SmartTranscript of House Human Services - 2025-04-23 - 9:10 AM

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Okay. Good morning, everyone. This morning, we are going to get a walk through and take some testimony on h one twenty, which is an act relating to the study and design of a long term care trust fund. And at this point in time, what we're gonna do is have a walk through of the bill from, ledge council, and then we are going to, hear from the bill sponsor, representative Iacoboni, commit not commissioner. Treasurer Pichek, is not gonna be able to come this morning. He is going to come hopefully on Thursday. And then after that, we're going to take up our final testimony on h two forty eight, the childcare financial assistance program. So good morning, Katie. [Katie McLinn]: Thank you. Good morning. Katie McGlenn, Office of Legislative Council. Let me share my screen. Okay. So we're looking at h one twenty this morning. And as you said, this, doesn't create a trust fund, but it asks the secretary of the administration to come up with a plan, report back on what a trust fund for long term care might look like. So to look at the language in subsection a, as I said, the secretary of administration is to study and design a trust fund that would provide long term care for eligible persons. In particular, the secretary shall study the following. So this is what you're going to ask for more information on and hear back on. The creation and design of the trust fund based on a social insurance model such as Social Security. A funding plan addressing the collection of funds starting on July one, twenty twenty six for a minimum of three years before benefits would be provided. The collection of funds from residents of Vermont who have a Vermont taxable income of over one hundred and fifty percent FPL, the creation of a governing committee and a recommended composition of this committee that would administer the Fund, develop the benefit package and eligibility thresholds based on capacity to carry out activities of daily living and cognitive challenges, and develop regulations regarding the portability of benefits for persons who pay into the system and then leave Vermont. This plan will also look at the viability of persons being eligible for benefits after paying into the program for at least two years and the transfer of funds resources to Medicaid to be used in providing long term care services. The Secretary may receive assistance from any agency, department, division, or office and any board or commission of any such entity or any independent board or commission in the executive branch of the state. And you would get this information back by next January. The Secretary shall submit a written report on its findings to the policy committees, and the report shall include any necessary proposed legislation to implement the creation of the Fund. This takes effect July one twenty five. [Chair Theresa Wood]: So, essentially, what it's doing is asking for a report about how such a fund would be created. Yes. And it seems like it makes some assumptions, although it doesn't actually say it, that it would be some sort of payroll type contribution or tax from individuals. Is it is that [Katie McLinn]: It doesn't specify the source, but those I I think that's sort of what you're asking for information on. What how would this be funded? [Chair Theresa Wood]: Right. Okay. So the collection of funds from residents. Okay. So it says collection. It is a necessary [Member Ann Donahue]: like like Social Security, though. Mhmm. Not a social insurance model like Social Security. [Chair Theresa Wood]: So that means like a tax. Yes. But without saying it, that's I feel like that's what it's saying. Yeah. But it would come from the individuals themselves. Yeah. From, like, everybody else. [Member Ann Donahue]: Right. From all residents of Vermont. No. No. So that's pretty awesome. Anybody with a taxable income over one hundred and fifty percent of federal poverty. Yeah. [Speaker 3 ]: So that's not good. [Vice Chair Rey Garofano]: Is is it limiting? And in in your question, is it too limiting for them to offer suggestions on the source of funds? I don't know what other source of funds there would be. But [Chair Theresa Wood]: Dan made Dan made an off off off the cuff comment, but I won't repeat it on Zoom. Comment. I agree with that. [Member Ann Donahue]: We we can do anything with the bill. [Chair Theresa Wood]: We can do anything with the bill. This is a bridge based Oh, I know. That's what [Vice Chair Rey Garofano]: I'm just saying. If we're asking for this in a study Our source are we limiting their creativity and suggestions to us? And [Speaker 5 ]: that's a good point because we do spend a lot of money on making sure that these facilities are adequately funded through emergency financial relief for increases in sorry. We're for yeah. There there is federal and state dollars already going. Might it be better if it was a little more organized in terms of it going into an account that can help people who are in need of that skilled nursing care? [Speaker 3 ]: So we could put in there already assisting funds. Yeah. [Speaker 5 ]: I mean, we could combination. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Right. It would [Speaker 5 ]: have to be a combination. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Where we have some competing to them. Anyways. Yeah. I mean, we'll have some discussion about this, and we may actually have some time to actually because this is a study. It's not requiring a Right. A any real expenditure of a great deal of funds. So and we can have the treasurer weigh in on this because the treasurer actually has some experience. The treasurer's office has experience in both things that are voluntary as well as things that are, man mandatory, you know, with regard automatic. That's what I yes. Thank you. Automatic. And I would imagine we'd hear from the tax department about this as well. Yeah. [Member Ann Donahue]: So, I mean, there are two potential sources of funding that have existed for decades that have been no end of frustration to me for our failure to take advantage of them. And so I would love to see if I could fit those. One of them being the loophole that we have in Vermont that only two states have that allow people to stash away their money, and not have it recoupable, [Speaker 5 ]: for [Member Ann Donahue]: for long term care. And so they therefore end up drawing on Medicaid when they gave away their money somewhere else through a loophole. There are two loopholes in Vermont law that other states simply don't have. And the other one I don't even know if the other one exists anymore, and my memory of it is very foggy, but because this goes back, like, twenty years when we last worked on a bill on it, and that was the the federal Katie probably won't run with this, but it's it's if you buy long term care insurance, you you get, you get protection of your assets for certain number of years. And people were really it didn't move because people were really concerned that that protected the wealthy and got them to keep their assets and didn't focus on the fact that by doing that, because most people died before that trigger would be set from the long term care insurance. By doing that, we're preserving a significant amount of money for the people who need to benefit from long term care coverage under Medicaid. So those are both opportunities to do something that's probably really advances equity in a way that some states do we have loopholes on before considering you're going to into some sort of payroll tax, which I don't know if that does even exist in other states. [Speaker 5 ]: That makes a good point that how much money is that that is not going into the system of some of those individuals? We we probably don't know. Have on the tech Vermont taxpayer. [Member Ann Donahue]: Well right. And then that's the whole point is the money comes from Vermont tax payers or Medicaid instead. Yep. And I became very familiar with it when my mom was in the situation of decision making, and she realized if she moved to New Jersey where my brother lived, so she had other you know, she would have to pay long term care, you know, much earlier out of her k. You know, whatever assets. Yeah. Whereas if she stayed in Vermont, she had a total loophole to protect those assets. So [Speaker 5 ]: Wonder if we could put language in to look at what impact that would have for eliminating that. [Member Ann Donahue]: Right. And it's two different Right. You know? And then there's also the the if you buy long term care insurance. And and I don't know if that even still exists. That was because of the federal law, but I don't know that it's changed. It's just [Chair Theresa Wood]: So, Katie, I'm just thinking about sort of a, background information that we'll need because I, think we'll probably have some discussion about this bill. If if, we can consult with our our your tax colleagues about what might exist for loopholes, so called loopholes. [Member Ann Donahue]: Those are it's the revocable yeah. It's the revocable trust and the revocable property life state. Those are the two loophole pieces that other states have closed. Mhmm. And then the long term care insurance is something different. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Well and and I think we probably would need to hear from Diva as well because they do have a recapture of assets. Right. [Member Ann Donahue]: But they can't recapture these because we can't they can't get [Chair Theresa Wood]: a lot. People have done that. If people know enough to do that. [Member Ann Donahue]: And people who have more money are more likely to know to do that. [Chair Theresa Wood]: It it gives an advantage to people who have more in the way of assets and or education, honestly, to be able to have attorneys and so forth. Yeah. So we'll need some background information on that. Okay. [Speaker 3 ]: And who pays for this study and how much is it? [Chair Theresa Wood]: Well, we we haven't gotten that we haven't gotten that far yet. Okay. So anybody else have any other questions for Katie right this moment? Okay. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Katie. And we've been joined by representative Iacoboni. Welcome, Dave. [Rep. David Yacovone]: Thank you. Thank you for having me. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Of course. Of course. I see that the WCAX picked up a nice story on this bill. [Rep. David Yacovone]: It was a [Chair Theresa Wood]: They call this they call this a health care committee, but, you know [Rep. David Yacovone]: Well, they use [Chair Theresa Wood]: it. Yeah. The whole news bill. Part was right. But It's just [Rep. David Yacovone]: kind of [Chair Theresa Wood]: This story, oh, it's on WCAX I'm not on dates. Okay. So what's it the most? Yeah. One I think it's one of the most. Yeah. So welcome. Welcome, representative Iacoboni. So we, you know, you know the history about this far more than the rest of us. So please enlighten us a little bit about sort of the previous work that's been done on this. I understand that this something similar to this passed the house some years ago. It did. And then, didn't make it through the senate. But, if you wouldn't mind giving us some, background about the, I think that we understand the need for this, but, the background about what you're thinking about in this bill in particular and then, anything else that you'd like to share. [Rep. David Yacovone]: Thank you. I'd I'd be glad to, and I wanna thank representative Noyes too who's a cosponsor on this and all of his leadership and a long time interest in it. So back, I thought it was nineteen ninety four. I could have been I could be wrong on on the year. The bill passed the house with ninety five votes. So it was it was up there with a lot of support. And and at that time, of course, it was a different era, wasn't it? At that time, the line was for cost of a pack of cigarettes, two dollars. But we Vermonters could get insurance for long term care when they need it. And it was a bill at that time. There was something called the health care authority that did the work on this and had an actuary and etcetera. Look at the numbers. It was modeled after Social Security where everybody paid in a little but, of course, that depends on on where you sit. There was no cap. So depending on how much a person earned, it was a certain percentage. I don't remember the exact amount, less than one percent. So, you know, if you made a million a year, you paid a lot more than somebody making at that time, ten thousand a year. There was, as this this proposal suggests, a floor whereby people would not have to contribute. This speaks to a hundred and fifty percent of poverty, but that can be adjusted to be as high as three hundred or not even one. So the the environment at the time, health care was being discussed, health care without long term care. And there were a number of us who said you really can't look at health care without looking at long term care. And sometimes we still have to invoke that message today. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Sometimes. All the way. All the way. Glad [Rep. David Yacovone]: I'm speaking to members of the family. Yeah. It impacts acute care, impacts primary care, etcetera, and that you need to look at them together. So there was a reluctant acknowledgement on the senate side to do that because they were more totally into traditional health care at the time. But it did quite well in the senate. The vote was seventeen to twelve. So I like to say if it had three more votes, it would have reached fifth fifteen. I remember when I went in to testify, because we had spent a lot of time in this committee and all over the house bringing this through the process and ways and means appropriate, etcetera, etcetera. And in the house, when they had their hearing and I sat in the chair, the the senator said you have three minutes. So I thought, okay, to myself quickly. I I better be brief. That's what you get in front of the Supreme Court. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Mhmm. [Rep. David Yacovone]: But it also told me how serious they were about whether they were gonna look at it or or not. But even with that, it it did garner, you know, a reasonable amount of support even though I had been working almost exclusively on the house side and not as I should have been on the the senate side also. So the notion, the industry was by the nursing home industry at the time was by and large quite supportive because they understood that the growing demographic, the aging demographics, even in the nineties, mid mid early to mid nineties, where they were headed and how could they possibly sustain the level of long term care services. There was also support from those on, I would say, on the home and community based side, although I believe nursing homes are in that side of the ledger too. They're part of our community, an important part. But in any event, they too because the bill would have supported care in the home also as this one is intended to also. I would hope it would be designed to do that. So there was quite broad support and that people said, yeah. This makes sense because heaven forbid if I or a loved one in my family should be fallen by some type of disability, illness, etcetera, accident, the cost even then in the nineties would have wiped out a family quite quickly as it will as it does today also. Vermont's so called spousal impoverishment laws were not as robust as they are today. We have some of the best did have some of the best in in the nation. So at that time, it truly was you could argue that, you're gonna become a pauper if this should happen. And and even today, I think you can still argue that because in order as you all know, I don't need to educate you. But in order to be eligible for Medicaid, you spend down. It doesn't take long at three hundred dollars a day even for the most comfortable among us to end up on Medicaid's door. So the and the intent, same arguments then, not arguments, the same rationale, if you will, as I think it exists today. We have a Medicaid program that was struggling just to