Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: They're like, take a minute to class. Welcome back, everybody. We had a nice little break. So we're gonna go into five eighty five, and we unfortunately don't have Ledged Council with us this morning, so we're gonna try to kind of walk through it ourselves. This might be faster, but Pasha is going to put it up on the screen. I just want to go through each section. I want to just sort of I don't want to read it. Don't want to reverse language, you know, like a typical markup that we would do. I want to talk about the concept, what it's doing, and I want to get a sense in each section from each committee member. I'm going to straw poll each one in whether or not people wish to include this into the final version of five eighty five. And then if you decide on any changes, I will work with legislative council to ensure that those changes get met, so that we can have the vote.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Who wants to take notes?

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: That's what I'm wondering. I'm going to take notes. Okay. Running and let me Yeah, Daisy knows how I am at taking notes. Probably for the fast.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: I'm taking notes for myself too.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Yeah, lots of people take notes. Note taking is not my story. All right, so section one has to do with the board of directors at a hospital service corporation. And we're talking about Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont here. So just so we're all clear on that. They are recommending that two representatives of the public be named by the governor. As I explained yesterday, there was back and forth between should the governor get to pick one? And when I say governor, I'm talking about any governor, not our current governor. This is for anyone. And whether the legislature should have a say in that. And in my opinion, I went back and forth so much and it became complex in how this would be picked that it didn't seem like it was necessary. I did not want to create a whole new nominating committee, which then has to be picked. That seemed a little, as I said, not much bang for the buck. So go ahead, Daisy. Can you remind me what the one-six So it has two members of the board currently, and that's because the board is currently configured is how many members? 12. So that if the board composition became more than 12, that it would have to be a minimum of one sixth. So like if it became, I can't do math in my head.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: So if we're adding two more, it's going to be 14. Yes.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: If the board were reading at one point that they wanted to make it 60, there would need to be 10. We're turning

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: the board now into 14, correct?

[Allen "Penny" Demar (Member)]: That would be three.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: So we need three. Yep, not two.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: It would no longer be one six. I mean, if that's an important metric.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Or is this is why we need Ledged Council? Is it that as board members leave that are currently on the board that two new ones shall be named by the governor? I think that there was a whole process of naming them.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yes, please. Let's use solid numbers. What if you said something like, if the board exceeds 18, another member shall be appointed by the governor. Not like fractions, very clear.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: That's a great idea.

[Unidentified committee member]: That way it's clear, that if the board exceeds 18, then they get a third member. And vice versa, if the board

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: is that?

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Yeah, yeah. Let's say two.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Two what? Two appointees by the governor.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Pick out the whole onesix thing.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. I think your point was that, that if

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: there is a term about there needing to be a onesix portion met, that two is not onesix. That was my only point. I'm fine with there just being two.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay, I thought you were increasing 1.5%.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: People will click

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: that. Yeah. Yeah, in no event less than one six. Yes, Brian? I saw,

[Brian Cina (Member)]: well, just speak, know I just came in, so I don't know if you talked about this yet, but I saw an email or at least one, maybe two, referring to the potential problems of even doing this at this point. I don't know if anyone else heard this.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: What's that?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: That having the government decide that for certain nonprofits, it's going to start choosing its board feels like a bit of authoritarian. I don't know if that's the language that was used, but when I read the argument, it really struck me because the Green Mountain Care Board is a government body and this isn't. So now I'm like, are we going to start seizing assets of people by putting I don't know, it's concerning. Before

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: we

[Brian Cina (Member)]: talk too much about the number and the time, I wanted to put that out there.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: This is the conversation that I hope that people would have, which is, can we agree on the concepts, not necessarily the language? So, Tupper?

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: Basically, the reason we're doing this is to get representation of the public on the board. Aren't they public? That's what the big deal is.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: I see other hands.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: It's not to take over or any of that stuff. I

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: mean, I personally, I hear those concerns and you're right, is this public takeover of a private, I just keep coming back to this particular organization is, Anyone remembers the last year? This is an organization that is completely and totally responsible for They are so big that the entire healthcare system in Vermont would fail if they failed. And a board a board of directors responsibility is to the corporation or nonprofit or organization that they serve on. And I just feel as though when we talk about members of the public, it should be that there should be people on there that are thinking about the healthcare system in the state of Vermont, not just about the bottom line of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont. Allen and then Leslie.

[Allen "Penny" Demar (Member)]: I'm against the whole thing of having legislature or governor appoint members from the general public to these things. I've talked to my own hospital. They're against it. I think the insurance companies are against it, and we're we're just gonna get too political. I think there's 60 I think I heard a while back, there's like 60 other nonprofit organizations. Where do we stop according to Brian's statement? I'm against this.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Okay. Leslie? So I sort of feel similarly to Brian, but I'm calling it overreach. And I think that's because if there were We got worried about Blue Cross crashing because, of course, that would be heavy borne this crisis. But it's hard for me to imagine two members of a random public being able to direct the direction of a board of that many people.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: So it seems to me that people on the board are members of the public. Not all of them, some of them represent I I got a list of the people who are actually on the board. And there's Blue Cross of Michigan. They have financial stake in there. I think they have two seats on the board. That's right, right, two seats. But the other people are all Vermonters who are members of Vermont. So I feel like we're represented. So I agree with you, Penny, that I don't want to open that door to, what about hospitals? What about other nonprofits that we're worried about? Should we really direct? Should we appoint people to the board at Springfield Hospital that went bankrupt? We didn't do that. We didn't think about that. So I feel like this is, as I said, overreach, and I'm not going to support it either.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: They regulated as well. They are regulated by the Three Mountain Care Board, so there is a lot of oversight.

