Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: We're live. We are back in senate judiciary. It's still February 26, and we are still on s one ninety three. We came back from a short break, and we have Karen Barber here with us.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: Good morning. For the record, Karen Barber, general counsel of the Department of Mental Health. Apologies for not being in person. My kiddos are on break this week. I had some things prepared, but there's been a lot of discussion, so I'm going to try to reorganize my thoughts. If I haven't addressed any of your questions, please let me know. But I guess maybe I'll start off with some of the general questions that you've had, and then I can dive into the language a bit, if that works. One of the things I just wanted to highlight was that just like now, if someone at any point of their incarceration needs involuntary mental health care, they already do get that. There already is that process in place, and this language would continue to allow for that. DMH has worked to train DOC staff to be what we call qualified mental health practitioners. And so that those are the folks designated by DMH to do the first certification, which is the first step of the involuntary process. So we do regularly already have folks that are in DLC custody that decompensate and need mental health care. So we already have a seamless process. There's also an MOU we have with DLC, so we're already doing that process. So I just wanted to assure the committee that that is happening and that will continue to happen. Let's see, qualifying condition language. We support the language. The original language we we had concerns with one because it was making it just about mental illness and we've worked really hard to talk about why this isn't just about mental illness. We do agree with Susan that you know those are terms that we don't use. Qualifying condition to us is, is doesn't have any connotations. I'm so happy to continue to talk about it in the policy committees if there's a concern, but from our perspective, that language makes sense and is appropriate. Did you have other?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any questions on that piece of it? Nope. Sounds good. Okay.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: For the records, so

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: there are already ways within HIPAA to share records that are relevant for continuity of care, and courts also routinely issue orders to ensure our forensic evaluators get access to records. You know, I'm not sure that there is a need to add language. However, we don't necessarily object to the language as written. I do think that there are times where there are records that are not actually necessarily needed to provide care that someone may not want to share. But if there are records that are relevant to providing care, there are already mechanisms to get those records.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Which language are you looking at?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: Oh, the new language you added around records in response to Doctor. Robin's testimony. Apologies. Let's see. That's page

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Page 11.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. Just want to make sure we're looking at the same.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: Yes. Apologies. Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: You're running by me again. What were your thoughts on that piece?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: So from our perspective, there's already exceptions under HIPAA that allow for sharing of information due to continuity of care. So if there are medical records that providers actually need to provide care, we are able to get those. We also see that courts routinely issue orders that said like our forensic evaluators can get access to records. So I'm not sure that we need this language, but we also don't object to the language if it's something that that people feel is necessary. I didn't completely understand the testimony, but I also didn't kind of have enough time to really think through what Doctor. I do think there are circumstances sometimes where there are different evaluators, evaluations or things out there that clinicians may want because they think it would be helpful, but it's not actually needed to provide care. I think that gets to the concern around people making decisions about what they want to share, to Katie's point.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So you don't really have a position one way or the other on the language that's on page 11?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I am noting that I think this is something that this would fall under health and welfare's purview a bit more so than ours. So I'll just send that along to them as well. Okay. Thank you.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: I also just wanted to kind of as a general requirement, you know, all of AHS is looking well, except for DOC, but most, we're looking at least restrictive environments already. So I know to Susan's point, and you've had some conversation, we do already kind of consider least restrictive alternatives, and that was something that was tried to be baked into the language. And I can kind of talk about I see where maybe some of our language didn't completely translate. And so the goal was never to, like, hold someone indefinitely and never consider at least restrictive alternatives.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Senator Vosky has a question about that.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I do have a question about that. And I appreciate that the Department of Mental Health already looks at least restrictive settings, but I don't know that DOC does. And so I do think that is a concern of mine.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: Don't know And we don't object to language that kind of if you don't feel that that's clear, we wouldn't object to language. I think to your point earlier and to the Chair's point, you know, the language is really meant to say if there's a treatment concern and that's connected to a public safety concern, so if there's not that, if you can't meet the burden of showing there's that public safety concern, then they wouldn't be appropriate for the facility, which would mean they would be in a less restrictive level of care. But if you feel that it needs to be more flushed out, we don't object to that. The idea is not to just lock people up and throw away the key, right? The idea is to really be very focused in a small group of individuals where there are real treatment and public safety concerns, and that's the gap we're trying to fill. So for the language, I had had a couple of thoughts, but then I know that there were some new things that came up, so I wanted to try to make sure I was addressing all of your concerns. In terms so there was a lot of talk around the competency restoration piece and what would happen if they couldn't be restored. We have always said, right, that there will be some individuals that probably can't be restored. I think it's probably a small number. We're also talking about a really small number to start with, but that is why we felt like there should be some language in there around that. I think when we had originally proposed language and then it and then it got tweaked in this draft. I think what our idea was that is if they couldn't be Sorry. You're Oh, I'm sorry.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Can you