pay providers what providers needed to be paid to attract help at the time just like today. Same thing. How was it with this aging society and now it's aging even faster? Did we want to and I'll use the word saddle that may have did we we didn't want to saddle our children with the cost of paying for Medicaid with general taxation, take away from children's programs, education, anything, you name it, to pay for this fundamental, need, the safety net need. And even more, as you know, with looking at, enhanced financial relief, the cost of that caseload costs. It's so hard to come up with the state share for Medicaid and this program has the potential to do both. Depending on how it's designed, it could help pay the state match for Medicaid. It could help pay for individuals care. But and I'll just speak to that very, very briefly. Now if you're in a nursing home, as you all may know, but I don't wanna assume anything, patients have what's called an applied income. So the bill may be the bill could be three thousand a month, whatever the cost may be. And you each of you would have a different applied income based on your Social Security or other assets. You'd get to keep around seventy five dollars a month, give or take, for personal needs, barber, beauty, newspapers, etcetera. Those that's seventy five dollars. But the rest, you would pay to the nursing homes, your applied share, your applied income, and then Medicaid would pay the balance. This bill could help pay for that applied income share for families or for those that were eligible, it would pay your your Social Security check plus if you were eligible for this program. There was a pretty extensive conversation about, the eligibility threshold to get into the program. There were some who said nothing. Yeah. If your doctor says you need it, you should go in. And there were others said, wait a minute. I have for cost purposes, you need to need help with at least three activities of daily living, feeding, bathing, toileting, dressing, moving from bed to chair, and even instrumental activities of daily living, telephone, check writing, etcetera. And I'm pretty sure the bill ended up on two. At two because at that time, not sure about today, at that time, by and large, in order to be eligible for a nursing home, we needed help with two activities daily living. So people, the intent was to try to have the eligibility threshold of whatever the practice was and which I would hope it would be whatever the practice is today. If you need help doing that, you would be eligible. Lots of conversations for those who didn't want it about, well, what if I pay in for ten years and move away? You're still eligible for your share. It takes some type of, you know, administration to keep track of all that. What if I die? What if I pay in for ten years and die and never get it? I mean, I guess, Social Security could be the same way, couldn't it? Although there are survivor benefits. You know, you you may not you may not get it. It's an insurance program. And I've always said in in the words of our good friend Deborah Lisi Baker. Today, we're all tabs. We're all temporarily able-bodied. This state of wellness we enjoy some more so than others is not a permanent condition. Our time will come. For some, it could be soon. For some, it could be very, very long time and a very short duration. But who will be there to help us? Will it be our family? Will it be our friends? Will it be our neighbors? Will it be strangers? Will it be government? Unless we build up the financial capacity to pay for these kind of essential, which I believe, essential services, we put that at risk. We we really do. Either we don't have the capacity to do it or it's not a quality any of us would want. So in that spirit is why the bill was offered many years ago. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Mhmm. [Rep. David Yacovone]: And that's why it's really offered offered again. Mhmm. [Chair Theresa Wood]: And does that help? It does. It does help a lot. And, you know, I think about the environment in which we are right now in terms of obviously, things have changed a bit since you know, the mid nineties to where we are today. We have choices for care, which is it's a Medicaid program still, but we do in the in the nineties, the only place you could get any long term care that was paid for was in a nursing home. You didn't have the option of community based care. And so it was, I'm sure, was pretty groundbreaking discussions that you had back in the nineties when you were when you were working on this. It it seems to imply, some sort of, tax since it's, you know, references, you know, Social Security is a is an insurance a mandatory insurance program, of of sorts. Did you give any thought to something that might be a a voluntary? You know, what what I'm kind of wondering about is whether we're kind of thinking of maybe a bit too narrow in terms of what what might, be plausible in the in a report or a study to come back and to inform us. I'm I'm wondering about, whether, you know, the I guess the creation of a state backed or state run, but but personally financed long term care insurance, which is sort of similar to this except for I'm just wondering about the viability of requiring people to to pay in at this point in time. [Rep. David Yacovone]: Sure. [Member Daniel Noyes]: Mhmm. [Rep. David Yacovone]: There were those conversations, but