Warning: Bill numbers and names are based on text-to-speech transcript which may have errors due to transcription issues or ad hoc/incomplete language use by committee.
Explains the bill amends prosthetics coverage to allow adults access to activity-specific prosthetics, previously limited to children under 19. Notes a prior study showed high costs, so the amendment limits to one type of device every five years, allows medical management, prior authorization, and applies plan terms and cost-sharing to control costs. Distinguishes activity-specific prosthetics (e.g., running blades) from medically necessary ones for daily living.
SB408 1489
Information Only00:11:58.309 - 10:10:49 AM
Inquires about cost data from Dr. Aziz and the fiscal note, noting previous discussions on low and high cost estimates. Seeks clarification on whether a $27,000 limit is in the amendment and expresses concern about potential price increases without caps, suggesting medical management to control costs.
SB408 1489
Information Only00:13:00.669 - 10:11:51 AM
Provides details on the fiscal note, stating the marginal cost per unit is $27,000 on average, ranging from under $10,000 to $50,000. Estimates 10-30% uptake over five years among eligible population, leading to costs of $4-12 million over five years. Explains calculations and offers to share unabridged fiscal note. Notes adjustment needed for the five-year limit in the amendment.
SB408 1489
Information Only00:19:28.254 - 10:18:19 AM
Seeks clarity on premium impacts for small businesses and state employees, noting state employees are included but exempt under ERISA. Questions how cost-sharing works across varied plans and expresses support but concern for balancing costs.
SB408 1489
Information Only00:24:10.549 - 10:23:01 AM
Clarifies the fiscal note's per member per month figure was interpreted as annual but was meant for five years, ensuring no misleading information was provided.
Unclear 1464h
Information Only00:28:14.393 - 10:27:05 AM
Describes changes in amendment 1464h compared to previous version: introduces new customer period starting from ID verification with a 72-hour refund window; caps total withdrawals at $3,000 during this period instead of per transaction; addresses privacy concerns via emails with Brendan Garrod; notes industry comment on 30-day data deletion conflicting with federal retention laws; removes inflation adjustment for the $3,000 cap; adds reporting requirement to notify Attorney General of operations in the state. Everyone received a copy yesterday.
HB358 1464h
Support00:32:56.458 - 10:31:47 AM
Advocates for the amendment as a balanced regulation for commerce, references AARP's efforts to protect seniors from fraud and an Idaho bill vetoed for being unworkable. Suggests minor changes like removing inflation adjustment and clarifying federal data retention requirements for biometrics. Emphasizes safeguards for seniors unfamiliar with technology to prevent loss of life savings. Notes that the bill sets minimum standards, allowing industry to impose higher ones, and clarifies that data won't be deleted as per federal law.
HB358 1464h
Oppose00:35:06.851 - 10:33:57 AM
Appreciates the work on the amendment but opposes it, arguing it does not effectively stop fraud as provisions can be circumvented. Points out specific language on page 5 regarding data destruction that might mislead users into thinking data is deleted when it isn't.
HB358 1464h
Oppose00:36:42.574 - 10:35:33 AM
Insists the bill needs licensing and a daily cap to be effective, dismissing the Senate bill's lack of licensing. Argues without these, it won't prevent industry stifling or address fraud. Mentions cryptocurrency industry's fatigue with fraud associations but clarifies not speaking for the entire industry.
HB358 1464h
Information Only00:37:44.591 - 10:36:35 AM
Clarifies the $3,000 maximum for new customers over a 72-hour period, explaining it prevents immediate large withdrawals and aligns with refund periods. Asks follow-up questions about comparison to other states' limits.
HB358 1464h
Oppose00:38:54.829 - 10:37:45 AM
Questions if the $3,000 limit is high compared to other states' $2,000 or less caps. Emphasizes protecting citizens over the crypto industry, citing risks to seniors from scams and the need to avoid becoming a target state.
HB358 1464h
Support00:39:51.849 - 10:38:42 AM
Defends the $3,000 limit as in the ballpark of other states, discusses federal regulations like the Genius Act and Clarity Act positioning New Hampshire as crypto-friendly. Argues for balance to attract industry without being overly onerous, separates kiosks from broader crypto benefits, and highlights refund mechanisms like Amazon returns to aid scam victims.
HB358 1464h
Support00:42:00.389 - 10:40:51 AM
Acknowledges scammers will find ways around regulations but supports the new customer protections and reporting requirements as steps toward licensing. Notes the bill's focus on providing information and refund windows to prevent irreversible crypto transactions.
HB358 1464h
Oppose00:43:02.829 - 10:41:53 AM
Argues licensing provides leverage to revoke for non-compliance, even if scams go unreported initially. Suggests gradual licensing based on kiosk numbers and multiple violations. Questions implementation costs and benefits, referencing repealed ATM licensing due to lack of issues.
HB358 1464h
Information Only00:44:59.986 - 10:43:50 AM
Explores licensing pros and cons, noting banking industry's serious fraud limits and average kiosk transactions around $350. Suggests a license with deposit limits could suffice, but current bill lacks enforcement leverage without it.
HB358 1464h
Support00:47:04.780 - 10:45:55 AM
Supports starting with the amendment for initial guardrails, allowing future adjustments based on fraud data from police and Consumer Protection. Prefers replace-all amendment for clarity over tweaking the Senate bill.
HB358 1464h
Oppose00:48:06.660 - 10:46:57 AM
Criticizes removing private right of action, limiting scam victims' recourse beyond AG enforcement. Notes median transaction $300 and average $1,000+ suggests large fraudulent ones distorting averages. Argues $3,000 cap insufficient for life savings protection, especially for vulnerable elderly.
