Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Welcome everybody. We are hearing an amendment that representative Harvey is introduced or a floor amendment on H585. Didn't think that it was necessary to have Ledge Council walk us through it. It's essentially the same amendment we saw yesterday, which pretty much just eliminates Section 10, which we talked about at length yesterday and also in committee while we were taking testimony on this bill. And so we've invited representative Harvey in to essentially tell us why he's make the case for your money.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the members of the House Health Care Committee. I have to admit, it's my first time in the room, so I'm thrilled to be with all of see a lot of very familiar faces and certainly friends around the table. So I totally agree with the chair's assessment. I don't think it's necessary for legislative council to walk us through this. This is not only similar to the amendment that representative North offered yesterday, it is the exact same amendment that representative North offered yesterday. I'm not gonna relitigate a lot of the points that I made on the floor. I had a wonderful lunch today with the vice chair of the committee, and we talked, you know, really about the structure of the bill and my support for the vast majority of all the sections. And I'm really appreciative of all the hard work that went into this. I know it's tireless. I I feel the same thing on my committee as well. But I do have concerns about section 10. I I think a lot of it goes to freedom of choice. I think a lot of it goes to First Amendment concerns. And I also think too and I'm sure that this is something that you hear day in and day out in this committee, that Vermonters are really struggling, and they can't afford the health care system that we currently have in the state. And it's my belief, and I'm sure the belief of some on the committee, that more options are better, and if we can try to bring down the price for even a single Vermonters health care plan, that would be a good thing. And so that's why I'm offering this amendment to House Bill five eighty five, and I would love your support on it.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Well, we completely agree. We have all discussed at length that nothing in section 10, we do not want to curtail anyone's choices in how they choose to either receive health care or how they choose to pay for their health care. We love providing more options to people, which is exactly what a lot of the measures in H585 do. So we share that. I think that there's been confusion a little bit on this. We are doing nothing whatsoever to regulate. There is no regulatory structure whatsoever in Section 10 around health care sharing plans. This is simply that we are asking them to report. And frankly, I think and I believe that the representative of North made a great point yesterday, to which also the Commissioner of the Department of Financial Regulation made yesterday, which is while Vermonters are looking at options for finding more affordable care, I see this as really a consumer protection where this will be from our Department of Financial Regulation information that consumers can use to make best decisions around choosing one of these because they will have that these are entities that have reported the number of individual lives that are members of these sharing agreements. And yeah, I guess, we heard from our Department of Financial Regulation, we heard from our health care advocates office. We heard from the health care sharing plans, their alliance. We heard from multiple of them. Unless anyone has any questions Yes, go ahead, Leslie.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: Thank you. Appreciate this. I'm not sure who put this on my desk. Do you have

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: any idea? Well, I actually asked our committee assistant to because it's transparent in Colorado, because this is And the language in this bill is an exact duplicate of Colorado's statute. They have been collecting this information for four years now. And you can see the last four years reports on their Department of Financial Regulation equivalent department, whatever it is, because everybody's state calls things differently. And they post this very public. And I just wanted people I wanted people to see Like I said, I think there's been confusion over what's entailed in it. And I wanted people to see the information that comes.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: Get a copy Can of it? We just haven't seen it.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: Okay, sure. And I

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: did ask Tasha to post it on our committee website as well. I believe it's Is it posted under my name? Yes.

[Tasha (Committee Assistant)]: So if I may. Yeah. Let's put Leslie in my name.

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: Thank you. Please listen. Yeah, I had looked at this most briefly. Even I've seen it about the same amount of minutes. Well, did a quick flip flip maybe for a minute. And one of the things that caught my eye was page 12. And I think that this is why I am really interested in gathering data, because I think Vermonters need to know what these not insurance plans are about. So one of the things that says some of the conditions that are reported as pre existing and therefore ineligible for sharing. What we're talking about here is type one and type two diabetes, very common. Hypertension, common. Lyme disease, Vermont. It's really important, I think, that we understand really thoroughly from a data perspective about what these organizations are willing and unwilling to do in order to protect Vermonters. And I think that's the purpose of the bill.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: What May I respond?

