Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Good morning. This is the House Appropriations Committee. It's Tuesday, 02/24/2026. It's 11:00, and we are taking up a bill. Just to change things up a

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: little bit,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: this is age five seventy seven related to the prescription drug discount card program. And we're going to do a walk through. We are not going to vote right now, but we'll do a walk through so that we understand the bill and when it comes time to deal with money after town meeting break, we'll deal with money then. So we have Jen Carby from the Legislative Council, and we have other folks to help out as well. So Jen, take it away. Thanks.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great, thank you. Good morning. Jen Carby from the Office of Legislative Council. We are looking at H577, an act relating to establishing the Vermont Prescription Drug Discount Card program. And I have a strike all amendment from House Health Care and then some instances of amendment from House Ways and Means. So would you like to start with the House health care? Yeah, why

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: don't we start at the beginning?

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great, so I will put this language up on the screen. All right. So this is the language voted out of House Health Care. And the general idea behind this bill is there's an opportunity that the treasurer's office has been working on to work with some other states on prescription drug discount card program through a vendor called ArrayRx that is administered by the state of Oregon, I think,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: as opposed

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to a private entity. And so it's states getting together to try to lower the cost of prescription drugs when people are not using their insurance to purchase, whether that's because they don't have insurance or because it would be cheaper for them to pay cash using the card than to use their insurance. So this creates a new sub chapter in 18 BSA Chapter 91, which is the prescription drug cost containment chapter, and it creates the new sub chapter on the Vermont prescription drug discount program. It establishes that program administered by the Office of the State Treasurer for the purpose of pooling prescription drug purchasing power with other states and territories and non governmental organizations. And the program would be available to all Vermont residents. The bill would allow the treasurer's office to cooperate with other US states and territories, regional consortia or non governmental organizations, or a combination to pool prescription drug purchasing power to reduce prescription drug costs, negotiate discounts with drug manufacturers, centralize prescription drug purchasing and establish volume discount contracting. And it defines volume discount contracting as we negotiated purchase of a large quantity of a prescription drug at a decreased cost. So the bill hasn't came out of House Health Care, but you'll see this part change in what we look at next from Ways and Means would have allowed the treasurer to require that reasonable fees be charged to defray program costs. Turns out after more investigation that that is not necessary, and that was allowing the amount and collection of the fee to be determined by the treasurer based on actual costs, but again, that provision comes out in the Ways and Means Amendment. Subsection B, and it goes into more detail in subsequent sections, but requires that the amount paid for a prescription drug after using the Vermont prescription drug discount card by an individual who is covered by a health insurance plan must be attributed toward their deductible and out of pocket responsibilities. That is consistent with existing provisions of law that get clarified in future sections. But basically, if you have insurance, but it's cheaper for you or a better deal for you for whatever reason to pay cash using this card at the pharmacy counter, then the insurance still has to attribute whatever you paid out of pocket toward your deductible and out of pocket responsibilities. It's referred to as a copay accumulator provision that we have in statute. This would require starting 01/15/2028, and annually thereafter, the treasurer to report to the House Health Care and Senate Health and Welfare committees and the governor on the activities of the program during the previous calendar year, including the number of Vermont residents and pharmacies who participated, how much savings was achieved on prescription drug costs, and then as it came out of House Health Care, the balance in a special fund that the Ways and Means Amendment will strike. So the next section is that special fund. This would create the Vermont prescription drug discount card special fund. Again, this language will change in the Ways and Means Amendment. So I don't know. I'm happy to just skip over it if you want, knowing that it comes out. All right. Then we get to sections two and three are addressing this co pay accumulator concept. So now we're in title eight, which is the insurance title in the chapter on health insurance. And this is specifying that a health insurer or pharmacy benefit manager shall not do an existing statute. There's a whole list of things. One of them is they shall not exclude any amount paid by or on behalf of a covered individual, including any third party payment, financial assistance, discount. This would add specifically discount card, coupon, or other reduction, and then adding, again, language regardless of whether the individual purchased the drug with or without using coverage for the drug under their health insurance plan when calculating the individual's contribution toward their out of pocket limits for prescription drugs, deductible if any, and out of pocket maximums. So again, most of this is existing law, some clarifications adding in the discount card and specifying that this is regardless of whether the person used their insurance to purchase the drug, which is consistent with existing law, but is not quite so explicitly stated. Then a lot of this is just existing law in here. And then some new language saying that in order to facilitate the copay accumulator, the appropriate attribution of the amounts paid by or on behalf of the covered individual for someone who purchased the drug without using prescription drug coverage available under their health insurance plan, the health insurer or pharmacy benefit manager or both must make readily available on their website a downloadable proof of payment form that the person can use to submit proof of how much they actually paid for the drug and provide notice to all covered individuals at least annually that it's their responsibility to provide the proof of payment using that downloadable form or another mechanism if the insurer or pharmacy benefit manager elects to make another mechanism available for submitting proof of payment in addition to the downloadable form in order to have their spending properly attributed to their out of pocket limits, deductible, and out of pocket maximums.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: Jen, just clarification on this. So the pharmacist without any discount charge would be $100 I had a discount card that said I'm paying 20% or whatever it is. I'm going to pay the 20% and then the other percentage paid for by the state's program or through the insurance.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So a little different so this is one where if you're so if you're person with insurance you might have through your insurance card you pay 20% but it might be that if you were to use your this prescription drug discount card your actual out of pocket would be $8.4 and you say wow it's going to be cheaper for me to use my prescription drug discount card than it is to use my insurance. You pay the $8.4 because that's the negotiated rate that the state was able to get through this arrangement with the other states. You pay the $8.4 and then you send that proof of payment to your insurance to say credit 8.4 toward my deductible and out of pocket maximums. So you can still use your insurance if you have insurance and insurance is a better deal for you. But if it's not or for whatever reason you choose to use the discount card and have insurance, you still get it counted towards what you spend out of pocket.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: This will just be for a formulary that would be negotiated, so it's going to be an ever changing list of potential drugs or pharmaceuticals that could be used.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's true, and I think that the actual prices may change. I don't know the mechanics of how they determine those volume discounts, But it is a different way of purchasing prescription drugs that I think, and you can hear from the drug dealer's office if you want, but has had some financial benefits to participants in other states.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: And parallel or adjacent to some of the negotiations that the federal government has been able