[Lori Houghton (Member)]: I'm in full support of this section. I think Blue Cross Blue Shield is a very unique nonprofit in The States. There are 14 hospitals. There is technically one insurance company for the state of Vermont. And I think that they yes, there are Vermonters obviously on their board. But that is a board process that they undertake. And we don't know fully what that is or how they choose their board members. And I think because they are so vital, much sorry, every other nonprofit out there, they are really vital to this state. And we really need to do everything to not let them fail. So I don't think this is overreach. I think it's absolutely necessary. And I'm comfortable with it being the governor that appoints them.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: And I will just say, last year, you remember if there had not been the agreement with UVM and C to pay them back money, it would have been the state stepping in to shore up their financials with general fund dollars. A lot of it. A lot of it. Topper and then Daisy.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: Don't have one.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Oh, Windham. I thought I saw you.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: I thought you said something, I forgot what you said. I'll come back. Okay,

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Karen? Yes.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: I'm wondering about the purpose of the two people? Is it to have oversight over the executive compensation, which we know could be excessive, or is this about a bankruptcy?

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: I

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: do see that there's some provisions in here with robust reporting to Department of Financial Regulation on executive compensation. And just wondering if that is part of the solution. So that's just sort of a question. And then I also wondered why they had limitations on liability as opposed to the regular folks on the board.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: So the bill reads that the guiding principles for these representatives of the public in discharging their duties is that they shall, in determining what the representative of the public reasonably believes to be in the best interest of the hospital service corporation, consider the effects of any action or inaction that the hospital service corporation takes Blue Cross Blue Shield or Copper, they should be determining the subscribers, in other words, the members, the community and societal considerations of the State of Vermont, including the principles for healthcare reform that we have already in Chapter 18, the goal that the Hospital Service Corporation benefits and services should be provided at minimum cost and under efficient and economical management. And they may consider other relevant factors that deem appropriate as members of the public. And I think that the concern is that the appointed board members by the hospital service corporation, their duty is to think of the Hospital Service Corporation. I see the Hospital Service Corporation shaking their head over, but that this would allow somebody to actually take into account what the state is trying to do statewide.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: And so when you think about what a board member's obligation is, typically, it's to see the mission through in the best possible way. And so I don't know if there's like a, I don't know, internal tension with being, I don't know, to, if you're on board, you're usually adhering to the mission of that. If this is a very special situation, a very exceptional situation, mean, could language be included that said, because this is a completely unique, or is that just understood? I mean, we can't see into the future. We do want to be systemic and structural when we make changes. So this is a completely unique organization, and this is why. I don't know, I also wonder about keeping it confined to this for these purposes, and I just don't know how effective it would be, I just wonder, I'm not completely clear,

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: that it would be

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: effective for the purpose and not, maybe it won't open the door to any other non profit, but

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: there

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: is the potential, there's a lot of non profits in this state, that's

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: carried in

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: biblical answer, just can't. That's what I'm mulling over. Can I

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: give you an example of where I think, I mean, it was very public this year in the hospital budget review that the board did, there were a lot of questions asked around contract negotiations between Blue Cross Blue Shield and the hospital? And you know, I wonder if I was a board member appointed to Blue Cross Blue Shield, if my charge was ensuring that contract negotiations were being done in good faith with the thought of the cost of care to Vermonters. Because I think it was kind of clear in the public budget hearings that perhaps that wasn't happening. And I think that the rationale for having dedicated people on the board who are thinking like that of the good of all Vermonters and the cost of care in the state of Vermont, I just feel like they are a unique situation, which is why there is this unique piece of statute that is being proposed in front of us, that is only relegated to this one particular instance, I think that it's concerns like that that have led to this. I have Brian, and then I have Leslie.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I know we don't witness it on the agenda, but I am curious about the process currently used by the impacted organization for

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: board selection? I think they testified to that.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Can someone remind me, does anyone remember?

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: With the hospital I keep forgetting what you all are called.

[Courtney Harris (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: I think it's hospital service organizations.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Hospital service organizations What like to is the selection process currently for members of the board and what is their duty and their charge?

[Courtney Harris (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: Would you rather be here or?

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: No, you can stay there.

