Megan Egbert — Megan Egbert first moved to accept the February 13 minutes, then later engaged in a sustained discussion of the bill’s alternative medical treatment provisions. She asked what definition should be used in Section 54-1803, questioned the language about when a parent or guardian would not be considered to have committed medical neglect, and raised concerns that the bill appeared to lack clear parameters for alternative health care and could exempt anyone providing treatment. Another member later referenced being in the same section as Representative Egbert, indicating the discussion remained focused on the same issue.
Megan Egbert — Speaks in opposition to the bill, citing experience as a guardian ad litem.
Megan Egbert — Referenced as the member Representative Stone agrees with on the issue.
Megan Egbert — Cast a no vote in the roll call.
Dori Healey — Representative Dori Healey was called to present RS 33263 and then introduced herself as the representative for District 15 (West Boise and part of Meridian), explaining that RS 33263 is a dental loss ratio transparency bill.
Dori Healey — Representative Healy sought clarification on whether Idaho parents already have the right to choose naturopathic, osteopathic, or other treatment for their child, and whether the bill is really aimed at false reporting standards rather than limiting parental treatment choices.
Dori Healey — Cast a no vote in the roll call.
Lucas Cayler — Representative Lucas Kaler of District 11 presented RS 33042 and then answered questions about the bill’s medical definitions and intent. He discussed how Section 54-1803 relates to physicians and allopathic care, and explained that the subsection is meant to preserve parents’ ability to determine the health care they believe is necessary for their child or family, including choices such as naturopathic or homeopathic care made in good faith.
Robert Beiswenger — Made the motion to introduce RS 33042.
Robert Beiswenger — Cast a yes vote in the roll call.
David Leavitt — Explained that parents acting in good faith should not have their health care choices questioned simply because they choose a different modality or option.
David Leavitt — Said the bill is not defining a specific type of alternative health care and asked for clarification on the scope of the question.
David Leavitt — Explained that the bill is intended to preserve parents' ability to choose different health care approaches without being limited by traditional allopathic standards.
David Leavitt — Responded that the bill is intended to prevent false reporting of issues that are not really there.
David Leavitt — Said he has seen cases where children were removed or parents cited for medical negligence over minor issues like diaper rash or a runny nose.
David Leavitt — Clarified that the bill would not protect a parent who fails to provide life-saving medication for a diabetic child.
David Leavitt — Said failure to provide life-saving medication would still be reportable, while the bill preserves parental authority within reasonable expectations.
David Leavitt — Was addressed in the question about the bill's intent.
David Leavitt — Confirmed the point and explained the bill is aimed at inaccurate, knowingly false reports made by mandatory reporters or anonymous complainants.
David Leavitt — Said the bill is aimed at inaccurate, knowingly false reports to child protective services or by health care providers.
David Leavitt — Gave examples of minor childhood issues being misreported as abuse or medical neglect and said those are the situations the bill aims to avoid.
David Leavitt — Said the goal is to keep healthy children with their parents and prevent unnecessary removal or reports of medical neglect.
David Leavitt — Is acknowledged by the speaker as the next person to respond.
David Leavitt — Responds that discouraging reporting could prevent saving a life.
David Leavitt — Thanks Representative Kaler and asks for a roll call vote.
David Leavitt — Is thanked for work on the bill and for making an earlier motion.
David Leavitt — Is addressed regarding subsection 5D and the bill's language.
David Leavitt — Is asked whether a parent choosing alternative treatment would be found negligent under the statute.
David Leavitt — Is thanked for conferring earlier on the issue.
David Leavitt — Is told that the same issue discussed in a prior meeting remains in the bill.
David Leavitt — Responds by pointing back to the bill's definition of medical neglect.
David Leavitt — Cast a yes vote in the roll call.
Lori McCann — Questioned whether the bill would allow a child to be taken to anyone, including someone without health care training, as an alternative to a physician.
Lori McCann — Asked whether the person providing alternative health care needs any training.
Lori McCann — Raised a hypothetical about a child with diabetes whose parent rejects insulin and instead seeks herbal treatment.
Lori McCann — Continued the diabetes hypothetical, describing a parent choosing herbal treatment instead of insulin.
Lori McCann — Described a child continuing to have blood sugar problems despite herbal treatment and a teacher noticing the issue at school.
Lori McCann — Argued that a parent relying on herbs while a child remains ill should still face consequences if medical science says the treatment does not work.
Lori McCann — Said that if herbs do not work and the child remains sick, reporting neglect should not allow the child to suffer.
Lori McCann — Was thanked for her question and invited to continue discussion at the hearing.
Lori McCann — Referenced as having received an earlier example about false reporting.
Lori McCann — Her earlier example was referenced again in the explanation.
Lori McCann — Indicated she had a statement rather than another question.
Lori McCann — Stated opposition to the bill, arguing that discouraging reporting can lead to bad outcomes and that reporters often act with positive intent.
Lori McCann — Raises concerns about the private right of action and existing tort law.
Lori McCann — Cast a no vote in the roll call.
Lori McCann — Representative McCann makes the motion to introduce RS 33328.
Marco Erickson — Is referenced in the follow-up question about the private right of action.
Marco Erickson — Referenced as the member responding that the committee was at the point of voting.