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, I was going say, and also what consumers who are looking to for options, this is transparent, need to know information. But go ahead. Yeah.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: Thank you, madam chair, thanks, Leslie,

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: We're for the very informal on this committee, Zach.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: I wanna be deferential. This is not my home, so I'm on a new territory. You know, Leslie, to to your point, I I think backfinding and gathering data is so critically important, and I think everyone in this room, I certainly talk about data on the floor as it relates to the commerce Committee and some of the legislation that's coming out of there. It was a business that I used to work in in New York. However, what I would say is that when we are on a fact finding mission in house judiciary, and that's the only committee that I have experience with, will establish a study group to evaluate if data needs to be collected, what that data should be used for, and what the policy recommendations should be. I think a study group would be a very prudent compromise for this piece of legislation specifically. The only thing that I would say is that I know that the Colorado lawsuit is going through, I believe it's the tenth circuit of appeals, and Vermont is part of the second circuit, which would probably yield a very different result. And this is a debate that we debate pretty vigorously in house judiciary, is that given the justices that have been appointed in in most recent administrations, some under Biden, some under under president Trump, I think we'd yield a pretty different result if it was challenged, especially under freedom of expression and First Amendment basis in the Second Circuit. So I think it's just worth flagging that there probably is a different approach that we would have.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: I just wanted to say that that has been raised several times. I believe the Health Sharing Alliance shared that information. I believe it's been mentioned a couple times, both in this committee and on the floor. I did ask legislative counsel because legislative counsel obviously is much better a big step up in VR and child's healthcare.

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

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: can you just sort of summarize for us what sort of is happening with this?

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: January, I'm so legislative counsel. So I've been trying to look for more information. From the best I can tell, there was a preliminary injunction requested by the Alliance for Healthcare Sharing Ministries in Colorado that was denied. They have appealed to that denial of preliminary injunction and that is what is before the tenth Circuit.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: And is an injunction where they just essentially are asking to put this on hold?

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: Yes, I have the law not basically not.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Okay, so they asked to put it on hold, that's what's And the court said no.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: Right, the court said no.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: And that they've appealed the no for the injunction.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: Right, because so the conclusion from the court for Orleans that's in January 2025 said that because the Alliance has not seen any of the preliminary injunction factors that they have to play in its favor and in particular it scales make a strong ruling as to its likelihood of success on the merits of any of its claims before it denies the Alliance's motion for a preliminary injunction. And then the tenth Circuit had oral arguments on that denial of preliminary injunction in November 2025, and we do not, if I can find, have a ruling. Yes.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: So the tenth circuit is not ruling on the merits of the case, they're ruling on the injunction.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: That is my understanding. I'm just the only person who's familiar with

[Brian Cina (Member)]: it. Okay.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Brian, you have a question? Yeah, well,

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I wanted to share with you why my position changed on this and then here, and then the question would be like, maybe why, your thoughts on this. So first I was concerned about requiring or creating excessive requirements for the faith based mutual aid style health sharing. Then the more that I learned, the more I realized that the current system is like the Wild West, like people do all kinds of things. Even though maybe the majority are beneficial, that there's examples of abuse, and I started to see it differently. I started to realize what we would be doing, and then you can see that with this report, is essentially, DFR is offering to gather this information, not even offering, requesting our support to gather this info and essentially create a menu for Vermonters of choices, where it's very clear what the choices are, what their benefits are, what the risks are. And so I see this as improving the accountability, transparency and efficiency of government, because we're actually the government's working to serve the people by creating a menu for them, similar to how we have an exchange. Like, you you only have two choices on the exchange. On here, you might have a 100. We don't know yet. So I think when I thought of it that way, I was like, in the end, the amount of work involved to report that information, which would be the cost to the plans, the benefit to the people would be so great, plus they may get new members to add to their pools. So that brought me over. Mean, hearing that, what would be your concerns about us creating a menu like that?

