Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, good morning. Happy Tuesday to everybody, and happy St. Patrick's Day to those who celebrate. Welcome to House Human Services, and we are taking up an amendment on H. Six sixty, the Appropriations Committee amendment, and we are going to invite Representative Lamoille to the table.

[Unidentified House Appropriations representative]: Good morning. Good morning, everybody. Nolan is not here, but I think is coming.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: At Yeah. Any

[Unidentified House Appropriations representative]: House appropriations thanks you for the bill. And we just made a few changes, a couple of them technical and really two of them substantive. One, in section one, this committee funded four programs related to prevention through the Substance Misuse Prevention Fund. And that fund, as noted in Nolan's original fiscal note, and upon conferring with the Department of Health and the Joint Fiscal Office, that fund is oversubscribed. It has been committed as best we can understand. And so it seemed prudent for us to just move that over to opioid settlement abatement funding. The total of those was 6,600 and It's age six sixty, it is $6.40 ks, adding to the total. So, the total committed from the opioid settlement fund is 6,616,277. But with the reversions that you also included, that buys it down to $5,163,990 And it just seemed prudent. Our committee really is not familiar with substance misuse prevention programming. Didn't really have a way of evaluating what ought to go, and from what categories of that funding. And I so that which leads me to, on page seven of the amendment in section four, we included a section asking the Department of Health to review all appropriations from the Opioid Abatement Special Fund and make recommendations about what actually ought to be funded through substance misuse prevention or the opioid settlement fund. And then we just added one phrase in B of section four, and that including OSAC, the advisory committee, a review of the appropriations, the phrases and the appropriateness of the opioid abatement special fund as a funding source where applicable. Because, for example, is one Hirability was put into base this year. And there are some things that, as the Opioid Settlement Fund is reduced in its size, it makes sense to put into base the things that really we want to make sure we continue. So at any rate, we wanted to make sure that the advisory committee was also involved in review of appropriate funding source. The only other amendments concern the reversions, and Grady just kind of cleared that up. It's just technical. To make clear that the reversions Well, what did Grady say? We're in the midst of a lot of things right now. And Grady said something, and I asked, I don't know, we happen to have joint fiscal affairs. Can you just say something about that reversion language and why

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it was added?

[Unidentified Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Sure, for the record, not halal and joint fiscal affairs. As you know, the health department requested the perversion that you guys included in your bill, but when Grady, who was our budget director, looked at that, he said he recommended that the language be consistent with how we do reversion language in the budget. So it just rewrote it in a way that is consistent with how we do reversion. There's a little bit more nuance to that, but in short, it's just technical correction to make it clear that it's a reversion problem.

[Unidentified House Appropriations representative]: Anything else, Representative Lamoille? There is nothing else. I don't want this to be construed as an endorsement of what is already funded through the Substance Misuse Prevention Fund. That is not for appropriations to determine. So that's why we made the change.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I just want to summarize for folks. So our committee has had definite thoughts about the Substance Misuse Prevention Fund and felt that the items that had been recommended, those four items, were appropriate uses for the Substance Misuse Prevention Fund. The department in its budget had utilized all of the anticipated funding. We were making a policy choice to decrease what was being sent into the two main areas and to fund these four things. It still left 800 and some odd thousand to go out into the community, into those areas. So we in the policy committee made that policy recommendation. The Appropriations Committee is not agreeing with that policy recommendation. I just want to be clear that it was a policy recommendation that we made. And we will be having further discussion and testimony from the prevention folks at VDH later this year so that we can have some additional discussion. And I'll be honest, I'm going to ask Senator Lyons downstairs to also take up that issue when they receive this bill. And thank you for the other changes that you're recommending there and the clarification on the reversions. I just wanted people to understand what was happening. So Representative Steady and then Representative Bishop. So at this time, there's no injection site monies for Broadridge at this time?

[Unidentified House Appropriations representative]: This time, not into this bill, no. Thank you. Representative Bishop?

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: A question, the language that was added about OSAC sharing their views on the appropriateness of the opioid based special fund as a funding source where applicable. Was OSAC in the committee or part of those discussions? I'm just I guess it strikes me as potentially, vague, and I didn't know what involved they had in the creation of that language. Appropriateness could be just they didn't think a particular project was appropriate. They may think it fits in any misuse prevention special fund or as I think the intention is they may be able to share an opinion as to whether it should be a base or not. Yes

[Unidentified House Appropriations representative]: and we've engaged the Department of Health in doing that analysis, especially as it relates to the Substance Misuse Prevention Fund. And we wanted to make sure that the advisory committee was also engaged in that review, that conversation. But this particular phrase that was added concerns the appropriateness of the funding source, because people might think that it really ought to be in BASE, for example.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I was going to say, and in fact, the department was here testifying the items at the top of the priority list that we've said we have asked them to consider how they're going to transition them to base if they feel like they are ongoing programs because opioid abatement fund's gonna run out sooner or later. And some of those things, which is why we were asking them to take a year to kind of really evaluate the data, the outcomes, what's been successful. It's taken a while, for instance, for some of the positions to get hired. So I think that

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I say I understand and value that we would seek the advisory committee's opinion on that issue. I'm just wondering as a matter of clarity whether it be clear that that's the question we're asking

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: them I to chime in think that certainly if that is an issue, the advisory committee will be testifying downstairs in health and welfare. And the department assisted in, I'm presuming they assisted in that clarification, essentially. Yeah. Any other questions? Any questions for Nolan? Nolan, did you find the fiscal note, Laurie? It is. Okay. So the fiscal note's posted now. I just wanted to be clear that we were just we were we had made a policy recommendation, and the Appropriations Committee decided that they had a different thought about that.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Process wise, Madam Chair, are you making a recommendation to the committee as to how you think we should vote out, even though?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: At this point in time, we'll move the bill along. I just wanted to be upfront with folks that I was going to talk with Senator Lyons about them taking some specific testimony. Because our committee had had previous testimony on prevention and had questions at that point in time, We didn't take additional testimony from the prevention folks at BDH. And that was part of the question and appropriations committee. So I'll be asking Senator Lyons to take some particular testimony about prevention, opioid Not the opioid, but the Substance Misuse Prevention Fund, and to potentially determine whether these four things go back into that fund, Some or all of them. I just wanted to be upfront with people about that. Transparent.

[Unidentified House Appropriations representative]: Is this a straw poll?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is a straw poll, yeah. So, can I see by a show of hands those folks who are accepting,

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I don't

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: know, approving of, accepting of? I need them. I'm not safe

[Unidentified Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: at all.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. I can't do it half a hand. Okay, just by show of hands, those who find it favorable. Okay, thank you. 1002 to the reporter, which is now Representative Maguire. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Oh yeah, I keep thinking we have 12 members. Thank you. 902. Because they, know, where is our twelfth member? Thank you. Okay, folks. Just before we get done, there's been another addition to our agenda, which is HH61. Okay, H861, which is about an act relating to establishing an Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator. We will be taking that up right after floor and caucuses, whenever that might be. I don't know when that might be. So this is a drive by. We don't have possession possession of the bill or anything, but I noticed it on the calendar and I thought like, oh, seems like that's be something that we should look at here. So represent Burrows will review the bill with us when we get off from the floor and conferences and lunch. Okay? So if there's gonna be something different than 01:30, watch your watch your checks for times. I I really don't know how I don't know what's gonna be postponed, what's not gonna be postponed. Betsy Anne has us there for two plus hour