[Unidentified committee member]: Give your name first. Court of

[Courtney Harris (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: the record, Courtney Harris the Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont. Important for the members of the committee to know that when our affiliation was approved in 2023 by, and we are unique in that we actually have two regulators, Green Mountain Care Board and the Department of Financial Regulation with remarkably close oversight, an existing statute that obligates us to make sure that every decision that we make is in the best interest of all Vermonters, plan members or not. That affiliation was approved in 2023. We did shift the makeup of our board. We affiliated with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan. Some of you might know, much bigger than us. And as a, I don't like to use the word subsidiary, but it's a thing that makes most sense to people. We brought five people from their organization onto our board and replaced Vermont for the sole reason of making sure that we would not go back into the position that we were in in August '3 when that affiliation occurred. So you all know that happened after the rate filings for 2024. And important to note that, and I think Bret Gordon has sight line into those folks from Michigan, they are all folks with extensive and remarkable careers in health insurance and very successful across their careers. Since then, process is that our board governance committee creates a list of the monitors now, so no more folks from outside of Vermont. When we think someone is about to roll off or their term is about to expire, we create a list of Vermonters who we believe our Board of Governance Committee believes need a number of factors in our bylaws. One of which is a community leader, one of which has some experience with large organizations or organizations serving statewide or larger. And the other one is they actually have to be plan members. So folks have to belong to our plan so that decisions that they're making are not just for all Vermonters, but making sure that decisions that we make are in the best interest of our premiums and how Vermonters experience those premiums. So right now our board chair is expected, his term is expected to expire. We've created a list of folks As we narrow down that list based on the criteria that the board has created, it gives you a vetting process. Interview is probably not the right language, but for lack of a better term, interview as to how they would fit in with the culture of the board, how they would fit in in a way where their knowledge brings a different set of expertise or a different experience to the board to make sure that we

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: have a diverse

[Courtney Harris (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: set of board members. And they're held to, and I think I might have put this in written testimony a couple of weeks ago, very, very strict standards when it comes to everything about contract negotiations, premiums, proprietary information that they do or do not have access to. And that process typically takes six months to work through the entire vetting process. Right now we're doing it for one board member. The list that we started with was 15. Many of the folks that are on the final part of the list have been in this committee testifying this session and are folks who this committee typically recognizes in testimony as experts.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: I just have

[Brian Cina (Member)]: a follow-up question Two about the follow-up questions about the process. You mentioned that a governance committee, which is made up of board members, creates a list of plan members. How do they know someone's a plan member? Do they make a list and then check the roles? Or do they look over this massive roles?

[Courtney Harris (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: Correct. We make a list first, and then we check-in. So that's typically the first part of the process. We make a longer list and then we see, I'll just say frankly, I've seen the list and there are some folks that I really wish were plan members.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: But they aren't? Correct. So if they have Medicaid, you won't take them or Okay. Then the other question is, if someone does have a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan and wants to serve on the board, are they ever given an opportunity to throw their hat in the ring? Because there could be people out there who we don't consider as candidates because they're not in this inner circle of so called experts, but they might have expertise and they might be out there. Is there ever a call to the membership? Like, hey, Blue Cross Blue Shield plan members, if you were ever interested in serving our board, here's the criteria, here's how you can apply.

[Courtney Harris (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: Yeah, absolutely. And folks don't know this, but as part of our work that we do, we actually distribute money to nonprofits across the state. Part of that work that we do, we have community advisory groups in different pockets of the state. And the function of that community advisory group is specific for population health, community well-being and frequently we have people that are interested in our work and want

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: to learn more about our work and add

[Courtney Harris (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: it to the list from those groups. Okay,

[Brian Cina (Member)]: thank you for I just wanted to because we were talking about how the board selected and I did not forgive me, but I did not remember the details of it, so it's good to have a reminder.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: Thanks.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: And just so I'm clear, you said that there are now five members of your board who were appointed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. So it would

[Courtney Harris (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: And seven, I believe seven for bronchitis.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Right. And There's 12 on the board. For the financial health. Topper, go ahead.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: You just asked my question, I want to know what the total amount of people were on there.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Leslie, and then I think I'm gonna

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: wrap up.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Is just a question. I'm curious to understand sort of the chilling effect this might have. I mean, yes, we have one insurance company at this moment, but we have MVP, I don't know how that would affect MVP, and if not, why? It's domiciled in New York. Okay, so it's domiciled in Vermont, so that's the deal.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: So it would be required to be domiciled. So would it We've always wanted to have more than one. I mean, we're sort of disappointed that we only have one, because what would happen? Someday, who knows, someone might say, Yeah, we want to come to Vermont, or we have a regional whatever, which is, who knows? Would this have

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: a chilling effect on

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: future options, future opportunities? And that's just a worry for me. That I don't know that we know the answer to that, but it's just a worry. I'm with you. I kept bringing this and have to say I can change my mind, and as a middle child, I'm going to like to Why do we have to have two?

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Think that they wanted to restore some balance. And my second question would be, I get the off rates of it from what happened last year, and I think that's the rationale for getting somebody to governor appoints on this. Is that Well. I'm

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: looking at you.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: I know you are,

[Unidentified committee member]: let me see if I can answer.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: People that were impacted were farming everyday people, members of the public. They were paying the premiums. When you look at, I'm just gonna talk, and I don't think to offend anybody, when you We look at the compensation of some of the people at the top end. A public person asked, tons of them asked me, how can we pay that kind of money? So, was a person from the public being on there experiencing that might have a different take on how much a person should be paid. Now, know that Blue Cross and Sugar goes through an intense thing about how other executives are paid and they base it probably on that. But it's important to have my voice on that board as a member of the public, to give them that perspective. That's it was all.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: I'm just wondering if you could

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: put like an end date on it.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: An end date for what?