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: I guess, one of the questions I have on the points that you just outlined, Brian, is I'm not connecting the dots of how this burdensome regulation would increase growth in these companies.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Increased public awareness might create more participation. I might be like, why am I paying 800 a month for this exchange plan? I could be in this faith sharing ministry and give each month what I can, and then when I need it, they'll help me. Even though I'm doubtful of that based on what I've learned, I might try that.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: So what I would say is I think one of the things that I'm concerned about is the awareness that this legislation could potentially bring, because nothing is certain in life except for death and taxes. But the only thing that is thank you. I appreciate the pity laugh at least. But to my point is the only thing that is I appreciate it. There's there's very few things that are certain in life, but I think one of the things that concerns me about the legislation that's currently drafted is that this legislation could raise awareness for the very wrong reasons, and that is for people leaving the state because they simply can't afford health care plans if this becomes too burdensome, and also the lawsuits that are inevitably gonna become, because we already live in a very litigious world, and I think it is very easy for me to deduce to the fact, I mean, especially if I see it in house industry every day, is that we live in an environment where lawsuits are brought constantly for a good reason or no reason at all. And the question that I would pose to the committee and the question that I was asking myself as I've had so many members and member and constituents come up to me about this legislation, both in support of all the other sections that you've done such great work on, but also expressing concerns about section 10. And the thing that I come back to is why are these health and these sharing plans needed in the first place? And I think if we solve the fundamental underlying problem of unaffordable health care in the state of Vermont, that's what we keep coming back to. And so if we solve that problem, I think that that's one thing. But I do think that these sharing plans are only a viable option because the conventional marketplace that we have is not operating efficiently, and it's not working the right way.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: Again, we have looked at so many things.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: I'm going

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: to let Daisy and then Topper. And

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Can I ask if you utilize one of these sharing plans yourself?

[Debra Powers (Member)]: We don't.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Are you on regular Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance?

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: Something like that.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: While you're with how that works? Yeah. And are you more concerned, it sounds like, about litigation at the state, toward the state, with regard to this bill than you are, constituents risk with some of these sharing plans that are out there and not identified?

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: Oh, I have deep concern for my constituents being taken advantage of in any kind of predatory environment. I think health care is just one of those environments. As far as the health care that I utilize for my own personal well-being, I think that's really relevant to Well,

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: I going to ask you questions about your experience. We value lived experience in

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: here.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: Yeah, no, no, no. I appreciate that you value lived experience, but I don't utilize one of the plans currently. But I know that you have a member of your committee that does, and we have another one of our colleagues in the room that does as well. And I think the concern is that if this bill passes, we could lose great people that are currently sitting at this table to other states because they simply can't afford and, you know, can't participate in these plans in the way that they currently do.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: How does anything in this bill stop I'm sorry. I'm sorry. How does anything in this bill stop anyone from participating in a sharing plan?

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: Representative Powers, maybe you want Deb?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Yeah. Do you wanna speak

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: to your frustrations about it?

[Debra Powers (Member)]: I've been told that if these plans ever get banned, we will be moving. But it's possible. Also, there is regulation in this section. If they don't comply within thirty days, there's a $5,000 That's regulation.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: It is.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: It is. That needs to come out because I've been told it's only data collected. That needs to come out.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: The $5,000 penalty is a huge question for me as well.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Was a gentleman who testified in here that represented some of the sharing plans, and we learned a lot from him. He was very helpful. One of the things I learned from him is he had a recommendation of several things that we could recommend our constituents look for when trying to sign up for one of these plans, such as, are they accredited? Are they registered as an LLC or a legitimate business with the Secretary of State's office? And he had several other points that would protect our constituents from a bad actor. Do you believe that constituents should have state leadership helping to identify or at least set up parameters for someone to

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: be

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: vetted, to demonstrate that they are accredited, and meet some of the recommendations that the gentleman representing these entities recommended we check for before signing up?

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: So I'm not aware of the testimony. That's not something that was brought to my attention, but I absolutely share your concerns in making sure that our constituents are protected and we do not create an environment where predators can take advantage of them. I think we absolutely share that concern.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: I agree with you.