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: to accomplish over the last few years?

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's largely, I believe, all Medicare. So we're probably not talking necessarily about the same people. Although I think somebody could use it if they had a Part D plan as well.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So Marty and then John?

[Rep. Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair)]: So in Tom's example, his drug costs $100 and his insurance would have paid 20. I mean, he would have paid 20 and his insurance would have paid 80, but now he's only going to pay $8 Who's going to pay the 92? The insurance company?

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, the insurance company is not involved. The use of the Vermont prescription drug discount card, the insurance company is not involved. So if you're using the card, you're not using your insurance, except that you can direct your insurance to count your copay, whatever you paid out of pocket.

[Rep. Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair)]: Okay, so whoever's backing this benefit card is paying the $92? Nobody didn't. So it's

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: not necessarily, there's no sort of fixed amount that a prescription drug costs. So however, they were able to negotiate the whoever however this RARX is the name of the company or the the organization. So however RARX was able to negotiate so that the price would be less at the pharmacy counter. Part of their arrangement, I think, involves reimbursing the some piece of that reimburses the pharmacy for their cost in acquiring the medication, but it ends up being a better deal for the patient. And I'm not as clear on mechanics of the program. So if you want to talk about that, I invite you to have someone from the treasurer's office. I know Peter's here. But I don't know how he's prepared to answer questions.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Is that a question you can answer? Yeah, I'll

[Peter Drummond (Legislative Affairs, Office of the State Treasurer)]: answer that question without going into too much. No, Peter Drummond, the legislative affairs, treasurer's office. And I know that some of the reporter and sponsors still are also here to answer questions. But as I understand it, Rare Rx is a collaboration of multiple states that he runs a variety of programs that allowed some of leverage to work with a pharmacy benefit manager called Navitas to implement this program. So what Navitas is doing is essentially negotiating down the price of the drug to, in this case, 8 for 12¢. And that is the whole price of the drug that needs to be paid by the consumer at the counter. So the rest is simply not paid, it's the margin that has been taken off of that drug to lower its cost for the consumer.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I think I got it. All right, John? Okay.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: Maybe you'll get to this at some point. So Medicare folks in the Medicare area here they wouldn't be taking advantage of this.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think and I'm gonna look at the healthcare advocate too because he spends a lot of time in the Medicare Part D space. But I believe people on Medicare who do or do not have a Part D plan could use this card if it was going to be less expensive for them. They may not get the same benefit of the co pay accumulator that people with major medical insurance are getting. But I don't believe there's any prohibition on people with Medicare using this.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: And you have folks on Medicare and their own Medicare Advantage purpose as well.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Serving a

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: little bit here as a person in that area of life here,

[Peter Drummond (Legislative Affairs, Office of the State Treasurer)]: because there are drugs that

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: are not included on the list here. On which list?

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: The list that we receive and you're on Medicare.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, one of these That

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: would be an advantage there perhaps.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, yes, I think that's part of the idea, yes. And if I may phone a friend to the healthcare advocate, I think Nelson has

[Peter Drummond (Legislative Affairs, Office of the State Treasurer)]: I think the right way

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: to say this, this provides a new tool for Vermonters

[Peter Drummond (Legislative Affairs, Office of the State Treasurer)]: to have another price point they can use. It may provide a better price for them, in which case they'll have it, may not, no matter what type of coverage they have, in which case they will still have, you know, whatever price they have. It's a tool.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They have a choice, it's an option, right.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: And so we have other states that are using this type of program here for sure, here in New

[Peter Drummond (Legislative Affairs, Office of the State Treasurer)]: Yes, in New England, Connecticut is going

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: to believe New Hampshire was going

[Peter Drummond (Legislative Affairs, Office of the State Treasurer)]: to take a legislation in the session for as well and that goes with the latest and is not bad. The program started out of Washington, Oregon about twenty years ago has recently expanded out. Great.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay, let's continue.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Second three is similar language around what the pharmacy benefit manager has as far as attributing the amounts paid.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: One quick question, Jen, while we're still on that page further up, you had said, oh, I noticed we need to put the word manager in there. Is that an amendment that we need to do or is that a scrivener's error? Do you have any?

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, I mean, I would love to talk to the clerk's office about whether they would like to get

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: the right thing in there. So, would just be scrimmage.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, sometimes I don't notice things until I read them out loud. True

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: for all

[Peter Drummond (Legislative Affairs, Office of the State Treasurer)]: of us.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: It's on page six, line seven.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great, thank you. That's exactly what I was looking for. Thank you. Okay. Section three has similar language about the copay accumulator. This is in a different title and different statute. This is in Title 18 in the pharmacy benefit managers chapter. And it gets rid of some what had been, I think, a bit confusing language. But functionally, it has the same purpose as far as having the amount that the person actually spends out of pocket attributed to their out of pocket responsibilities, even if they don't use their health insurance benefit. We had to take out a piece of the pharmacy benefit manager can't require somebody purchasing a prescription drug to pay any amount greater than the lesser of three different things the cost sharing amount under the terms of their health plan, the maximum allowable cost for the drug, or the amount the person would pay for the drug if they were paying the cash price. And this is clarifying that the prescription drug benefit card is not part of the discount that they would be paying. So it doesn't force the pharmacy benefit manager to match the prescription drug discount card price. That's the consumer's option. Alright. So then the rest of it is really analogous to the language we just looked at, including having the downloadable proof of payment form and providing notice at least annually about that obligation. Section four is the Vermont Prescription Drug Discount Card Program Implementation Report. This would have the State Treasurer's Office by January reporting to the General Assembly on implementation of the Prescription Drug Discount Card Program as of that date, including any recommendations for improving the administration of the program. We strike any fees to be charged in the Ways and Means Amendment and an estimate of the projected cost to the state in the event that additional financial support is determined to be necessary. Section five is where you come in. This appropriates in fiscal year twenty twenty seven the sum of $50,000 from the general fund to the treasurer's office for the costs of developing and implementing the program. And section six is the effective date, and

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: the act would take effect on July 1. Great. So let's go to the Ways and Means Amendment. We'll go

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to the Ways and Means Amendment. Great. Pull that one. Oh,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: do you know what the vote was out of? What was the vote

[Peter Drummond (Legislative Affairs, Office of the State Treasurer)]: out of it?

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Eleven-zero-zero out of House Health Care. Okay, thank you. Right. So then now we're at the ways and means amendment. And so their first instance of amendment is to strike out all of section one and put in a new section one. And the main purpose of this was to get rid of the standalone special fund and instead use an existing special fund also to get rid of the references to fees and the treasurer's office setting fees. So it still establishes the program in the same subchapter in Title 18, Chapter 91, still allows the treasurer to cooperate with other states, territories, regional consortia, and nongovernment organizations. And then it doesn't include that language about a fee being charged. Instead, it says that monies received by program from transfers, gifts, grants, donations, or any other source, including any monies provided to the state through a cooperative arrangement authorized by this section, would get deposited into the Financial Literacy and Economic Empowerment Trust Fund, an existing special fund that gets amended in this amendment, and made available to the Office of the State Treasurer to defray costs associated with administering the program.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Is that just because we didn't want one more special fund?

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Largely because, yes, there was concern about having one more special fund, yes. So we expanded an existing special fund in the Treasurer's Office. Then it still has that co pay accumulator language and the annual report with the same things, except it doesn't talk about anything about fees because there was no or any balance in the special fund because is not a standalone special fund. Then there's a new section added, section 3A. This is amending that existing special fund. Currently, it's the financial literacy fund this adds and economic empowerment, which reflects one of the divisions in the Treasurer's Office. And I took the opportunity to update the language a little bit as needed as well. We don't need to establish and create. We can just establish the special fund, renaming it. There's multiple purposes. Existing purposes deal with promotion of fiscally sound money management practices by Vermonters and creating opportunities to build and encourage development of new financial literacy and activities and educational products. And then we've added and to support other economic empowerment opportunities for Vermonters. My JFO colleagues pointed out that the fund doesn't receive appropriations, but it can receive transfers, gifts, federal funds, other funds.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Sounds like JFO. Yeah. No. It's good. Great. No.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it's a good time to to fix it up. Yeah. Moneys in the fund. We've got completion to talk about the fund. So monies in the fund can be expended in accordance with some of this is just moving the language about the trust fund provision up to the top here. So monies may be expended in accordance with the trust fund provisions of section four sixty two in this title for such financial literacy projects as the treasurer may direct, and then adding in language about defraying costs associated with administering Vermont Prescription Drug Discount Program. The rest of that section is the same. And then the third instance of amendment is just striking out in the implementation report the language about any fees to be charged to participants. The vote was nine-zero-two no, nine-two-zero out of

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And did they do the bill as amended also, or is that just their amendment?

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that was the final vote. I was not in the room. I believe that is on the bill as amended, but I would defer to someone from Ways and Means.

[Rep. David Yacovone (Member)]: Okay, I can check. Dave, any question? Is there an itemization of what the budget is for somewhere? We're going to have

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: a fiscal note, so maybe we could

[Peter Drummond (Legislative Affairs, Office of the State Treasurer)]: have Thank you.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Roland? Talk about the fiscal note? Would you like to come up to the table?

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: For the record, Noel Langwell joins Fisk Club.

[Peter Drummond (Legislative Affairs, Office of the State Treasurer)]: I

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: muted. Oh good, I thought I am

[Rep. David Yacovone (Member)]: usually so good at that.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is okay.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I was not going to pull up the physical note, but I will pull up the physical note.

[Peter Drummond (Legislative Affairs, Office of the State Treasurer)]: Sorry.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Can I have sharing, please? No, that's my fault for being slow.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You should be good though.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah, thank you. My fault. That should have been quicker. Alright, for the record, Nolan Langwell of the Joint Fiscal Office, you have a fiscal note, I wasn't going to pull it up, but I anyway. So section five of the bill would appropriate 50,000 from the general fund to the office of the state treasurer for costs of developing and implementing the program. It's pretty simple. I give the Ways and Means Committee credit because they were trying to send you a bill that wouldn't need any technical corrections. But as I was sitting here a couple minutes ago, I realized you might need one. And what that is, is there's nothing in here about it says whether it's one time or base. So it says $50,000 is upgraded, but it doesn't say whether it's be ongoing or one time. I guess the question for the attorney general's office is, do you want one time or do you want base? What are you asking for?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So that would be a good question. And while you're answering that, you can also say, what do you need the 50,000 for? Because that was the question Dan had.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I assume it's the only time, but should be we should be clear in the bill.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That's right.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And that's my I should have

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: wanted say that in

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: the bill. Sometimes we do.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We decide where it goes. We should know what it is. Okay. Go ahead. We'll stop and let Peter talk.

[Peter Drummond (Legislative Affairs, Office of the State Treasurer)]: Our intent was to request a one time appropriation, largely for marketing costs when the actual administration of the program, the benefit of the card will largely be handled by staff in the Oregon Health Authority, which is true for all states that joined the consortium. So our office is real purpose in administering the program is making sure that our MRs are aware of it. Some of the feedback we got from other states that have recently implemented this program said they received no appropriation for marketing purposes and came to see a lesser uptake than some of their counterparts. Our hope was a small corporation.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So what kind of marketing are

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: you talking about?

[Peter Drummond (Legislative Affairs, Office of the State Treasurer)]: Pay media, digital ads, TV ads, etc.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay, I've got Mike and then John.