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: For having appointees on this They are revolving, so they're not always the same. There's a three year term and a two year term. I'm torn between do I want a show of hands on whether or not people support this section or do I get a show of hands on people who, if this section remains, it will mean that they do not consider the bill as a whole. I'm really torn on those two Well, we'll have the votes. So that's harder. I mean, this is hard. So let's I rather keep on to this.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: You were

[Allen "Penny" Demar (Member)]: doing section by section.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Let's just do section by section. Section by section, and then if you see the whole eliminated, you'll do the whole. Yes.

[Unidentified committee member]: For the record, I'll address this one. I wanna throw one more small piece of information that might help your consideration on this, is that board members on the board, they get paid. So when you're adding two new members, they're adding and they get paid off $20,000 a year. So is $80,000 that's gonna be informed by the ratepayments. Just want to throw that out there.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Question. Do

[Lori Houghton (Member)]: the Michigan people get me $20,000 a year

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: from our Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont?

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: It's $9.90. Wait, what? And so that, I was just saying, I have a big

[Lori Houghton (Member)]: concern for people. My last statement is, I have a big problem that we are not, we have so many Michigan people on. I probably knew that, but he just said it again. And if they are even getting paid more, then I really think we need to have two people appointed to really look out for Vermonters.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Okay. Karen and Allen, and then I'm calling a vote.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: So on the subject, I just wanted to reiterate that concern for me is structural. If there's a way to say, this is a special organization because of this, you always wonder if do something special in a certain circumstance what it looks like five or ten years later. So is there

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: a way to confine this? It is. Or? It is. It is defined as a hospital service corporation. The definition of hospital service corporation is in statute and it applies only to this one organization at this time. At this moment, yes. It has for a long time.

[Unidentified committee member]: It has been in statute for quite a while, specifically.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: And it hasn't in quite a while applied to any other organization. So

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: it really, although it's not named in here, it really is relegated to just this one, Allen.

[Allen "Penny" Demar (Member)]: Okay, so I know we'd said two positions. We did the math earlier, we said if we go to 14, it might be three. Are we talking three positions or are we talking two?

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: We are two. We're going to get a sense on whether or not people even want it before we start talking about and we're not actually going to talk about that, it's more of a Ledge Council discussion.

[Allen "Penny" Demar (Member)]: My other comment about getting political. I don't care who the governor is. If it comes time to appoint somebody, it's going to be their way of thinking. Okay, and that's not always, that's getting political. That's not looking at what's good for health care. That's getting political. I'm against Google.

[Lori Houghton (Member)]: It not. It

[Allen "Penny" Demar (Member)]: may not. But if any

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: one of us here

[Lori Houghton (Member)]: had The to pick somebody governor appoints people all the time without without it being Right.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: The governor appoints a

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: head officer. He's He's always political.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Me be honest. The

[Lori Houghton (Member)]: governor appointed you right here.

[Unidentified committee member]: You didn't put a a democrat

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: in your spot.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Obviously, very big. So it's political. It's always political.

[Allen "Penny" Demar (Member)]: There you

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: go. Political. Are political. Me just remind everybody that governor is elected by the entire state of Vermont and that the governor represents the needs and concerns of the entire state of Vermont because they've elected him to do that. I don't care if he's or her, if they are a Democrat or a Republican, their representation, they have a constituency, and their constituency is the state of Vermont and all people in the state of Vermont. Topper, and then I really am.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: I'm just gonna

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: So don't anyone put their hand up.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: One statement, along with what Lori said and what you just said. The governor has elected one of the The number one mission that the governor has is to protect the people of Vermont. And this is a way to protect the people who are paying the premiums.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Law on the board. So they're representing you. Well said, Tapper. Haven't raised my

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: hand until now, because I really was on the bench about this. Partly worried about precedent that it sets for nonprofits. Also partly worried about, or equally worried about the politicization. But I think if I were to take each of those separately, the politicization of it, if I am too concerned about that, then I'm saying that I don't believe in our democracy. That's what that's saying, because Alyssa just made the point every governor is elected by the people. And then if I take the other piece, that this sets precedent for other nonprofits across the state, we received a letter from someone who signed it from the board of the Pride Center, other organizations and nonprofits that we're all familiar with and that are doing good work in the state, I don't think there's any way that someone could argue that there is another nonprofit in the state that touches Vermont residents in the way that Blue Cross Blue Shield Vermont does. There's no way. And that would impact That impacts Vermonters in the way that they do were they to become fiscally insolvent. And I think with the balance of what Topper is saying, having more Vermonters on the board, keeping things in balance, I would feel safer in the long term. And I'm not just thinking about in the next two years. I'm thinking about ten, twenty years from now. That's all. I think this is a really, really difficult decision because it's really important. And Karen's suggestion about sunsetting, I think, is also one that I contemplated. But you know what? We change things all the time. And I think I'm willing to try this out.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: That was mine.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Oh, stop.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Did you

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: want to

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: talk to someone? Thanks, Daisy. But I

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: think we change things all the time. I'm willing to support the two because I believe that in democracy, this is what we have to do. And I believe strongly that we need representation. Health care premiums, specifically from this entity, are what is crushing Vermonters right now. For us to not have democratic representation on that board,

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: or for us to have the opportunity to have it,

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: is significant. And I think we shouldn't take it lightly. But also, be a member of that. We can

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: hold the governor accountable for who we appoint. Great. Thank you. Okay. So all in favor of keeping this in the bill. Section one. And two. Three. Four. Five. Five. And then all in favor of removing