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, they should have at least that data identified, and that's what this bill would do. Doctor?

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: Zach, mentioned that you had all kinds of people that have contacted you about this Can particular you tell us one of those concerns that

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: Religious liberty.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: Give us an idea of the concerns that they had.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: So many of them are around religious liberty, and I think that really is the exercising of the First Amendment, and a lot of it went back to my remarks that I and I don't wanna relitigate what I said yesterday on the floor, but I think a lot of it comes down to freedom of expression and the right of association. And these are really fundamental rights, least in my perspective, know that you share those concerns as well, that these are really fundamental. And if they're encroached in any way, you know, I just that's what I keep coming back to, is it feels like this could be penalizing a small group of Vermonters based on their religious beliefs and that's just not something I can support.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: Help me understand what you mean by that. I don't see how this approaches on anybody who's religious rights.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: Representative North, do you want

[Debra Powers (Member)]: to opine on that point? Well, I

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: I mean, don't really know how much further would elaborate on those concerns, it's just that can say this when

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: power infringes on it.

[Debra Powers (Member)]: It feels the individuals

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: that are reaching out to me feel as though that they've been targeted because they're religious beliefs, because there is a huge denomination of people that utilize these plans that are people of very devout Christian faith. And I think that's the concern that we keep coming back to. That's what I'm hearing from advocates, certainly from the religious components in the state, from churches and priests and pastors, from across the state that we're hearing about this, but also from constituents that are practicing and they utilize these plans for the freedom of expression. That's, I mean, I'm not quite sure how much further I can say on that.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: Well, you might be able to tell them that your reading of the bill doesn't show any place in there where it is going again, anything that they're doing.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: So it doesn't mention it specifically, because if it did, I think that would be categorical grounds for a massive lawsuit. But just because it doesn't mention it in the bill, I question what the section's intent is. And I heard that anecdotally from people in the room of how the section came about and how it was included and so on and so forth. But that I mean, those are those are my concerns. I mean, like, some in this committee, I think, share those concerns. I don't understand. And some don't.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: This is what I don't understand.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: Tell me.

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: These are your concerns. Just tell can you point someplace in the bill where it says anything about anybody's religious freedom?

[Debra Powers (Member)]: So that

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: Being allowed to participate in any kind of religious

[Debra Powers (Member)]: program that

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: So it in health care. It doesn't, to your point. It doesn't in black and white, but I think it's inferred. And I think that's what people are that's the concern that people have. And again, listen, I'm not here to castigate my constituents or any of yours that disagree to the bill. I mean, people have very strong feelings about this section, and that's their right to exercise those I

[Francis "Topper" McFaun (Vice Chair)]: don't mind that. I just can't understand. And again,

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: I think it does come down to how we view our roles in this building, is I really view myself as a vessel for the people that I represent, and if they're telling me that they have these concerns, who am I to doubt them and judge them for that? I'm not judging them. No, no, and I know you're not, but, and again, so I mean, I have similar questions. Right? It's like, it may not say in the bill itself, but the inference that many people are gathering from the bill and from the language in the intent, whether it's prescribed or not in black and white, it's just that's the way people are interpreting it. And again, right or wrong, that's just how people are interpreting it. But I appreciate the question, Tamika.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: I have a couple of questions. Wendy, I have Brian, I have Daisy, and I have Lori, and then I'm

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: Yeah, call a vote.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: That's call a vote. Yep, that's great. We were supposed to be back at what time? Now. Now.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: You call a vote now?

[Leslie Goldman (Member)]: I just think I was really quick.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: Said something about data collecting. If we don't know who they are, how do we collect data?