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: hear me now?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Helpful. It it might be helpful for your Internet bandwidth if you turn off the video and and because you're cutting in and out, and we're not able to hear what you're saying.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: Oh, Okay. Are you okay if I'm off video?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. That's fine.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Our our goal with, when people were found not confident or that when they couldn't be restored, if we determined that they couldn't be restored, was that there would be a process similar to those found not guilty by reason of insanity, meaning that if there were treatment needs that connected to public safety concerns, that there was an option for them to remain in the facility. However, if they could be maintained in a less restrictive environment, that made sense. And there's language already in the NGRI section on page eight, at the bottom of page eight, where it talks about if the reviewing court fines, that the person is no longer suffering from a qualifying condition, that upon the person's release would create substantial risk. And then it allows for conditional release with an order with conditions. And so our idea was that that process would also be available to folks who couldn't be restored to competency. Because the idea again, is that we're addressing the gap where there are folks that there's not a secure setting available, but there's also not a way to kind of impose conditions focused on public safety on them. And so if they really don't meet, you know, if they're not dangerous enough to public safety to remain in the forensic facility, the court makes that determination, that there's still an option to put conditions on them that are enforceable.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So just so I understand you're recommending that the language that starts at the bottom of page eight and goes on to page nine, that essentially be copied onto the section that talks about what happens if a person is not competent and are not likely to be restored to competency?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: Yes. And if you look at the language, it talks about Let me go back up. It talks about the person could be Sorry, I'm trying to find the language. It talks about a subsection two, and I think when we originally were working on the language, we meant that subsection two of that section, and I think that's what wasn't translated. So if you see, okay, so on page two, it talks about if the court finds that the person can't be restored, the person shall be subject to commitment pursuant to this subsection two. What I think, and I apologize, I should have caught this earlier, when we were suggesting that language, what we meant was that subsection two of that other statutory provision. We meant to link the two, and I missed that, so I apologize, but that was our original intent.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Got it. Okay. That

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: Does that make sense? That

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: does make a whole lot more sense than the rabbit hole I was going into earlier. Let me just one second here to make note. Committee, how do we feel about having what we see on page eight and nine applicable to what we see on page two regarding the people who are not confident and not likely to be restored to competency.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: That sort of closes the gap that I was worried about, I think, because it links back in that substantial so I think actually, I don't know. Now I'm confused because page two is dealing with a different thing.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Page two is talking about Hold on. I'm trying to Starting on line 10, the court finds that the person cannot be respected. Okay.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. So adding in that aspect that's on eight and nine, I think that does close the loop that I was concerned about. So I would be supportive of that.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And I think it is far more clear than what I was trying to propose earlier. Any other folks opposed to tying in that language, which was the original intent from the English? Eric, by any chance, did you catch that?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yes, I think I have it.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Okay. Fantastic. Yep. Great. Okay. Thank you, Karen.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Feel free to