they weren't as sophisticated is the wrong word. They weren't educated by what was available Yeah. Much. There was a question of, well, if it's just, you know, a tax on earnings, there are a lot of people with a a lot of wealth but didn't earn them through payroll. Yeah. And you would miss that. Yeah. And and at the time, I can remember several legislators saying you're missing that. We need to capture that. We didn't have the wherewithal, but I would think now because this is a study that would broaden the net. There are other ways to finance this. Right. Certainly, the the payroll type way is one, but I think there's other means of capturing wealth in just that traditional way. I I worried at the time, I don't mean to digress into paid family leave, but a voluntary program you get what's called adverse selection. Yeah. And this could have a lot of adverse selection, and it would go it has if it isn't spread broadly, it would cave in, I think, rather quickly. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Well, and and I so I I do worry about, things that are voluntary, you know, so we would have low income individuals, and people with disabilities covered under the state's Medicaid program. And those who could afford to make some contributions, you know, would be covered under this or some other program. And then it's those it's those, you know, the vast majority of us in the middle, who sort of, as you said, you know, might be the folks that the program would cave in on, because they might not necessarily, you know, choose to under or might not necessarily understand or choose to make that kind of contribution, you know, on on their own. I [Rep. David Yacovone]: yeah. I had suggested and I still do. I said, folks, you will pay one way [Chair Theresa Wood]: or the other. It is true. [Rep. David Yacovone]: We're we're a civilized society. We care about our friends and neighbors. We will pay if they start lining up and can't get into the network. [Chair Theresa Wood]: If the [Rep. David Yacovone]: home care is not available, you either pay through broad based general taxes or a diminution of other essential government services, which you have to cut somewhere to pay for it. So you can either be upfront about it. Pay me now or pay me later. Mhmm. I believe if people pay later, it would be a larger bill. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Uh-huh. We're seeing that right now. Yeah. We are. Mhmm. We are. And, you know, I I think it certainly in this committee and in your committee, you've seen the impact on long term care facilities Mhmm. Whether it's residential care or nursing facilities, and the need for greater and greater state contributions, and, you know, it makes me wonder about, like, yes, we need those facilities as part of our continuum of care, for individuals. But, you know, I also think about we've made very sizable state contributions, and those very sizable state contributions could have also helped jumpstart something like this. [Rep. David Yacovone]: Yes. Yes. Absolutely. [Chair Theresa Wood]: That would have broader impact. So, and there's, you know, when we think about other sources of funds, I think about you know, the unclean property fund, you know, that goes into the general fund now after some certain period of time. I don't know exactly what that is, but, there you know, there are other sources of funds out there that, yes, might be redirected from someplace else, but I think that your comment about we either pay through some mechanism like this or we pay through increased Medicaid costs and, you know, you know, being able to be more planful about it might benefit not only individuals but states. [Rep. David Yacovone]: Seems to make good sense to me. Yeah. You have to be planful. Yeah. Yeah. [Speaker 8 ]: Go ahead, represent Garfunnel. Thank you, for this information. Are there any other states that have implemented something like this yet? [Rep. David Yacovone]: I haven't looked recently. At the time, I was trying to think of California, but I'm not aware. [Speaker 8 ]: And then, just to comment is, this kinda makes me think of some of the work that we did around child care and the study that we had done that kind of built the framework on what we built the so kind of thinking about needs versus utilization. I think one thing that the child care study was really great at giving us information of what, like, what the need was, based on a lot of data that they collected and analyzed, and then, what would it take to meet that need. So just kinda want us to be thoughtful about that is Yes. You know, understanding what the need is. So whatever the source of income is, we can kinda align it with that and be able to move it up and down based on whatever the need is. Absolutely. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Yeah. Go ahead, Don. [Member Daniel Noyes]: Yeah. I really appreciate where you're coming from, and money's out there. We just need to start cutting back on programs. We we have we have to put our priorities in right place, and yours your pro we're all gonna be there, like you said. And I really appreciate what what you said. Thank you. You're welcome. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Other, questions or comments for representative Iaccaboni? [Rep. David Yacovone]: Thank you for considering this. I know there are many things that compete for your time. Just [Chair Theresa Wood]: well, you know, as as you so aptly pointed out, you know, it it'd be better for us to be planning for the future. The future is now, you know. And, you know, I think understanding that is important and understanding some of the things that represent Donahue spoke about in terms of some of the loopholes that the state has. And, you know, we talk about people not retiring here, but some of those loopholes are probably exactly why people are retiring here. So thank you so much. [Rep. David Yacovone]: Thank you. I bumped into a long time lobbyist who said, I was here back in the nineties. It was a good idea then, and it's a good idea now. Now looks [Speaker 3 ]: like and I [Rep. David Yacovone]: thought if only we had started, we'd be [Chair Theresa Wood]: In the nineties. Right? Where where would we be now? Right? [Rep. David Yacovone]: Maybe we'd be now. I know. Thank you very much. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Thank you for your very good. Thank you for your forethought and your perseverance. Yeah. Something like that. I appreciate that. Yep. Be well now. Okay. You as well. Okay. So we have a bit of time between now and ten thirty when our next witness is here. We age thirty six is going to s thirty six. Sorry. It's h forty six. S thirty six, look for the floor tomorrow. It was voted out of appropriations yesterday. I do expect to vote on h two forty eight either later today or potentially tomorrow morning. So, that's depending upon the testimony that we get and then another look at the bill. It's been a few days since we've taken a look at the bill. It's fairly straight. It's a fairly straightforward bill, so, just to to be aware of that. I know what's reporting that. We don't yet. Is that on your list? Who's on your who volunteered? No one. No one volunteered for h two forty eight. So be thinking about if anybody wants to anybody wants to do that. And then the other thing, just to give you a heads up, we are gonna be on Friday, made some assignments about looking at the reports. So we are going to have some time tomorrow and on Friday to hear what you have discovered in your review of your assignments. Okay? So be prepared. And, just to, remind you, we're also talking about whether we, should continue that report, whether it was a one time report, or if there's any potential changes that we might be looking for in how that report is structured. I do wanna follow-up on our testimony from reach on the reach ahead pilot that we had last week. We had asked for information from DCF. I asked again, as you heard yesterday, and, I have asked again today, in writing. We have yet to receive that information. And just to be clear, why we are seeking that information is because there appears to be money that was intended for these beneficiaries that will not be spent. Yet we have people who have not, not, had the benefit of all of their benefits under this program. And so, to me, it doesn't make sense that you, just, you know, stop when we have people who have were determined to be eligible, were enrolled, and we say, okay. Now you don't get your other two payments that especially when there's money there. That doesn't doesn't make sense, and we were told that money would just essentially go to the bottom line. It's It's reneging on it. It's reneging on agreement. You know, made to the families. So that's not I don't feel good about that, and so we're going to pursue that. Any other questions or updates that we have? H ninety one is is not on the agenda today in health and welfare. It is tomorrow. They're gonna start markup tomorrow. They've worked their way through the bill. We've been having some ongoing conversations about that. Yes. Todd. [Member Daniel Noyes]: I won't be here this afternoon. So we're voting on two forty eight in committee? [Chair Theresa Wood]: Yes. [Member Daniel Noyes]: Can I submit submit my vote now? Or [Chair Theresa Wood]: you not yet, but, you can call in and use one of your remote votes if you would like. [Speaker 5 ]: K. I would. Thank you. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Do that? Okay. [Member Daniel Noyes]: Do that. [Chair Theresa Wood]: So and like I said, it might be this afternoon, or it could be tomorrow morning. So but if we vote on it this afternoon, I will make sure that we call you for your, or are you gonna be able to Zoom in this afternoon? Or Yeah. Possibly. Possibly. Okay. Even if it's by phone, you can do it by phone. It doesn't have to be with the computer. [Member Daniel Noyes]: K. Good. Thank you. [Rep. David Yacovone]: Okay. [Chair Theresa Wood]: And then, tomorrow morning, we are hearing from, some members of the Vermont State Employees Association, regarding their experiences at DCF. We don't have a full list of witnesses yet, but we have some folks who have requested to testify. And that's it's really kind of a follow-up. They had we had started to receive some requests to testify last session, and we ran out of time to do that. Also, FYI, I have a service to attend tomorrow afternoon, so I won't be here tomorrow afternoon. And you may have tomorrow afternoon to work on constituent services. [Speaker 3 ]: That's another thing. I got a message. Somebody asked me where we are where the restaurant program EVT card used. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Oh, the restaurant meals program? [Speaker 3 ]: Yes. That was it. [Member Daniel Noyes]: They want [Speaker 3 ]: they just said [Chair Theresa Wood]: That's a good question. I I think and they're trying to work on language in the senate, but I don't know what I I don't know. I can ask senator Hardy. Yeah. She [Speaker 3 ]: I can read the question. [Chair Theresa Wood]: That way, we can answer it on camera, and they can look themselves. [Speaker 3 ]: Okay. Ready? I said I'll follow-up. So here's my follow-up. Brenda, on February sixth, the committee heard testimony on hunger free Vermont wanting to expand SNAP benefits to allow homeless disabled to buy meals in restaurants. Where did this bill go? Or what became of this bill? [Chair Theresa Wood]: Right. We have, what's the bill number up there? H-one hundred and fifty one. Okay. So, we have not taken up H-one hundred and fifty one. There was some move among advocates to try to have language put in the budget. I don't know where that's at right now, to be perfectly honest, but h one fifty one is still on our on our board. And that you know, we will have time, in this session if that's a bill that people want to take more testimony on. We certainly can. We did hear from the department that it does have cost to implement. And so we were not, you know, honestly looking at things that had any kind of significant cost to implement. But, so it is I'm not going to say it's not going to happen this year, but I think it's unlikely if you want to. [Speaker 3 ]: And I still want to express, I think it's more expensive than allowing people to use their UBT cards to be able to buy prepared foods at their grocery store when they're getting groceries and be able to buy a hot meal, a rotisserie chicken, or a birthday cake. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Feds. [Katie McLinn]: That's a federal [Assistant Lori Morse]: law. We cannot I always [Speaker 3 ]: wondered why this is something [Assistant Lori Morse]: we can do that would allow folks who are unable to prepare their own meals. [Speaker 3 ]: Well, that's why, because it's federal. Would be so much less expensive and people would be able to budget better. Understood. Okay. Now I I get it. Okay. Thank you. [Chair Theresa Wood]: And so so you have the information you need to get back to your constituent? [Speaker 3 ]: Well, I'm gonna have them watch the video. Yeah. So I got the information, and I'll share that it's on live screen. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Okay. Anybody else have any other questions about pending activity for the committee? We the floor I I just so people know a little bit about, like, what happens towards the end of the session. Oh, yeah. What's happening now is a bit unusual. And we are usually at this time spending more time on the floor, but there are far fewer bills, one that came over from the senate, and fewer bills that are being acted upon this year. And so, while in the ever since I've been here, I don't know about Anne, but ever since I've been here, at this point in time, we rarely had afternoon sessions, in committee. And so, [Member Ann Donahue]: and often, you know, in five, six, keep up in the evening. [Chair Theresa Wood]: And so, sometimes we had right. Sometimes we had a dinner break and came back after dinner. So, so we're we're trying to modify our schedule somewhat and figure out what we're gonna do. So we're we're probably gonna take more testimony on one twenty than we probably would have and talk to the treasurer about what it might take to prepare a study. It says the administration, but I think it's more aptly put in the treasurer's office, to be honest. I think they're more, I think it, follows in their expertise more. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. One thing I [Speaker 5 ]: would be interested in hearing more about, maybe not necessarily this week, but the week after if we have time is, we had a hearing with, health care on potential changes in Medicaid, and I would be interested in the updates that CMS has heard. You know, just keeping an eye on on what's going on. I've been trying to watch, but it would be helpful to have somebody who's, you know, in the thick of it come in and kind of update. And I don't know if this is the [Chair Theresa Wood]: We tried that, just so you know. K. And they've declined to they declined. They said we don't have any more information that we've already shared. [Member Daniel Noyes]: This is [Speaker 5 ]: probably the case. I just I've been seeing stuff coming out in the end. I'd be interested. [Rep. David Yacovone]: Yeah. [Speaker 5 ]: And like I said, maybe We get more off Facebook [Rep. David Yacovone]: than for Yeah. [Speaker 5 ]: Whether it's true or not. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Exactly. That's right. Right. Exactly. So, certainly, when we get towards the middle of May Yeah. When the feds need to take some definitive action. I mean, all we're seeing right now is a lot of [Rep. David Yacovone]: Correct. [Chair Theresa Wood]: You know, reports about what they think might happen. And so so, you know, just so people know, we I had tried that, and they said we don't have anything more to report. So [Member Eric Maguire]: Why excuse me. Why is more why you just stated that the feds will need to take more action in May. Why in May? [Chair Theresa Wood]: Because there's a there's budget action that needs to be taken at the federal level in May. [Member Daniel Noyes]: Okay. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Continuing resolution on those till May [Member Eric Maguire]: Oh, I see. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Middle of May. [Member Daniel Noyes]: I see. [Chair Theresa Wood]: So they have to take some action. Mhmm. And, you know, there you can you can Google what the current proposals are on Medicaid right now. It's around additional work requirements. It's there was what we call an expansion population that they're talking about narrowing. There was, more, things like, documenting of disability. There there's several thing. If you if you go to the NCSL website, there are several articles in there. Oh, no. I was looking yesterday. Yeah. Yeah. It's it's, you know, we are you know, there's there appears to be some pushback happening. You know? Who know? None of us are gonna be able to predict it, I don't think. We'll have to wait and see what happens. That's why mid May is a important Yeah. Time to see what's being what's gonna end up being acted upon. [Speaker 5 ]: Appreciate it being on the radar. [Rep. David Yacovone]: So Yeah. Yeah. [Chair Theresa Wood]: Yeah. Yeah. We are continually doing that. And, you know, one of the things I heard from other colleagues is I don't know what constituent information you're providing, but it is helpful for people to know that, you know, we are tracking these things even though we're not able to give them any definitive answers at this point in time. You know, for instance, I have I have shared the the sort of spreadsheet that we got from DEVA when we had the joint hearings of people who are really interested in Medicaid, who have some background knowledge, you probably just wouldn't share that as a general thing. But, as, as what you know, you know, as as well as the things that, I posted in my front porch forum post this week about the, rare disease advisory committee and the, you know, growing importance of that, particularly with the elimination at the federal level of that advisory committee that informs, the states about what we should be screening for in newborns. So I think that, you know, all of all of this kind of stuff, there's ample information out there about things that are happening. Julie is taking the lead on collecting information from our community partners. We heard around because the Appropriations Committee is taking it from state departments. So wanting to know what grants, you know and they also said that we are welcome, to sit in on their committee hearings. You know, if you wanna look at their agenda to see what departments they're hearing from, if you have a particular interest, you can go downstairs and sit in on that if we don't have anything scheduled here. So, Jubilee is taking the lead on getting information from our community partners. So I'll just give you an example. The, long term not long term care, but this is probably gonna be impacted as well. The health the health care ombudsman Mhmm. That's Mike, Fisher, who, he and the folks in his staff who, when we have constituent concerns about something happening in health care, they are the go to people, and they have helped countless numbers of people to, get through insurance questions, to get through Medicaid questions, to help people with eligibility, to help them understand what you know, some notice that they've received. It really any anything. They've been an invaluable resource. And, their federal funding is slated to be eliminated, and that, by October first, and that is two thirds of their funding. So Mhmm. That would mean a very significant rollback in whatever services that they have. So those are the kinds of things that are propping up as more and more as we as we hear things. Yeah. [Member Ann Donahue]: And I just caught up with reading an art I think it was a Digger article from a couple weeks ago, but the the house in Randolph that I was working on for Habitat Oh, yeah. Fell and broke my leg, They were expecting to do the kind of final big push to complete it with a team of AmeriCorps volunteers who have been canceled. Yep. So, you know, that's gonna be a big delay because local volunteers are sort of fits and starts and then fall off ladders and can't continue volunteering. For [Assistant Lori Morse]: for Vermont, I worked with lots of like, that is how we often get youth moving in to Vermont [Speaker 3 ]: through where more American ports, [Assistant Lori Morse]: you know, and then they end up staying here. And so that is gonna be kind of a huge loss to our state just doing the important work they're doing, but it's often how we get, you know, young workers, new Vermont, you know? [Chair Theresa Wood]: Yeah. Yeah. [Member Ann Donahue]: And that's a duplex that would be two more Yeah. Two more. Housing Yeah. Housing units, low income housing. [Speaker 5 ]: It it really is a shame to see what's happening in the AmeriCorps. Mhmm. I serve on the the Vermont Commission on National Community Service that kinda oversees the grants, and, it's very concerning. Yeah. Yeah. Across the whole country, not just from what [Chair Theresa Wood]: we're doing. No. It's it's massive changes for sure. Okay. So we will, Lori, go off live now, and we will see you back here at ten thirty when we have our witnesses.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House Human Services - 2025-04-23 - 9:10 AM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: