Vito Barbieri — The chair warns Representative Barbieri about speaking out of turn.
Vito Barbieri — Asked whether the bill should include a provision preventing insurance companies from reducing payment rates based on reported discounts.
Vito Barbieri — Raised the point that providers may discount cash payments because they involve less administrative work than insurance billing.
Vito Barbieri — Suggested providers may discount because cash payments require less work than insurance processing and asked whether that concern was considered.
Vito Barbieri — Followed up on the administrative burden, noting providers get paid at the time of service and do not have to wait for insurance payment.
Vito Barbieri — Asked whether the individual would simply submit proof of payment without codes and have it count toward the deductible.
Vito Barbieri — Asks whether a trustee would take an inoperable car to sell rather than allowing the debtor the exemption.
Vito Barbieri — Continues questioning the sponsor about the treatment of inoperable vehicles in bankruptcy.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Barbieri questioned the regulatory framework for interior designers, asking whether the bill would require a board to regulate them or whether the building code could be changed instead, whether there is a sitting individual on the board, and how much review an architect performs before stamping an interior designer’s plans.
Vito Barbieri — Representative Barbieri questioned the witness about the bill’s licensing framework for interior designers, asking whether the witness had reviewed the bill and noting the role of a council in determining the test. He then pressed on whether independent interior designers could submit plans for review and still receive a stamp without direct oversight, whether issues like traffic flow and fire protection relate to health, welfare, and licensing criteria, whether those concerns are normally within an architect’s scope, and whether the board would support a separate interior designer license that would not require architect approval.
Vito Barbieri — Was the only member identified as opposing or seeking to be recorded on the motion vote.
Adam Meyer — Adam Meyer is introduced as the first virtual witness, then identifies himself as the Director of Healthcare Policy for Sister Action, and continues his opening testimony in support of House Bill 529.
Mr. Meyer — The chair thanks the witness and closes questions.
Rod White — Rod White testified as a physician and patient that requiring discounted cash prices to be reported to insurers could backfire. He argued that if insurers learn the lower cash rates, they may reduce reimbursement amounts across the board, undermining physician discounts. He also said insurers must know the amount and procedure for the charge to count toward a deductible, so there is no real way to avoid insurer awareness. He illustrated the point with a personal example of choosing a $300 cash scan over an $800 insurance-billed scan and noted that he would never meet his deductible anyway, reinforcing his concern about insurers tracking these savings.
Brent Crane — Representative Crane asked for confirmation on the record that he could negotiate a lower payment rate with his eye doctor, and the exchange confirmed that understanding.
Brent Crane — Referenced for raising the issue of fire sprinkler drawings.
Jeff Cornilles — No legislator is directly named in this section; the speaker continues discussing the bill's cash-discount mechanics.
Jeff Cornilles — Representative Pickett is introduced as the sponsor of House Bill 775.
Jeff Cornilles — Representative Pickett is identified as the floor carrier for House Bill 775.
David Cannon — Representative Bruce is likely a transcription error; the text appears to refer to a floor sponsor being split with Representative Bingham, but the exact member is unclear.
David Cannon — Asked which jurisdictions the witness had worked in and followed up on the bill's Idaho-only scope.
Joe Palmer — Representative Joe Palmer makes successive motions to send House Bills 775 and 787 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Joe Palmer — Representative Palmer asked whether most Idaho jurisdictions require permits for interior design work and followed up by asking where the scope of practice line is drawn between work that requires a permit or licensed interior designer status and work that does not.
Jeff Ehlers — Representative Jeff Ehlers introduces House Bill 773 as a code cleanup measure and asks that it be sent to the floor with a due pass recommendation. He then introduces House Bill 787, offers to answer questions, notes that a DOPL representative is available for technical details, and indicates support for the bill. The segment concludes with confirmation that Representative Ehlers will carry the bill on the floor.
Richard Cheatum — Moves to send House Bill 773 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Birch questioned the witness about whether licensed architecture and certified interior design are both professions, whether the two can work together in concert, and what specific changes to the bill would be needed to resolve concerns about conflict between the professions.
Faye Thompson — Asks whether the Board of Podiatry supports the bill.
Jason Monks — Representative Healy introduced House Bill 790, explaining that it would create a voluntary certification for qualified interior designers to sign and seal limited interior drawings. In response to committee questions, he said interior designers would remain under the board they currently fall under, noted he had not studied the board’s makeup in detail, and explained that many Idaho graduates in interior design have said they have had to leave the state to practice their profession. The exchange concluded as the committee moved into public testimony.
Kent Marmon — Asked whether anyone was signed up to testify.
