Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And we're still here in Ways and Means. Today is Friday, February 13, 01:00. Joined by Jen Carvey. Thank you. We are ideally finishing up H577,

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: and we have some updated language. Thank you so much for

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: all your work on this, gents.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No problem. For the record, Jen Harvey from the office of left side council. I will put we're at 2.3 up. Reason, it's two I think yesterday you saw one point something, and then I made a 2.1 and worked with folks offline. So it's now 2.3 because I made a couple of updates based on comments.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you. Sure.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is a new strike all amendment. It incorporates what was in yesterday's strike all. So everything that was underlined and crossed out yesterday and highlighted is just out. And anything that is newly that is bold or highlighted is new to this draft, just so you can keep track. So we still are in Section one of this just by way of the pressure is an act relating to establishing the Vermont prescription drug discount card program. And the first instance of amendment strikes out Section one and puts in a new Section one, still creating this new subchapter on this Prescription Drug Discount Card Program. But now we have in Subsection C some new or revised language saying that monies received from the program from, and I'll explain the strike of appropriations in a moment, from transfers, gifts, grants, donations, or any other source, including any monies provided to the state through a cooperative arrangement authorized by this section shall be deposited in this is an existing special fund that we're expanding in the Financial Literacy and Economic Empowerment Trust Fund established pursuant to 32 VSA Section 111, which will be amended in the second instance of amendment and shall be available to the Office of the State Treasurer to defray costs associated with administering the program. One of my last changes was to strike appropriations when I was reminded by Emilie from JFO that we do not appropriate for deposit in a special fund, which is a transfer into a special fund, but we wouldn't put monies appropriated and deposit them in an existing state fund. So that's why that is struck. It doesn't mean money can't be appropriated to the fund, to the program. But anything that is received from all these other sources would go into this fund. That is the only change in that section. And then there's a new second instance of amendment adding a new section 3A. And I just put new, so I didn't have to highlight through the whole thing, because nothing has changed. You haven't seen this one before. This amends the existing Financial Literacy Trust Fund in Title 32. So this is the fund that was referred to in that new language in the first instance of amendment. And some of this is just a little bit of cleanup. So it's I would say that there is hereby established we don't have to both establish and create. That's redundant. Established a special fund entitled the Financial Literacy and Economic Empowerment trust fund to be administered by the state treasurer. And it already had two purposes listed as the purpose since I was adding a third one, made it purposes. The purposes of the fund are, and we keep the first two as existing same as existing law, promoting the adoption of fiscally sound money management practices by Vermonters, and creating opportunities to build and encourage development of new financial literacies and educational products. I changed Vermont Citizens to Vermonters just because Vermont Citizen is not really a legal thing. So Vermonters is a little casual, but at least it is Vermont residents with US citizens, Vermont Citizens Great. So and then adding a new one of supporting other economic empowerment opportunities for Vermonters. And there is a division of economic empowerment in the treasurer's office that oversees a lot of these kinds of programs. So that's why we use that terminology. And then again, deleting the reference to the fund receiving state appropriations. Again, that's not how the appropriations work. And then just clarifying that monies in the fund is really what I think is intended by the funds. Monies in the fund may be expended in accordance with the trust fund provisions of section four sixty two of this title, that's just moving that language from the end of the existing sentence. So in accordance with those provisions for such financial literacy projects as the treasurer may direct and then adding and to defray costs associated with administering Vermont prescription drug discount program established pursuant to that new subject. And so just to

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: make sure I'm understanding what we're doing here, if I could summarize, then you could. Great. Okay. Instead of creating a new special fund, which is what I did before, we are expanding an existing special fund. And to expand that existing special fund, you went into the description of that special fund. And while you were in there, found that there was some language that could have been updated, but no one was going to bother if no one was going touch that fund. That's good. Since you touched the fund, cleaned up some of language.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is exactly right. Great. Thank you. I probably should have led with that.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: No, it's fine. I just wanted to try to

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: take credit.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Okay, great.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Yes. Okay.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then finally, have a third, new third. Oh, guess, what was the second instance amendment became the third one, which is just deleting that language from the implementation report about any fees to be charged to participants.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And so in doing this amendment, again, we are removing the vast majority of our jurisdiction over this, and it's really the removal of the fees language since there's no fees charged by the state. The cleanup of the special fund is partly to do a favor to the appropriations committee. We don't have to

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Avoid having similar amendments done in that committee.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you. Yes, we don't need to double amend the same paragraph there. Any questions for Jen?

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Yeah, just to be

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: clear, was the I think you've already said this, but the economic empowerment language was added so that this could be brought enough to account for potential costs related to the red RF?

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, the existing special fund that is being used that is already administered by the treasurer's office is the financial literacy fund or at least it's one of them. It's expanding, yes, expanding the scope of that fund and authorizing the monies to be deposited and taken from there for administration of the program.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And because we're just looking at instances of amendment that appropriation is still in the underlying

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, the appropriation and all of the insurance language is still in sections two, three, and five. Yes.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Anyone else?

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: So I hate to ask about the fund. That exists

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: in So the

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: I don't know if it's appropriate for us to ask about the adequacy of the fund to cover its other purposes in there, but can you talk about that at all? Is that a Nolan thing?

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I cannot, and I'm not sure

[David Scher (Deputy State Treasurer)]: There's someone from the treasurer's

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: office. Let

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: us finish with Jen. Okay. Any

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: other questions for Jen? Seeing none, thank you so much, Jen. If you could give us a cleaned up, that'd be great. Thanks. Do that

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: when we hear from others.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Someone from the judge's office when it comes to immature?

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: David

[David Scher (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. For the record, David Scher, Deputy Treasurer. I will give a brief overview or our response to the work that's been done here, answer the question about the fund, and then one other brief note. And obviously, I'm happy to redirect or answer questions at the committee's pleasure. We certainly support these latest changes to the bill. Bottom line for us is just trying to effectuate what we are trying to accomplish in setting up this program and the piece of it in particular, which would allow our office to receive any such fees that may come down to us through the sequence of the way the fees would happen, as has been talked about in more detail in prior testimony. And we very much appreciate the work that, joint fiscal office, legislative council, and our own general council have done to nail this down and make sure that all the legal pieces are, correctly in place in order to allow that to happen. We're grateful that the committee took the time to allow everybody to drill down on that and make that work properly. With respect to this fund in particular, I don't have, immediately at hand, how many help the extent of the funds that may currently be in there. As a practical matter, our this wouldn't be the only fund in which our office has multiple uses inside the same fund. One of the major funds we manage is called the trust investment account, which has a number of different money streams that come into it. We account for that and make sure, of course, that funds are not commingled. They're not being used for inappropriate purposes. And so it is a standard part of work in our office to manage that type of fund where there may be a single special fund, but there are multiple uses being accounted for within it. And so we feel confident that this is certainly manageable from the financial side, and we are grateful for the legal work and financial work that went into making sure that we have legal framework in place to receive the fees. Just briefly on some of the broader substance, I will keep this very brief because I know we want to stay focused on the amendment at hand. But just briefly, I understand the committee had the opportunity to hear from one set of stakeholders yesterday on it. In discussions with our office and testimony elsewhere, many stakeholders have weighed in on this bill, all of them in favor. Those include providers, insurance companies, entities like the AARP. It also importantly includes other pharmacists who do not oppose or are in favor of this. And very importantly, Vermont consumers, Vermont patients who may benefit from this. The bottom line for the treasurer is that this can save Vermonters money. When we look at what has happened in Connecticut, this isn't a projection, this is what is happening in Connecticut. Consumers there see an average savings of just over $230 each month for consumers who are users of the card. If Vermont, if just 1% of Vermonters were to use this card and see the same level of savings, that would be an $18,000,000 put back into Vermonters pockets. So relatively low uptake in the state could have a dramatic savings in an area, healthcare, which is costing Vermonters a tremendous amount of money and where it's very challenging at times, often, to find places and to create places where we can save. This is one of them. And for that reason, the treasurer is happy to support this and put this forward. And the broad array of stakeholders, we've heard from a broad array of array of stakeholders, most of whom are favorable for this. We appreciate the committee's time.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Do you have any questions?

[Carol Ode (Member)]: Yes, representative. I just wanted to say I did have concerns about accessibility as well as affordability, and then your testimony today and other things, I understand that accessibility should not be an issue moving forward. If that was anybody else's issue, then fact that there are other pharmacists who testified were okay with it, and that the, I don't know what they're called, the people who are the pharmacists association or whatever, they are maintaining neutrality, but that does not oppose to.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: That was important for me to hear.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thanks, Representative Ode. Any questions for David?

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[James Masland (Member)]: This is a vague question, I guess. I don't know if you were in the room yesterday or someone or your staff in the room yesterday, but regarding what representative Ode was just breaking up about, who's in favor of who's not where the money goes. Yesterday, I thought I heard some things that were somewhat contrary to the rosy picture about Islam. Particularly with regard to independent pharmacy. I was listening carefully and there was some question about the impact on them, I I certainly, at the end of yesterday's testimony, was in an unresolved place as to what I thought about that. I wonder, from your perspective, you could elaborate and illuminate what we heard.

[David Scher (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Understood. I think you did hear from couples pharmacists who have concerns about that. I was just speaking to another independent pharmacist last night who does not share those concerns. So that is one perspective that you've heard from. It is our view that this is a card that is administered in a way that is sensitive to pharmacists' concerns. And we heard a lot of testimony about that across the hall here from the folks who run our Rx. They live in a sort of main headquarters is in Oregon, also in Washington, large land area, a lot of concern there to make sure that they don't create pharmaceutical access issues. In other words, not putting pharmacists out of business. And they are very responsive to those concerns. They have a model that is very much not trying to squeeze pharmacists to the point where they are losing money on any transactions. And we believe that this is a card that is this is a program and a card that is sensitive to that. I, you know, I couldn't testify and promise that in every single case, every pharmacist is going to love every transaction, but we do believe that they do not, unlike other cards, which do sometimes force a pharmacist to sell at a loss, It is our understanding that our ARX makes sure that that does not happen to pharmacists. They also have a governance structure that is a nonprofit governance structure that would allow us to be a part of that governance structure where we do adopt it and allow us to be responsive in a direct way to the concerns that pharmacists may have. And so for all those reasons, we do think that this is a very good option. It's a nonprofit option. It's a government run option. And it will be responsive to those concerns and will not impose the sort of costs that we're talking about. We also think it's a practical matter that this will be a very small number of transactions that we're talking about for any given pharmacy. This isn't going to be the sort of thing that will cause a huge amount of problems for any one pharmacy. It is true that independent pharmacies face a challenging economic environment. We do not believe that this is going to be something that is creates a critical mass such that a critical mass of transactions such that there it would add to the problem in any real way. And, again, we think that it won't add to the Our understanding of how this works is that it won't add

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: to the problem.

[James Masland (Member)]: I just Not all of my questions are resolved, but I don't have articulate them better than I have already, and I've taken some Everything we've heard on preponderance of the evidence you can give of the Latin. That's kind of our accent. Appreciate that, representative. Thank you.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you very much, David. I really appreciate all the ideas in this project, I'm really looking forward

[James Masland (Member)]: to moving forward. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Given that I don't have any further questions, I'd

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: appreciate it.

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Madam Chair, I would move that our committee find favorable draft number 2.3 of H577, seven, the strike all amendment, as presented.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I don't think it's a strike It's not?

[Woodman Page (Member)]: It was before it was a strike all.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: It important, it was just

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: a few exceptions, I don't know.

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Thank you for that, correction. I would move that we approve version 2.3, a draft amendment to H577.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you so much.

[William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: Madam Chair, so this off

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: of the amendment, and then there will also be a vote on We're waiting for

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: a second before we have a conversation. I think

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: we should.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Okay. Great. So representative Kimbell moved the the amendment and representative Holcombe second and discussion.

[William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: Again, so this is on the amendment. Indeed. Afterwards, we'll have a concurrent post on Bill itself, right?

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Indeed, the amended bill, yes. Great. Any discussion on the amendment?

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: I moved it. I am still wary of the program itself, but speaking with an independent pharmacy, it's in my area, they said this is something that we should proceed with, but cautiously.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Are you discussing the underlying thing or the amount? Should I try to?

[Carol Ode (Member)]: Not a good trick. It's perfect. Can I explain?

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Is it about the amendment? Yeah. Great. To be

[Carol Ode (Member)]: clear, this amendment is about removing the fee language. So it's not about how we feel about the bill itself.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: The amendments removes the fee language because the state is not involved in any fee, is not charging any fee, does not need the power to charge any fee on this. And then it expands an existing special fund so we don't have to create a new special fund, which I feel like is a good Gita for the week, personally.

[William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: One more question. The language about because that's gonna be the main dope. The language about applying the use of that card to your

[James Masland (Member)]: co pay.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: That stage. Mhmm.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: We're not touching that. Okay. Anything else on the amendment? Clerk could please call the roll for the amendment.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: For the amendment.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: For the amendment. Representative Branagan. Yes.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: I'll vote yes as representative Burkhardt. Representative oh, this is an old page. That is Representative Peltis. I got surprised. There for a second. Representative Page.

[Woodman Page (Member)]: Yeah.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Okay. Representative Higley? Yeah. Representative Holcombe? Yes. Representative Kimbell?

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Masland? Yep. Representative Ode? Yes. Representative Waszazak?

[Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: Yes. Representative Canfield?

[William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: And Representative Kornheiser? Yes. And the tally for the amendment is eleven-zero-zero. Thank you.

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: I'm on a speaker. It's Friday. It's twelve-five. So now we have the underlying bill, age five seventy seven, and I move that we find it favorable as amended.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you. Yes. Second. Great. Representative Kimbell moves the bill as amended. There's a poll from seconds. We are talking about age five seventy seven. Any discussion?

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Yes, representative Freddy. In my opinion, it offers a nice service to that group of Vermonters that always, in my opinion, excuse my language, seems to be hit. They're that middle group that don't get benefits from anybody, but they still have needs, they're still working hard to make ends meet at home, sending their children to school and hopefully to college after that. If saving money is hard, but this is a way that they can save a little bit of money, maybe $200 a month, that'd be great. So it's something for that small group of people, which I suppose is really so small, is it? That I feel encouraged about and hopefully we can make this work for them.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you. I agree. I think anything we can do to lower costs for uninsured and underinsured Vermonters is a huge step in the right direction. And I appreciate that this is an opportunity to collaborate with other states to save costs of implementation and administration. And I also really particularly appreciate the emphasis on not selling our data, which is

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: a really important part of these kinds of programs and collaborations. I think that's a really important point. And remember, people choose to use this program. No one's being forced to use this, but I think we undervalue the right to privacy. And the company that was used as an example yesterday is currently facing class action lawsuits for selling personal health information to digital platforms, things like Facebook. They may lose that, and if they lose that, they won't be making money off of selling your personal information, and they might not be able to even undercut our Rx. So I just think that we understand that when someone's selling our data, our personal health information to we don't know who, comes with a real price tag. And I think we need to give people the option to protect that information. Any further discussion? I'll simply

[Woodman Page (Member)]: say that I appreciate the Treasurer's efforts in saving Vermonters' money. I think that's why we are all here. But I do have major concerns over regarding our pharmacists, whether it be independent or our other. Based upon the testimony that we received from the association as well as the independent pharmacists, I have some concerns over those.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I'll just leave it there. Appreciate that.

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: This might be a good time, Madam Chair, to reference my previous topic. Oh, yeah. I've learned a long time ago, if something seems too good to be true, it may be too good to be true. So I'm still on that camp, but I will support the bill.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thanks. Okay, seeing no further discussion,

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: does the clerk place for the role?

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Branagan? Yes. I'll vote yes. Is Representative Burkhardt? Representative Page?

[Woodman Page (Member)]: No. Representative Higley? No. Representative Holcombe? Yes.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Kimbell?

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Masland?

[James Masland (Member)]: Yes.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Ode? Yes. Representative Waszazak?

[Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: Yes.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Canfield?

[William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: And Representative Kornheiser? Yes. We have voted the bill favorable with amendment nine-two-zero.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you. And Representative Branagan is going to report to them. Thank you. It's gonna go to appropriations from here, so it'll be a while. Thank you, everyone, for a really very productive and funny Bill's Tuesday. Beautiful. Please be in touch over the weekend if anything

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: comes up

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: about any of the