Brent Crane — Brent Crane is mentioned in a brief procedural exchange during discussion of House Bill 530. He is thanked for recognizing Idaho and his district on a handout, and then addressed as a possible respondent while the speaker raises a question about line 21 of the bill.
Jaron Crane — The transcript says 'Representative Craden,' likely referring to Jaron Crane, who then makes a Rule 80 declaration.
Jaron Crane — Declared Rule 80, said he would vote to print but not support the legislation.
Jaron Crane — Explained his concern about changing the existing approach to sprinkler requirements and said he would vote to introduce but not advance the measure.
Jaron Crane — Said he would vote to introduce the RS but not move it forward.
Jaron Crane — Moved to introduce RS 33-022.
Jaron Crane — Representative Jaron Crane questions House Bill 530’s removal of the $250 cap on oral medication costs, pressing for clarity on what constituents would pay and expressing concern that the change could make treatment unaffordable. He notes that other states use the cap to keep costs down and says he may add the cap language back into the revised bill to protect patients from being overcharged.
Jaron Crane — Jaron Crane questioned whether House Bill 530 included parity and raised concerns about the RS lacking the cap. He said he was willing to move HB 530 as written and treat the RS as a backstop if needed, then made a motion to send HB 530 to the floor with a do pass recommendation and later reiterated support for proceeding with the bill as presented. The exchange also included follow-up questions about the cap and whether both versions could be run, with Crane maintaining that HB 530 should move forward.
Jason Kreisenbeck — Jason Kreisenbeck, a Boise contract lobbyist representing the United States Travel Insurance Industry Association, testified in support of RS 33-022. He described the proposal as providing consumer protections for travel insurance, including a free-look refund period and a uniform regulatory framework aligned with standards in other states. He urged the committee to introduce the measure and noted that experts would be available at a future hearing to answer questions, including on specific service-related issues he could not address himself.
Josh Wheeler — Asked a lighthearted question about whether the legislation would mean more vacation days and travel opportunities for Ms. Foster.
Josh Wheeler — Asked the question about Ms. Foster's travel opportunities.
Josh Wheeler — Vice Chairman Wheeler was handed the gavel while the chair went to present another item.
Josh Wheeler — As Vice Chairman, he took over the gavel for the presentation.
Josh Wheeler — Josh Wheeler engaged in a sustained line of questioning about how the proposal would work in practice. He asked how it would interface with multi-employer funds, self-funded and ERISA-governed plans, and whether it would apply differently across employer plan structures. He also raised whether the legislation would cover situations where a worker moves between employee and contractor status, and whether a contractual relationship is required for contributions to a portable benefits account, including whether a third party could contribute.
Jason Monks — Representative Jason Monks introduced himself as the sponsor from District 22 and presented RS 33-274, explaining that it seeks to create a portable benefits plan for contractors. He then responded to committee questions about how the proposal would apply, clarifying that it is intended for contractors rather than employees moving between employers, that contributions are limited to a hiring party, and that some of the bill’s internet-based/application-based wording was included as a drafting choice and may not be necessary. He indicated that he could provide a fuller answer at a formal hearing and that the proposal could be refined further.
Jason Monks — Jason Monks joined the discussion late and questioned the rationale for limiting the proposal to oral chemotherapy rather than applying a cap more broadly across services and procedures. He pressed why the bill focuses on capping charges instead of simply ensuring parity, and argued that if expenses are to be capped, it should apply to all expenses, pointing to existing out-of-pocket maximums. The exchange concluded with a response indicating support for a broader cap proposal if Monks chose to bring one forward.
Jeff Ehlers — Moved to introduce RS 33-274 and praised the sponsor's foresight.
Jeff Ehlers — Requested that the motion maker repeat the motion because he was not sure what it was.
Brooke Green — Brooke Green is introduced as a co-sponsor of House Bill 530 and then speaks at length in support of the bill, using her own cancer treatment experience to explain why access and cost-sharing parity matter. She describes the practical burdens of infusion chemotherapy versus oral chemo pills, including long treatment sessions, repeated visits, travel burdens for rural patients, and the high cost of oral medication. She explains that the bill originally included a $250 copayment cap, but that cap was removed after negotiations with stakeholders and insurers to achieve neutrality. Her core point is that the bill does not set drug prices; it simply ensures patients are not financially disadvantaged by whether their chemotherapy is delivered orally or by IV infusion.
Brooke Green — Brooke Green was invited to give closing remarks after public testimony and urged passage of the bill to put the state in parity with 44 other states. She clarified that both versions provide parity, but the RS lacks the cap, and argued the RS would still offer some parity if HB 530 stalled. She then noted that HB 530 was the version they produced and that they had found a good place, while also saying she found a good spot with the RS and would like to see that version move.
Brooke Green — Representative Brooke Green moved to introduce RS 33262 and explained that she was motivated by a constituent’s experience with a title loan carrying extremely high interest—specifically 254%—which led to default and loss of transportation.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Vito Barbieri asked a follow-up question about whether pill-based treatment is charged more than in-office treatment, specifically questioning whether the reported higher cost for pills is accurate.
Vito Barbieri — Said he was confused about the difference between the bill and the RS, believing the RS only removed the cap.
Vito Barbieri — Asked whether the cap should be removed and argued for a $250 predictable out-of-pocket limit.
Vito Barbieri — Supported moving House Bill 530 forward to cap out-of-pocket expense at $250 a month.
Vito Barbieri — Raised a point of order to clarify that the motion was to table House Bill 530.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Barbieri is recognized to ask a question, and during the ensuing exchange he is directly addressed by Representative Scott in response.