Adrian Lane Martin — Adrian Lane Martin was introduced as the first witness on House Bill 790 and then testified in support of the bill, identifying herself as the principal interior designer at Ersted Architects and explaining her professional role in interior design work.
Ms. Lane Martin — Ms. Lane Martin explained that the time and cost for architectural or interior design review depend on the size, complexity, and risk of the project rather than just the number of hours involved. She noted that review may be billed hourly or absorbed by the firm because the architect or design professional is taking on the stamp and liability. She also testified that many Idaho jurisdictions require a licensed professional to stamp and seal drawings, especially when a permit is required. Under the bill, projects within a defined scope could be handled by either a licensed architect or a licensed interior designer, but permit-triggering work such as moving walls, changing doors, or altering egress would still require stamped and sealed drawings. She further described interior designers’ training and scope, including distinguishing structural from non-structural walls and understanding when wall changes require permits.
Ainsley Bauer — Ainsley Bauer was introduced as a virtual witness and then testified as a University of Idaho student in support of allowing qualified interior designers to sign and seal drawings. She described the interior architecture and design program as accredited and focused on health, safety, and code compliance, and said the education prepares designers to create environments that benefit people. She explained that she pursued a master's in architecture after being told it was needed to be taken seriously in interior design, and argued that Idaho should allow qualified interior designers to fully work to their abilities and help retain graduates. When asked, she said she had not yet looked at the bill.
Cassidy Lang — Cassidy Lang, founder and owner of Hatch Interior Design, testified virtually in support of House Bill 790. She explained that she and other credentialed interior designers have the education, experience, NCIDQ certification, and insurance to take responsibility for their own construction documents, but Idaho currently requires an architect to stamp drawings they did not produce. She argued that Idaho’s rules differ from those in several other jurisdictions, create unnecessary costs, delays, and operational burdens for small businesses, and prevent designers from fully practicing within their expertise. Lang said the bill would remove barriers, allow qualified professionals to be accountable for their work, and help them operate efficiently while continuing to protect health, safety, and welfare. She concluded by urging support for the bill and inviting questions.
Taryn Mitchell — The chair calls the next witness, Taryn Mitchell.
Terran Mitchell — Terran Mitchell, a licensed architect with offices in Idaho and Utah and more than 25 years of experience, testified on behalf of the Idaho chapter of the American Institute of Architects in opposition to the bill. He argued that the proposal would allow interior designers to operate without meaningful oversight, while licensed architects are legally prohibited from stamping drawings outside their direct supervision. He explained that interior design education differs from architecture education, especially because architects are trained in building systems such as structural, civil, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering. Mitchell said there is no discernible health, safety, or welfare benefit to the proposed licensing approach because interior design lacks the formal building-systems training required for such licensure. He further clarified that when interior plans affect health, safety, and welfare and require a stamp, they must be reviewed or overseen by a licensed architect before submission, even if the designer works within the same company or runs their own firm.
Mr. Mitchell — Explained using a movie theater example that egress paths on plans help building officials determine occupant capacity for emergency exit purposes.
Mr. Mitchell — Used a movie theater example to explain how egress paths are shown on plans for building officials.
Mr. Mitchell — Stated that fire-protection-related plans are normally reviewed by an architect with knowledge of building systems and life safety systems.
Mr. Mitchell — Confirmed that architects handle flow and egress-path sizing calculations under the building code.
Mr. Mitchell — Explained that egress sizing is based on occupant load and occupancy classification in the building code.
Mr. Mitchell — Clarified that he represents the Idaho chapter of the American Institute of Architects, not the board, and said the organization does not support the legislation as written.
Mr. Mitchell — Argued that the bill lacks clear oversight because interior designers would not have board representation and the certification is voluntary.
Mr. Mitchell — Answered that architects do not do fire alarm design and said electrical engineers typically handle fire alarms.
Mr. Mitchell — Said electrical engineers handle fire alarms and mechanical engineers handle fire suppression systems.
Mr. Mitchell — Argued that Idaho's regulatory system is vaguer than other jurisdictions and that architects are responsible for the total building design.
Mr. Mitchell — Stated that architects serve as prime on commercial buildings and oversee building envelope and fire/life safety systems, though not fire suppression systems themselves.
Mr. Mitchell — Explained that architects oversee fire-rated separations and quality control before submission to the building official.
Mr. Mitchell — Said jurisdictions differ and described his Idaho background and career history while explaining that building officials usually make the final decision.
Mr. Mitchell — Said that in some jurisdictions fire suppression and fire alarm designs go to architects for review before being sent to the engineers who designed them.
Mr. Mitchell — Begins responding to Representative Crane's question about which jurisdictions review fire alarm and sprinkler design through architects.