified as president of the Idaho Hospital Association, supporting the bill’s rationale. Later in the discussion, another speaker referenced Whitlock’s earlier comments about the process.
Mr. Whitlock — Explained that the department and legislators would face burdens from the three-month period.
Mr. Whitlock — Mr. Whitlock is cited as having testified that people may go to the emergency room if coverage is lost.
Hillary Matlock — Hillary Matlock was introduced as the next witness and then testified on behalf of Idaho Voices for Children, indicating she could answer questions about the process and costs and raising concerns about administrative costs.
Ms. Matlock — The chair asks Ms. Matlock to be more specific about the eligibility process. Ms. Matlock explains that under federal law and OB3, during renewal the state must review available data across systems to verify compliance. The chair then returns to Ms. Matlock for further explanation, and Ms. Matlock adds that the department needs more time to fully understand the nuances in the guidance.
Nicholas Kleinworth — Nicholas Kleinworth testifies on behalf of the Paragon Health Institute as Director of the State Health Reform Initiative, and the chair then thanks him for appearing and notes that there are no questions.
HJR141 — The committee discusses House Bill 913, focusing on the bill’s one-month versus three-month look-back and community engagement documentation requirements. Speakers debate the administrative burden, potential loss or delay of Medicaid coverage, and the impact on people recovering from illness or newly able to work. A member urges passage of the bill as is, while a substitute motion is made to send the bill to the 14th order for possible amendments. After discussion of the substitute motion, the committee returns to the main motion to send House Bill 913 to the floor with a due pass recommendation and proceeds to vote.
Camille Blaylock — Senator Blaylock asks a question about how the work requirement is administered after enrollment.