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: carry on.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: Okay, great. My next comments were starting on page four, line three. I know you guys had a lot of conversation about it just now, and so I wanted to kind of just go back and try to re reframe what we were trying to do here. So our concern is that there be a way. So what we see now is that if someone is restored to competency or is competent and then becomes incompetent, that there's kind of this cycle, right? Because trial can't commence unless someone is competent. We also have seen situations where someone maybe has gone through trial and then there's a question of competency before sentencing. And so what we were trying to do was create kind of a seamless path where wherever they were, whether they were being held without bail and already in corrections or out in the community, that if the defense or court raised an issue about competency, that there was a quick way to get that assessed and restoration services if necessary. Even if they were in DOC, I was concerned that there wasn't a way for DOC to kind of like move them to the forensic facility to get these assessments and start restoration without language. And so that's what we were trying to do there. Just to clarify, because I think there were some questions about that.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: One question I do have on this is if there should be additional language that would allow for a return to a less restrictive environment to get competency restoration. And the reason that I'm suggesting that is if somebody has had their competency restored and they're released because they're no longer a substantial risk to the public, would it make sense to send them back to the forensic facilitycorrectional facility where there's challenges in terms of staffing and the number of people who were there. Could it be more helpful to have that person sent to psychiatric hospital or some other place where they could get returned, where their competency could be restored that isn't DLC?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: So potentially, but I don't know if someone actually met hospital level of care, then they wouldn't then they would just go there and you wouldn't need to add extra language. That wouldn't be an alternative unless they actually met the standard the criteria, right, laid out in statute. And so that's already, I would say in there because the threshold to go to the forensic facilities that they're not a person in need of treatment. So from my perspective, if the feeling is, and again, they would also have to, I think there would be a burden to show that they would need to be in a locked facility, right? But there's no other alternative. If they don't meet DMH criteria to be in our hospital, there is no other secure environment. I think there could be a way to say consider if there are less restrictive alternatives available. I think the goal is to just make sure that if competency is raised, that there's a way to kind of quickly assess that and then provide services if necessary because the longer you wait, the longer trials get backed up. So I think the idea is that we're not kind of contributing to that.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I I get what you're saying now. Because let's say they get released and they weren't considered a substantial risk. But in order to go back, they would need to once again become a substantial risk. So I get it. Okay. Makes sense. Committee, any questions at this moment? No. Okay.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: So we support that language. The only thing I wanted to raise is that, you know, we've worked hard in in the proposals that we've submitted to you to work with the state's attorney. Jared is on vacation this week, and I would just want him to weigh in on the piece around it being the state's attorney's burden, just because elsewhere in statute, it's very clear that it's the defendant's burden, that the defendant is presumed competent, and that they have the burden of showing they're not. I get, Eric and I talked about this last night, I get what he's doing because he's trying to mimic the language that's in the not guilty by reason of insanity section. This may be a little different though, right? Because I think the state's attorney is never gonna probably be arguing that they're not confident. It's generally right. We see the defense or the court raise concerns about competency. So I'm just highlighting that as, know, criminal law is not my thing. I don't know exactly how thread that needle, but I'm just flagging it as a potential. I can see that being a concern of the state's attorney and we just want to make sure they or the AGO can weigh in on that piece. Does that

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: The make way I envision the language, look, if we're talking about page seven, we're on page seven, right?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: Page four.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Okay, so you're just referring from that section. One second.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: Yeah. Page four line starting on line 11, the commissioner shall notify upon readmission, the court shall hold the hearing where the state's attorney shall have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the person is not competent. I think that's the defendant's burden, but I can see that the state's attorney could have the burden of showing that they needed to be in the forensic facility. I

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: think the idea is getting at, this person's been released. They're competent, but they lose competency. And now the state wants to return them to a locked and secured facility, which would curtail their liberty interest.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yep.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And so it would be the responsibility of the state to say, we have this new evidence that this person is no longer competent and there's a substantial risk. So here's that evidence. We need to bring them back to DOC is that's that's how I'm envisioning it in my brain.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: Yes. Which makes sense. I think it's just maybe right now it just says that the person is not confident. And again, maybe I'm overthinking this because it's it's the state's attorney. I just wanted to make sure that they had an opportunity to weigh in on that if they had concerns about it. I think we're saying the same thing, like the goal of it. I just wanna make sure they're okay with that language. And I don't feel like I can talk on their behalf for that. Thank