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: the section from the

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: belt. I'm assuming six, I'm not going to go around. No, not going to abstain. I can't abstain. I'm sorry, you can't.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: Got good arguments on both sides. It's tricky.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: It's hard. Which I would say it's not

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: a deal breaker for me, but I am concerned about

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: or you a Are you a yes or a no? No? I just

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Yes is leaving it in, no is taking it out. I'm sorry.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Yes. A no is taking it out. This is a hard job, but we were sent here to make hard decisions. Yes or no? This is the closest foot we've ever had. It's just on one part

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: of your bill, too. And you're a lawyer.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: This is the first section.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: And it's eleven thirty people, I just want to remind everyone, we have eleven thirty to 12 secondtions. Okay, it's not a deal breaker for me.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: That's not the question.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: That's the question. The question is, do you want to keep this in the bill or not? Yes. Yes. Okay. Five? No. Karen, you have to vote. No. Thank you. Six.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I was starting to acknowledge that.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: The second section has to do with the information that is given to Department of Financial Regulation that's filed section two, well, I don't even know, no, there's still section one. Oh, there's a little bit on section one? The employee bill in executive compensation. I'll page you that. It's on page seven. Thank you. It concerns so right now, Cross Blue Shield, well, the insurance companies or Blue Cross Blue Shield has to file this information with the Department of Financial Regulation and the Department of Financial Regulation would like a little bit more information from them, including like the benchmarks that we utilized in giving the compensation, the compensation survey or peer group that was used to determine what the compensation was, bonuses. I'm not going to go through the whole thing, but essentially it has to do with giving DFR more information around how executive compensation was determined. Any discussion? And then I'm going to ask whether to keep it

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: in the bill. And remember that you just took two people off compensation board. Well The compensation committee.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: But that's what we have. We're voting on these things. That doesn't mean they're necessarily going away. We're going to vote on them, each individually, so I can get everybody's opinion on where things are. Executive compensation, additional data being given to the Department of Financial Regulation. Allen. Yes?

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Yes, remove it or keep it?

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Keep it. It. Okay. Eleven-zero-eleven-zero-eleven-zero-eleven-zero-eleven-zero-eleven-zero-eleven-zero. It. Alright, next up, section two. I feel like this was just cleaning up something, isn't it?

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: Oh, it's

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: to amend the bylaws to

[Brian Cina (Member)]: No, it's be above. Yeah, it was cleaning up.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: All right, we're leaving it there. I'm not even going to do a discussion

[Unidentified committee member]: on that.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Because it might have to be removed if one comes out.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: Section of Federal T or something. Yeah,

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: because it's about updating its bylaws, which would change if you face the board compensation, you have to change your bylaws. So So it was oh gosh, waste gen was here. And this is AHV? No, this is not AHV. This is definition. Okay, well, I think that this was just updating some definitions.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: It's removing the definition of these criteria about associations. What I see. That's what I'm seeing so far. It's removing, it's repealing an explanation. Then in the next section

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: I was gonna say that if we consult with legislative council about the other sections, legislative council will know what needs to be finished or removed down here.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Yeah, I would feel better waiting on this vote. Okay.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: We had long, long, rigorous discussions about association health plans. We got some additional testimony. I and Topper had additional conversation with the Department of Financial Regulation. They are remaining agnostic, I guess on they did indicate that they have absolutely no problem with adding Section five, which is the federal landscape report that we had in here. I hope I'm not misrepresenting what we said. They did say that they would be willing to look at some of the other things that we had talked about, but to keep it contained. So basically what we did in this draft was we delayed it by a year and then we made them come back to us with this report on what the federal landscape was. And we had robust discussion yesterday, which Jen was taking notes around essentially we want more information as far as impact to the QHP market, some modeling on costs, and I'm recommending that we put that conversation that we had into this bill here and I want to get a sense if it's like this or like that, how many people would support leaving this section in the bill? You're talking about section four, right? Section four and But what about section four?

[Lori Houghton (Member)]: Four and five. Everything related to the association plan.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: So four and five, I just want to be sure.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Everything related to, okay.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: Now, one thing that we have to pilot that conversation. They would rather have the whole thing the way it was when I was put in the beginning. But they're not against, it's not a deal breaker for them to do it the way we're talking about. As long as the models didn't cost a lot of money, could take care of it themselves. Absolutely.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: So would everybody's support moving forward? Yes, of course. But I think I'm struggling with having, and I said this earlier, is this, an effective date in here for section Page one. On page 27, there's an effective date for section three and four. And I am struggling with having an effective date that what's going be implemented on that effective date, I'm not understanding. And if it's just that we're going to acquire information, that's fine. If it's more than that, I'm not sure I can square it. So that would stuck a little bit. Let's talk with Ledge Council about Section four and what definitions would need to change and the dates of those changes. Okay. Okay? Because I don't want to implement something when we don't have data. That was my concern. We will will ensure that all the dates and everything are right. So section five basically will say that they have to come back to us with the stuff we want and the data that we want on 01/15/2027, and that they may move ahead to expanding in January. So we have delayed that for a year. And that will ensure that when they come back to us in '27, we can either say, this looks fantastic, let's move forward, or whoever is sitting here, or that we can say, this is going to be a disaster. We're not moving forward. We need to change it then. I'd rather change it now. And that's my position because Right, like I said, this language changes it in 2028. I get it. But I don't want to have an effective date until we have the information. I guess that's what I'm worried about. So if there's a Who else is sitting in this table? So I'm hearing you a no. Not necessarily. I want to You cannot change that date. Why? Why can't we take it out?

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: So can I just

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Yes, you're helping? So

[Lori Houghton (Member)]: if we had this section, right, which has a of January 2027, And we also put in a section about having data in January 27. Right? Then whoever's sitting at this table will have a conversation that says whether or not to move ahead or not. But I think it's important for the department to know that the effective date, if it's moved ahead, is '28 because there is a lot that has to be done for them to put these in place.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Okay, so help me understand what this effective date is affecting.

[Lori Houghton (Member)]: That the plan starting in 2028

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: The association health plan

[Lori Houghton (Member)]: would be allowed starting in 2028.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: That's what I'm struggling with.

[Lori Houghton (Member)]: Based on what happens in 2027. Or not. Okay, but that's how it has I mean, I agree that it really That date should be in there because planning it like Yeah.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: I mean, you've been here

[Lori Houghton (Member)]: a Like so much stuff has to happen. Mean, I

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: know that I the dates can be get it, but I'm worried. I mean, I've seen a number of times that we put dates in and nothing happens or something. It's happened. But then you need

[Lori Houghton (Member)]: to make your decision based on that. Okay.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: I don't want to have long discussion on this. I'm going let Topper finish out here, and then I'm going to ask for Also,

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: they want to stay on as soon as they can on the modeling.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Oh, I understand. Yeah, I've heard that, and it makes sense to me. I feel like the federal government is totally unreliable at this moment. So I feel like there's a whole lot of time before the federal government is ever going to address the issue of the commonality cause.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: And they may not.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: And they may never. So there's a whole lot of work that may get done for novice. It might be

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: good for us to have that information anyway. I got one quick one.

[Allen "Penny" Demar (Member)]: What's been the issues that we come to this when we need this?

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: What's been the issues?

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: I would say that businesses that are able to form an association are looking for other options of relief in trying to find health plans.

[Allen "Penny" Demar (Member)]: That's not a good thing if it saves you money?

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Well, be that decided in 2027. Right now, the federal government does not allow that. And unless the federal law is overturned, then it remains the way it is. This is just giving DFR the ability to kind of start planning and because, I mean, as we know, it takes a long time to affect a plan year. So this allows them if the federal law is overturned to start planning for it, but they still need to come back to us in January. That's what this is doing. Hey,

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: if the

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: federal law never gets overturned, this is no one vote. Know, sorry. Okay. Thanks.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: I know. The point that you made about you know, what is the impact going to be if this went forward and they do the modeling? If the modeling shows that it's going to impact the pool, then we may not want to do it at

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: That's why we're having them come back. So does that give information? Can I ask the question about that? Yes. So does this language include modeling on the impact of the QHP? Okay. That's cool. And then does it also ask for impact on the hospital system, like the hospital system? Does that include it in here? I'm not sure I get that. It may or may not. Wanted to work with Jen on language. Okay, thank you.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Can I just say one This thing for

[Lori Houghton (Member)]: is a really big compromise in support of our businesses and our individual market? So I think we all are concerned about the QHPs and concerned about businesses. So let's try and find a path forward that hopefully can get us to a point where we can help small businesses. I think this is a

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: good middle ground. And I'm hoping that the modeling and the research that they do on it and the data they're able to come up with will show if it even will have an effect for small businesses. Or I mean, that's the thing I think we heard in testimony was, well, we're not sure, but it seems like it might be a good idea. One comment, one comment, and then that's it. Okay.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I wasn't going to say anything, but what I'm hearing, I want to make sure what I'm hearing is a vote yes would mean we're moving forward with a study and that the language of the study is still negotiable. Yes. If that's the case, I'm not going to say anything else now, but I would like to weigh in later on the language of

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: the study.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Yeah, when Jen presents us the language of the study, then we can

[Unidentified committee member]: discuss It'll different than this.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: It'll different. It'll be based on our previous discussion.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Karen, and then that's all.

[Courtney Harris (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: All

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: All right. Sorry, spreading all your hands. I feel like it's two draft horses going at different pace. We do want the information, and once we have the information, we'll let's help out small business, because it's a good idea. But right now we're saying, it's like cart beats by our mouths and using divorce metaphors, cart beats by the horse. We're say, we're definitely going to do it in 2028, but we're also going to get this information in the meantime, like what delays To are

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: give them plan, because if we do it next year, it will then

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: be delayed till '29. So not delaying it now means they think they're going forward because they're not coming.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Means that they can start the green process. Yeah. It doesn't

[Brian Cina (Member)]: mean we're gonna do it.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: It doesn't mean we're gonna do it again. But if it is

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: a done deal, no tax change in that.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: No, no. I don't see that.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: The other thing is it looks at the restrictions of the guidelines and deciding what we're going to do about that.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: I'm calling for a vote. All those in favor of keeping association plans as we have discussed with a report back next year, I'm calling it a report, but it's not only a report, it's information, actual real data, all in favor of keeping this section in the bill. The theta clack thing. The section. Section around. One, two, three, four, five, six, 78, nine. Okay, and all opposed? Two. Okay. Line two, association health benefits. Short term limited duration health insurance. It is section number six, May 15. We have not had a great deal of discussion around. We took testimony on it. I'm just asking for simply a vote on whether or not to keep this in the air based upon the testimony that we received. Department of Financial Regulation really, really would like this to offer more options for people who need short term limited duration insurance. Can you remind me what the healthcare advocate's position on this section was? Can the healthcare advocate remind us of this position?