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: So I think that should be a study group. And that's typically when we're in house judiciary and we're collecting data for the Department Children's and Families and DOJ, the attorney general's office, if we're not really sure and we're sensing that there's opposition to a bill itself, we'll say, you know what? Maybe we as a committee agree with the intent of the section, but let's establish a study group and make sure that we get this right. So that's what I keep coming back to, is it's not saying that something like this isn't necessary at some point. I don't think it's needed right now. And I think it seems that maybe it was a rush to include this section, and I'm not sure why that is. Brian? That's anecdotally, I hear that.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Yeah, I was going to reread the language of this section, but I don't recall us asking them to disclose anything about the faith component of their plans. So I could see how if that was in there, maybe it could be insinuated like we targeting, but we're not asking about that, we're asking about other aspects of the plans, and there's no requirement that a health sharing plan be faith based. We learn that in our testimony, so this would apply to people regardless of their faith. To me, that implies it's not about religion. I think that these organizations might choose to discriminate based on religion, but we're not even telling them they can't do that. So, you know what I mean? If they're making you have to sign thing of faith, we're not even asking them to disclose if they make you do that. So to me, understand why someone, a person of faith might at first feel threatened by this, and I did. I'm going to say, view it this way. But the more I understand it, the less I feel that way. It really just is an effort to have the consumer fully understand what they're getting into when it comes to their health and spending money on their health. And I hear the point about the penalty, but this amendment doesn't remove the penalty. This amendment strikes the section of the bill. The amendment was just removing the penalty, I might have different feelings about it. But the amendment strikes the whole section of

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: the bill. Would you like to offer an amendment to strike the penalty?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I would, but there's other members on our committee who could do that if they felt strongly about it, and I might support them. But I don't want to do that. To me, we've debated it enough and I want to move forward with the bill, it's very important.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: Can I ask you a question, Brian? Just did. Well, have a follow-up. How's that? When you first felt that this was initially targeting faith based groups, where did those concerns come from?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: I heard the witnesses and I was sympathetic with them. Heard

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: their feelings. Human impact stories.

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Yeah, and I heard their feelings, but then I thought through it and I was like, this isn't just affecting people of faith. So it's not about religion, it's about the practice.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: But you'd agree that they could be an impacted group by this? People of Yeah, just like a group of

[Brian Cina (Member)]: skiers who decide to create a health sharing plan or a group of musicians or group of businesses.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: Musicians, skiers, and people of faith. So you'd agree that they are an impacted group here?

[Brian Cina (Member)]: Yeah. Mean, people of color could do this. Disabled people could do this. Queer people could do this. Any protected class could do this. So we're not excluding people based on protected class. We're reporting based on the practice. And that's why to me, this isn't a violation of constitutional rights.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: So Daisy, and let's go quickly, please.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: One, I don't

[Daisy Berbeco (Ranking Member)]: think the constitutional rights are in our jurisdiction. We're looking at health of our constituents and what's best for our health in here. And I think it's interesting to me that you are concerned about the intent behind this section, yet you didn't listen to any of the testimony on this section that we took. We did great work to learn from people who have experience. We have someone among us who is an expert in these and has lived with someone that is. And I'm disappointed that our role in this body is certainly to use our time wisely for our constituents. And so I appreciate that you're concerned about this section. And I hope that if you have more to say about this bill, you'll listen to the testimony that our took time to come and deliver for you.

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: I appreciate that, Daisy, and I did listen to some of the testimony. I didn't say I didn't listen to any of it, but it was actually the concerns of one of your colleagues on this committee that inspired me to bring this amendment forward.

[Lori Houghton (Member)]: I just wanna Thank you. I will be quick. I just wanna note that in the penalty section, it is a may impose, a may cease and desist and not to

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: exceed $5,000 per day. Think it's important to remember

[Rep. Zachary "Zach" Harvey]: that. Thank you.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: And it's not a regulation. It is not a enforcement

[Brian Cina (Member)]: tool. And it's a main our shower.

[Alyssa Black (Chair)]: I'm going to close. We have to get back to the floor. So all those oh gosh, I always have to word this. A yes vote means that you find the amendment favorable. A no vote means that you find the amendment unfavorable. So, all those who find the amendment favorable, please raise your hand. Three. All those who find it unfavorable, eight. Thank you. I don't even need to count up. All right. Thank you. So