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: you.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: The only other language that I had wanted to touch on was you may have already resolved. We had some concerns with on page 12, line five, where it was calling out the Commissioner of Mental Health and wanted it again to be the agency of Human Services. So it sounds like you've, that that may be a decision that committee's already made, but I wanted to raise it because again, this isn't just BMH, it's all of AHS. And, you know, we already work together really closely. You know, I get why this language is in there, but I do just wanna make sure it's agency wide, not just specific departments.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Senator Vyhovsky?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. I guess I I know that AHS, I believe it's our largest state agency. It covers a whole lot. We've in my other committee, I'm putting off my government operations hat for a minute. We've heard from the agency that the different aspects of that agency do work in their silos. If this is as we're claiming a treatment facility, I guess I'm concerned why it wouldn't I guess I'm confused why it wouldn't be the Department of Mental Health providing that consultation.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: Sure. So a couple reasons. One, this isn't just about mental health. So everyone in there is not going to they're not under our custody. We would not be we don't provide mental health in corrections. They have contractors that do that. Dale has folks that they need to and already do work with and same with VDH for SUD. So the reason it, you know, we wouldn't, just like someone wouldn't, another department wouldn't kind of micromanage how we run VPCH. It would be problematic for us to try to micromanage how DOC runs their facilities. That doesn't mean that we don't consult or talk about. Have, I think, DMH has at least, I think, biweekly meetings with DOC to talk about folks. Dale has maybe a little less, maybe weekly or something like that. But we are already doing those. Again, there are we already have some MOUs to talk about how different departments work with DOC. So of course there absolutely should be consultation. We're not trying to say there shouldn't be, but it is not just mental health. It's all of the departments. And we just want to be clear that it wouldn't be us micromanaging or providing services in the facility, but really we are resource based on our expertise, our clinicians, health clinicians around substance use, sales clinicians around the folks under that they provide services for. So it's really about providing information connections, how do we all work together versus actually providing services in facilities or overseeing specific work of staff or contractors.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I appreciate that. Think if it's a treatment facility, it should be you used the word micromanaged, but I think I would just use the word managed by our treatment providers. But I think that that is a continued point of disagreement.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: Yeah, I would say it's similar to, you know, so we run, you know, one hospital and one secure residential, but we have folks under our care and custody that are at lots of hospitals and residentials across the state and we don't oversee that treatment. We have requirements and we work with them, but we don't provide treatment. Bradborough retreat for the folks that are there, Bradborough retreat provides that treatment. So I see it similar to that. You know, the department can oversee everything, but we certainly do have things that we look at. We get critical incidents reports and we get, you know, we get various reports. So we're always overseeing quality and looking at things across the system, but we are not, you know, we only provide care at two very specific places. And those are the only two places that we're actually kind of in the weeds about how care is provided, but everywhere else, people are managing their own care

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: provision. So

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: just just to clarify, Karen, were you do you have any language recommendations for that lines five through seven or

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: I had sent, but I also just think, you know, if you want it to just say AHS, I think one of the things we thought might make sense was if it just said the Commissioner of Corrections shall consult with other agency of Human Services departments as necessary performing the duties as required. That would be my recommendation, but I also would be okay with just changing it to the agency of human services if that's what people felt was necessary. I think to one of the questions, I guess I'm wondering what you want from the language, it's a little unclear for me. You talk about consulting, but to what end? And so I think that's part of what I was trying to capture in the language, which is that we do consult when we need to.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I think based and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong here. I think based on our initial conversations about the bill, our initial hearings about the bill, and the concerns about how much of this is focused on treatment versus how much of this is focused on keeping a person in a locked and secure facility and trying to make sure that it's not just about putting somebody in a forensic facilitycorrectional facility and making sure that there is that focus on treatment and confidence restoration and so on. I think that is what this is trying to get at, even though, as I'm understanding, DOC is going to consult with DMH anyways on this. I'm fine with just saying that all of this is going to be under the agency of human services because DOC itself is under the agency of human services. So I guess it's almost a matter of semantics essentially. But that's what I think is the synopsis of all this.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: That makes sense to me.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Committee correction, Karen, do you have anything further?

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: No. I just wanted to be available if you had any questions. You know, I have been listening to different testimony this week, Susan and Jack. So if there were specific questions or things you wanted me to address based on some of their issues, I'm happy to. Just whatever you need, I'm available.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, no, thank you very much. This was helpful. And I think you helped us answer the the issue that took up a lot of time earlier on regarding that rabbit hole that we went down earlier regarding when a person is not competent and not likely to be restored to competency, I believe. That was helpful. And committee, do you folks have any questions or comments for Karen? Okay. Thank you, Karen. Appreciate it.