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: We are opposed. Okay.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: All all in favor of keeping it in there? Three. I'm going to assume that it's going to abate the other direction. All those opposed? Three, six, seven, eight. Three, eight,

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: four.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Great, moving on. That was perfect. Section seven. Oh, this is just high dollar claims. It sets an amount for what a high dollar claim is at $25,000 and this allows them to do prepayment coding validation. That's the person, by the way, who put this in here years ago and had big, big fights over it. I am going to support this wholeheartedly. So when you say them, what did you mean? I'm sorry. Remind me. Allows them. It allows insurance companies to do a prepayment audit. They may do it on claims over 25,000. Previously, was just high dollar. No, we're at 25,000. It doesn't say they have to, it just says they may. So all in favor of keeping this in here. I'm gonna do the work I did.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Is that another 11? Was that really an 11?

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Zero,

[Brian Cina (Member)]: five. They opposed?

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Unanimous approval. Don't go crazy. I know you can't, because you don't have that many options. Don't spend

[Brian Cina (Member)]: it all in one place.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: That's fact, site neutral reimbursements for physical therapy.

[Unidentified committee member]: I'm There's two.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: We're doing it as one?

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Yeah, we're doing it as one. So section eight and nine, we're doing it as one. It has to do with psych neutral treatment for physical therapy services.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: What was the suggestion to

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: add an occupational therapy? Rehab medicine. Courtney, do you know

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: who that blanket This is like a

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: set of codes. Is the OT inclusive?

[Courtney Harris (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: So Sharon put in a really letter and we agreed with them 100% under physical therapy is one set of codes and a group of codes, and we prefer to do

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: the whole group, which would

[Courtney Harris (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: be physical therapy, occupational therapy, and athletic training. Great,

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: so we will work with Legis Council to ensure that that's

[Brian Cina (Member)]: OTS needs to voted with the Latin language?

[Unidentified committee member]: Yes. Thank you.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: A vote in favor that we

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: move forward. We're voting to

[Courtney Harris (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: put it in.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Yes, put it in. Okay, eleven-zero-zero, site neutral.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Can I just ask if anyone has ever received as many emails

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: got hundreds

[Courtney Harris (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: of them?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Wait, did that work? Because if that works, I'm gonna have people looking at really

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: like what you're doing.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: Prescription broad coverage.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Okay, I'm to I'm the one that included this. I'm even going to have us vote on this section other than I am removing this. Okay. All right. I am going to remove this. However, I want to get a read on everyone's thoughts around what Charlie Becker said yesterday around maybe we could look at it. And really what I want to do is I'd like some actuarial analysis done if we could expand and do a same, a folkturing, I guess, plan design that would have the same out of pocket, that would afford people more choice, and maybe an actuarial analysis on how that might bring the total out of pocket down or might even bring the premium down based upon that. So would everybody be okay with me working with Ledge Council to just say, can somebody report back to us what this actually would mean if we did what I put in the gun? Well, that's good. Thank you. Is everybody in favor of that? Thank you. Okay. I don't think I could. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. I missed the last one you said. The last two sentences. It would be nice if we could get an analysis of if it would actually have any effect on premium or

[Brian Cina (Member)]: So what you're saying is you're removing this and you might add in a study of some kind or you're removing it and we'll put you in another chime in the future.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Sure, I think you can ask Diva to and Diva has already done Okay. Because these are QHP plans. Just ask them to look at

[Brian Cina (Member)]: So we're removing it and we're going figure it out another way? Yeah. Okay, thank you. I wanted to make sure I understood that.

[Unidentified committee member]: There's a

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: huge might be might be wrong.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: It's a plan design.

[Unidentified committee member]: The protection.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: So in the final vote of

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: the bill, we may or may not see the protection again.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: I'm gonna work with Ledged Council to figure out who we ask.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: But it's gone for now. It's for now. And that and and you're you're making an executive decision and no one's opposing it so vehemently.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: So we took a lot of testimony yesterday. We incorporated H102, and it's been on our wall for two years into this. This is section 11, which has to do with healthcare sharing plans that it's essentially reporting to the Department of Financial Regulation the business that they're doing in the state. All in favor of keeping it in the bill? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, removing it from the bill. Eight three.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: If it stays in, can we discuss how to well, it is gonna stay in. Can we discuss maybe how to make

[Courtney Harris (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont)]: it less burdensome, or is that ship sailed?

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: I think that ship has sailed. I share that question, but, you know, I think the reporting is very important. It's just the magnitude, but I'm gonna vote and prove about it. All right.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: That's actually it. Well, it's a fully effective date, but I'm not thinking about any effect. Can we get we ease now? Want to get a read on Okay, so I have a couple of things. I have Board Governance five, six, so not a majority, short term limited duration through eight. I want to get a sense from others on the committee whether or not any of your no votes, if these sections remained in this bill, would it affect your ability to vote for the bill as a whole? That's really important. So you're going go through

[Brian Cina (Member)]: them with the remaining ones?