[Peter Drummond (Legislative Affairs, Office of the State Treasurer)]: You got your answer? Okay, John. So information to insurance carriers as well. We've spoken with some Within here, the coming couple of months. Are you asking our instead?

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: Right, in terms of like the marketing.

[Peter Drummond (Legislative Affairs, Office of the State Treasurer)]: Yeah, absolutely. We've spoken with, I don't want to speak for them, but sure he's pulling out the fields. They're very aware of the program and have indicated a desire to partner with us to make sure that they are members of our.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: In other medical insurers outside of Blue Cross as well?

[Peter Drummond (Legislative Affairs, Office of the State Treasurer)]: I think there are several. We've spoken very briefly with some others, but yes, it would certainly be one of our goals to make sure that all carriers are aware that this program exists and that it is an option for all of their business as well.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: Just a quick question to add to that. When you get providers, a lot of providers don't always know what's changing or different. Absolutely.

[Peter Drummond (Legislative Affairs, Office of the State Treasurer)]: Yeah, absolutely. We've spoken with the medical society largely and they're also going to speak with us, they're very eager to make sure that providers are aware of this outcome to help other patients. And I'll add to that the AARP has also been a great partner and just wanted to make sure that his membership is quite funny.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Rep. Rebecca, did you have anything you wanted to add to this from health care? I was going to note that AARP an eager partner in your IC because remember, representative Burbach or Vancouver House Health

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Care Committee and sponsor the bill. The more people who participate in this,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: the lower the price of the drugs. So that's the importance of advertising thus I far and

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: will qualify that theoretically, sort of the larger the volume, the better the volume discounts can be negotiated. I don't think there's a one for one correlation. It's just important to have uptake to be able to have negotiation power. So

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: any other questions about we're not voting today. We're keeping this on the walls, and we'll be thinking about this. Is there anything else we need

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: for

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: clarification? Yeah, Dave? The

[Rep. David Yacovone (Member)]: accumulator, it's on the consumer to notify his or her

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Insurance company.

[Rep. David Yacovone (Member)]: Insurance company, whether it's part D, whoever it is to do that. And yet today I participate, now there's an FQHC, when a pharmacy script goes into the pharmacy, the pharmacist either bills it to something called 340B, which is a lower priced federal system, or the coverage that the person has, I don't touch it. So they're letting the, in this case, maybe it's something called service for, they're letting them know that a drug was purchased and it went to 340B goes into my deductible counter.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That's from your Part D I'm Medicare, that requires

[Rep. David Yacovone (Member)]: just wondering if, I guess some insurers, maybe consumers won't have to do it, or some they will, but they'll figure that out.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I'm guessing they won't, but they are required to have a downloadable, easy to fill out form. I think that's the workaround for, because you have to let the insurance company know.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, the insurance company doesn't have a role in this if the person is using their cards or if the person wants to get credit for the amount they've sent out of pocket, they are responsible for notifying the insurer, which is my understanding of what happens now. We do have this provision in the statute now, and it's, I think Blue Cross Blue Shield testified that this is already the way it works.

[Rep. David Yacovone (Member)]: Does it, I'm sorry.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Go ahead.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Is it, is the language, and does it have to be downloadable exclusively? No, that It's is

[Rep. David Yacovone (Member)]: people that don't download.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That, so I put in enough, I, I can't remember which state's language I modeled this off of, but I took this off of another state's language, then I put in and it just called for the downloadable form. And then I put in an option saying that they could make another mechanism available as well.

[Rep. David Yacovone (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So for some people, if it's 8.4 it may not be worth it for them to go let their insurance company know. But for some people that makes a big difference because that gets them over the edge of what

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And is I'm making up numbers.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I know. I'm just using your same

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: example for the heck of it.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Thank you. Any other questions from anybody? Go ahead. Could we

[Rep. Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair)]: clarify that the Ways and Means vote of nine-two was on the whole bill or just

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on the I don't. Neither of us were in the room when they voted,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: so I just

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: can't speak You to

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: can find that out. It's Lynn's bill.

[Jen Carby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: She can find that out.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay, so thank you both very much. Thank you, Peter, for coming over from the treasurer's office and Robert Rebekko and others from health care and advocates and lots of people. We will be looking at this from a voting perspective after town meeting when we have a better sense of what the money is and what all of our options are. And we'll see what we do from there. That's what I have to say about that. So thank you all. Committee, we will be back here promptly at one We have a delegation, representatives from our federal delegation to talk about their congressional spending so we can see where they can help us out budget wise with what they're planning on doing.