Lennis Here — Introduced herself as the state policy and advocacy manager for Susan G. Komen and testified in support of House Bill 530.
Ms. Tier — The chair thanked Ms. Tier for her testimony and moved to questions.
Lisa Hatfield — Lisa Hatfield was introduced as a virtual witness and invited to begin her testimony. She testified in support of House Bill 530, describing her multiple myeloma diagnosis, the emergency radiation and spine surgery she underwent to preserve her ability to walk, and the ongoing burden of frequent infusion treatments. She explained that if a pill form had been available at no extra cost, she would have preferred it, and emphasized how difficult cancer treatment can be for families who must travel long distances, miss work, arrange child care, and cope with bad weather. She closed by urging passage of the oral parity legislation, after which the chair thanked her and opened the floor for questions.
Bryce Benson — Bryce Benson, a lead oral chemo pharmacist at St. Luke's Cancer Institute, testified about the affordability challenges his patients face with oral chemotherapy. He explained that high copays and billing differences can delay treatment, create gaps in care, and force patients to stop therapy. He gave an example of a patient who had to discontinue medication for three months after a free voucher ended because of a $1,600 copay. Benson concluded by supporting the bill as a way to help patients afford these therapies and achieve better outcomes.
Randy Johnson — Randy Johnson, representing the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, testified in support of oral chemotherapy parity legislation. He explained that cost differences are driven by how the drug is delivered rather than by clinical value, argued that the bill does not mandate new benefits or increase direct prices, and warned that unaffordable medication leads patients to delay treatment, skip doses, or abandon therapy. He concluded that parity improves adherence and outcomes and asked for support for the bill.
Mr. Johnson — Committee thanked Randy Johnson after his testimony.
David Cannon — Members discussed how to handle House Bill 530 and the RS version procedurally. Representative Cannon first asked which version he should support, then moved to table House Bill 530 indefinitely. Representative Crane questioned whether HB 530 could still be sent to the floor while the RS was introduced separately, briefly made and then withdrew an amended substitute motion, and later suggested introducing the RS on its own to avoid confusion and preserve it for later use. Cannon then restated that his motion was to hold HB 530 indefinitely.
Joe Palmer — Representative Monks (Joe Palmer) participates in a discussion about high-risk, short-term loans, asking whether limiting profits would reduce the availability of such loans. He follows up by asking if some of these loans can be as short as one week, and raises the concern that if profits are limited, lenders may stop making these loans altogether, especially for people waiting on paychecks.
Cornel Rasor — Representative Cornel Rasor first disclosed a Rule 80 conflict because he owns a pawn business and was concerned about the implications of the discussion on allowable interest rates. In the ensuing debate on predatory lending and interest-rate caps, he was referenced as having suggested that lenders would likely adjust if a cap were imposed.
Jordan Redman — As chair, opened the meeting, noted a quorum, and introduced the first item on the agenda.
Jordan Redman — Jordan Redman introduced himself and presented RS 33-208 on third-party litigation financing and foreign influence concerns, then asked for a motion to introduce it. He then moved to RS 33-065, explaining it was based on Housing and Land Use Interim Committee recommendations, noting his personal experience with older mobile homes to contrast with the legislation, and asking for a motion to introduce that measure. He also answered that there had been no consultation with cities or counties, though they could appear at a full hearing if interested, and concluded by returning the gavel to the chairman after the vote.
Jordan Redman — Addressed as Chairman during the introduction of the witness.
Jordan Redman — Addressed as Mr. Chairman.
Jordan Redman — Seeks clarification on which bill is being discussed.
Jordan Redman — Representative Skog introduces himself for the record and presents RS 33262, explaining that he and Chairman Redman independently worked on similar legislation. The committee then opens questions, focusing on how the bill’s usury limits for non-regulated lenders should be judged and whether the rates or loan type should be considered predatory or exorbitant. Throughout the exchange, Chairman Redman is repeatedly addressed as the chair while the discussion remains centered on the bill’s purpose and the committee’s role in evaluating it.
Richard Cheatum — Richard Cheatum introduced himself as the representative for District 28 and presented RS 33-267, explaining that the proposal had been developed over several years to reduce housing costs by eliminating sprinkler system requirements in new construction. He cited a local construction bid and a Spring Creek Homes estimate to illustrate the cost impact, and noted that the bill would also address heat-detection devices. In response to questions, he said he was not aware of the rules issue regarding heat detection and would look into it before the hearing.
Richard Cheatum — Richard Cheatum asks for clarification on whether the pill/oral treatment method is more expensive than the medical treatment, then follows up to determine which of the two bills includes that approach, and finally thanks Representative Birch for the clarification.
Richard Cheatum — Richard Cheatum thanked the chair and then discussed his background in the credit union and loan industry while addressing the debate over caps on predatory lending. He noted concerns that lenders may simply adjust to any cap, but emphasized that payday loans with extremely high rates, such as 800%, remain a serious problem and are difficult for borrowers to escape.
Kyle Harris — Representative Kyle Harris asked whether the heat-detection item could be removed from the rules package if it is already covered elsewhere, and suggested checking with Dopple to confirm whether it is a separate line item before striking it from the rules.
Kyle Harris — Representative Kyle Harris asked a drafting-language question about why the bill specifically refers to internet-based and application-based companies when the term 'person or entity' already seems broad. His question was then answered.
Kyle Harris — Asked for clarification and summarized his understanding that the bill moves oral chemotherapy into regular health care coverage parity.
Kyle Harris — Representative Harris is called on and then notes that the committee is anticipating a motion on the RS, referencing Representatives Bruce and Green.