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: No, I'm asking people who voted no on certain things, I want a general sense of if that stays in there, I am not voting on this bill. I don't want to speak to

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: Sorry, your I wanted to answer your question. Yes. Okay, so I've already know on the governance one. Yes. I have no objection to the governor being the appointing entity structurally. And I explained my struggle that no vote would not make me not vote for the rest of what we all just Well,

[Brian Cina (Member)]: we cut

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Yes, that I'm just trying to get a general of the depth of passion of people's feelings around. Because I have been very honest, I want to move forward with this bill.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: I

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: think it's important to my vice chair. I think it's important on things that we're doing around healthcare reform. I think it's important to our administration and our Department of Financial Regulation who works very hard for us. And so I really want to move forward with the bill, but I don't want to tank the bill because of one section. So Leslie and then Allen.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: I have a question

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: about voting. Oh, okay. So I just want to understand the process. If a section was voted down, does that mean that it be overwritten by somebody, I'm not sure who, leadership or whatever, and kept in even though it was voted down? You know what I'm honestly trying to get a sense of? Two things. Board governance. If board governance remains in this bill, would that mean that you would not vote for this bill? Does that mean you override the vote? No. I said that we were going to straw poll each section, but that didn't mean we were necessarily removing. I was trying to get a sense of people's concerns around it. If board governance remains in the bill, would that affect your ability to vote on this bill? Would it be a deal breaker for you? Show of hands. Okay. Yes,

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: yes. I understand. I'm not sure I understood the question. It's fine.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Maybe we need to see it.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Yes, would you try, Lori? Thank you.

[Lori Houghton (Member)]: So what we just did was took a straw poll, but we have to take a real vote. And so if, based on everything that you've all voted on, if the piece about putting two members on the board was actually still on the table when we take our final vote, would that mean you will not vote for the bill? Because all of you voted for things yes in the bill, and then some of you voted no for that section. So would you vote no on the whole thing because that one section is still in there. Does that help?

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: And to add to that, there was votes. I think I can remember one that was six to five and it might be

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: It was five to six, and that was the board governance, which I'm trying to get a sense on. If board governance remains in the bill, would that affect your ability to vote on the bill?

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: The rest of it.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: The rest of the bill as a whole? When we take a final vote on the bill, would that be the thing that makes you say, I refuse to vote yes on this bill?

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: I'm going explain. There's a couple of

[Unidentified committee member]: things I don't like the bill. Okay. Well, you're going

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: to have lots of time to explain your vote when we actually take a vote on the bill. I'm just trying to discern whether or not if board governance stays, you will not vote yes on this bill.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Brian, yes? I'm likely to hold the line on that one if it makes a difference. If I lose in the committee, I'll organize with others to try to kill that piece on the floor, just be honest with you right now. And so that the rest

[Unidentified committee member]: of the

[Brian Cina (Member)]: bill passes, if I want the bill to pass.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Okay. I want the bill to pass too, which is why I'm trying to do this exercise, because I want this bill to pass. Leslie? I want the bill to pass too. So that I agree with you 100%. I'm stuck a little bit on this process because it's like, well, I have a straw poll if the thing's going to stay in or not. And that's what I'm trying to understand. Didn't say the straw poll was binding. Was trying make that sense. Firmly understand that you didn't say that you didn't I'm asking, you voted no on board governance. If board governance remains in the bill, would that make you vote no on the entirety of the bill? Is that a direct question, Betsy? Yes.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: Probably not.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Meaning I would probably vote yes on the bill, even though there might be protests. Karen?

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: Same answer. I I love the idea of the public being on the board. I am

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: explaining my concerns. Yep, got it. All right. Anybody else who I can't remember who

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: It will not be

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: a deal breaker for me. I hate it though. I just hate it.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: It will because not be a deal

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: I feel like you did an incredible job making compromise and topper too, because I know this bill is important to you. I just, I'm really proud of the work that you all did to find compromise on some

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: of those sections and removal of the prescription drug cap. And thank you for your leadership. Thank you. Short term limited duration. People really didn't like that. I don't even think I'm going to. I voted for it. I'm actually fine with it, but I'm going to take the huge majority of the committee that said no, and I'm going to recommend that we remove it from the bill. It was three to eight. That's a pretty rousing, the committee does not like this. Are you okay with me removing it? Okay.

[Unidentified committee member]: I don't like it, but

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Thank you everyone. Yes, can have the committee's attention. We're online, so just to let you know. It's okay. All right.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: I want you all to know before it gets announced, I am resigning from a legislative trip effective April 3. The reason is my wife needs me to be home. I spent all week, last week, and I saw that her mobility is becoming

[Allen "Penny" Demar (Member)]: really restrictive.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: If I can, I have, there's someone there with it right now, and I've made arrangements through the end of the month that would allow for committee, changes or anything that have to be made and someone to replace me? But I wanted to stay in here until we got through as much as we could. And it was not an easy decision. My wife tried all the way through it. But she knows how much I love this. She knows how I feel. But anyway, I want to let you all know, because it's probably

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: I'm sad, or So

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: am I.

[Karen Lueders (Member)]: You can't read before Channamount.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay. Before Thank you.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Thank you. You're doing the right thing.