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: Yes, of course.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Eric, I see if you have any follow-up.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I wasn't sure where thank you, Eric Fitzpatrick, was fed council. I wasn't sure where the committee landed in terms of this agency of human services, corrections, mental health Language. I know you mentioned, well, we'll just mention Agency of Human Services. I'm not sure what that would then say, if anything.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, if it's, well, yeah, we're talking about lines five to seven on page 12.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Commissioner of corrections to regularly consult with the commissioner of mental health. I mean, I don't know. Well, committee, what do you want to do with that language?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: I heard Karen suggest the possibility of Department of Corrections or Commissioner shall consult with other agency of human services departments as necessary. So that's one option.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I don't have a strong opinion about the language. I know it was added to try and assert that this is a treatment facility, but it certainly doesn't belay my concerns that it's still just a kale.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Mhmm. I I assume there would be consultation anyway. So if we mention it,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. Eric, I think we're just going to leave it as it is regularly consult. I mean, don't think it's going to make a difference one way or the other.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. And did you want to regularly consult with other AHS departments as that sort of thing or just leave it to DMH?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: DMH is fine. Okay.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: Sounds good. That was my only question. Thanks.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And Okay. All right. Yeah, I think that covers everything, more or less. Actually, Eric, one last question for you. Do we still there? Yep. Are you aware of any other decision points that we need to make? Because we covered clear and convincing. We covered the burden. We covered Prejudice. With or without prejudice. And I don't I don't have any other decision points listed on the notes that I have in front of me. But was there anything else that based on what you've heard is still pending?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: No, I don't think so. Think because also you heard from Karen about the and that we're going to take that different track the the approach regarding a person being found not not able to be restored to competency, we're just gonna we're gonna track that procedure based on the procedure, they could be released into the community, least restrictive means that kind of thing. So I know where that's going. So no, I'm not aware of anything else that wasn't covered this morning that's still hanging around out there.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Are you aware of any other pending questions? Alright. So I think we are in a place where we're, knock on wood, almost done with this bill. We'll get some additional testimony based on what is the tentative final version that we get back from Eric once we return. And then health and welfare, as well as institutions, are going to be taking a look at this as

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: well. I do want to hear from WellPath. I have pretty significant concerns. There's currently over 1,500 pending lawsuits against them for their inability to provide adequate mental health care. So I have some pretty significant concerns.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Are there lawsuits pending for competency restoration?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I I don't know. I haven't looked at all of the more than 1,500 lawsuits. I don't know what every one of them is for. But I know Massachusetts has stopped using WellPath for all of their services, forensic competency prisons, because they are under a congressional investigation by Senator Elizabeth Warren. I am pretty concerned. And I don't feel comfortable moving forward given that the research I did yesterday has without hearing from them how they're addressing those issues. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I do yeah, we can hear from them. I do think the specifics of the treatment whether or not the specifics of the treatment is something I think that would fall within health and welfare. But I think that if we're trying to make sure that this is focused on competency restoration, we should still hear from them. But, I mean, I did ask for their contact information, I think, a week ago, at least as of yesterday, hadn't heard. Our committee assistant hadn't heard. So, actually, let me ask Karen or Claire, can you help us get WellPath in here, please?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yes. We've already been in communication with DOC this morning. I heard

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: you earlier say you want it.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So we are working with them to to

[Karen Barber (General Counsel, Vermont Department of Mental Health)]: get them to contact you as soon as possible.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Fantastic. Thank you very much. Yeah. So will be one of the folks that we hear from. We'll also get testimony from the state's attorney based on the new version that we get from Eric. Wondering if there is anybody we haven't heard from that needs to be No.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I appreciate the fact that you have asked them to come in. I just after finding more information, and we've heard a couple of times that they're providing this care in Massachusetts, but that is no longer true because of how poorly they were doing it.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, thank you again, Karen, Eric, everybody who have in

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: person Thanks, sir.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: In this long process. Oh, sorry.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: One one quick note. I know you're aware of crossover for us. If we have two other committees that are going to weigh in, they're going to have lots of lots of priorities that they want to get over the line. So I wouldn't want them they should know that they have to get back to us really quickly.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, they're aware and have been that I would like them to look at My this thought is not necessarily to have this go into their jurisdiction, where they don't have possession of the bill. If they feel something catastrophic is happening and they need possession of it, then that's

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes. At this point, that would probably delay it. Yes.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So, ideally, I would like to get this voted out Tuesday or Wednesday when we get back to town meeting. And that's that's that. Let's shift gears significantly to let's see. Eric, you're for s you're on 186 and 183. Right? You're muted.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: 186, yes. I didn't know. What's the other one you mentioned?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: 183.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: No. Richard? What's that?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: That's Michelle, I think. 83. But that's that's okay.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: But, yes, for 186. I covered that one. Yep.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I think I'd like to skip over 186 for today. And we'll just do our final discussion and vote on 183. So I think we're good on 186 for today. There were a couple other things I wanted to look at, but I think we are gonna vote on one eighty three, but that's Michelle's. Right. I think we're we're all set, Eric. Thank you very much for all your help.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: You're welcome. Glad to help. And I know I'll see you tomorrow morning for I think one eighty six is on the agenda for tomorrow morning as well.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Haven't voted out today. I Okay. Well, either way. Thank you.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Either way. Right. Okay. Alright. Thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Senator Norris, is it version 2.1 that is the final version? Let's let's let's go up live for five minutes. Okay. We can go up live for five minutes and just reconfigure to get our final version of one eighty three and then we'll