HB358 1464h
Support00:51:47.178 - 10:50:38 AM
Defends $3,000 cap and 72-hour period as targeted to new users and scam prevention, comparable to alcohol ID checks. Cites real cases like in Littleton and personal family experience with scams on declining elderly. Argues it's a moderate approach aligned with other states.
HB358 1464h
Oppose00:56:38.428 - 10:55:29 AM
Challenges the amendment's effectiveness, preferring the Senate bill for caution. Notes quick development without much subcommittee time, argues it errs toward industry protection over people.
HB358 1464h
Support01:01:07.840 - 10:59:58 AM
Moves to pass the amendment with changes: removing licensure prohibition (page 2, line 33) and inflation adjustment (page 3). Votes proceed 6-2 in favor.
HB358 1464h
Oppose01:02:24.657 - 11:01:15 AM
Opposes the amendment, arguing $3,000 limit too high and 72-hour period inadequate for scam recovery. Prefers Senate bill and data collection on fraud vs. legitimate transactions.
HB528 1496h
Support01:06:07.070 - 11:04:58 AM
Presents amendment 1496h, removing 'foreign adversaries' and broadening to any foreign government, political party, or entities with 20% foreign ownership. Requires disclosure for lobbyist firm donations if from foreign clients. Emphasizes disclosure over bans, notes Secretary of State's comfort with enforcement for publicly traded companies.
HB528 1496h
Oppose01:07:04.655 - 11:05:55 AM
Questions enforceability of 20% ownership threshold for companies, noting changes year-to-year and burden on small entities.
HB528 1496h
Information Only01:08:20.315 - 11:07:11 AM
Suggests interim study for the bill due to complexities.
HB528 1496h
Support01:09:48.040 - 11:08:39 AM
Agrees with disclosure approach but criticizes language making the U.S. seem weak, especially regarding China. Notes intertwined economies and existing foreign lobbying.
HB528 1496h
Support01:11:17.488 - 11:10:08 AM
Expresses a perspective on not being afraid of China and supports discussing foreign influences in lobbying.
HB528 1496h
Support01:12:31.850 - 11:11:22 AM
Discusses concerns about American companies owned by foreign entities like BAE Systems, notes how large companies handle firewalls for DOD facilities, and appreciates the shift to disclosure over prohibition to follow the money and know the sources of representation.
HB528 1496h
Oppose01:14:18.018 - 11:13:09 AM
Appreciates the move from a ban to disclosure for foreign adversaries but recommends sending the bill to interim study due to unresolved questions. Raises issues with the 20% control threshold for publicly traded companies, which could change mid-year leading to immediate violations if registration isn't updated timely. Notes vagueness in language requiring sworn statements on whether interests meet or exceed 20%, and definitions of control via contractual rights or influencing management. Argues for simpler disclosure of who pays the lobbyist, especially post-Citizens United. Points out that PACs or associations created by foreign entities might evade requirements. Highlights the broad scope now applying to all foreign entities, not just adversaries, like Canadian companies such as Irving Oil, requiring extensive coordination and potential penalties of $5,000 per violation, injunctive relief, and disgorgement. Urges a pause to refine language with input from all stakeholders.
HB528 1496h
Information Only01:22:41.375 - 11:21:32 AM
Informs the committee that the Attorney General's office has not reviewed the amendment and lacks resources to enforce it, as they are tasked with investigations, civil enforcement, issuing demands, and handling complaints under the bill. Notes the fiscal note for the original bill required one full-time attorney, and this broader version would demand even more, including office-wide impacts. Suggests removing AG enforcement to avoid resource needs, leaving registration with the Secretary of State. Clarifies that even without penalties, the 'may investigate' provision creates expectations and responsibilities they cannot ignore, leading to complaint reviews and potential actions. Emphasizes that current structures do not support this new area, and subcontracting isn't feasible without new positions approved by the Executive Council. Addresses hypothetical enforcement scenarios and stresses the need for additional attorneys and investigators to handle subpoenas and records.
HB528 1496h
Information Only01:35:29.558 - 11:34:20 AM
Clarifies that the current financial reporting for lobbyists is quarterly and consists of aggregate amounts received, which differs from the proposed monthly reporting requirement in the amendment for foreign entities. Notes that the reporting details in the bill go beyond existing practices.
HB528 1496h
Information Only01:37:45.917 - 11:36:36 AM
Discusses differences in penalties, references fiscal note of $138,138, suggests leaving it in for the next committee, questions existing penalties for violations under current law.
HB528 1496h
Information Only01:39:50.003 - 11:38:41 AM
Questions the specific law and paragraph (Roman numeral 9), references RSA 15-8 which already has misdemeanor penalties, suggests amending the bill to reflect current statute without adding new penalties.
HB528 1496h
Information Only01:41:28.248 - 11:40:19 AM
Describes the bill as a 'feel-good bill,' questions lobbyists accepting checks from foreign companies, references RSA 15 for financial disclosure and penalties.
HB528 1496h
Information Only01:42:43.528 - 11:41:34 AM
References RSA 15-A-7 for financial disclosure penalties, notes both RSA 15:8 and 15-A:7 have similar misdemeanor penalties, discusses which to use, quotes penalty language for violations and false statements.
HB528 1496h
Oppose01:43:29.053 - 11:42:20 AM
Expresses concern over paragraph eight prohibiting procurement assistance, argues it goes beyond disclosure intent and affects legitimate business interests of foreign companies hiring lobbyists.
HB657 1491h
Information Only01:46:03.015 - 11:44:54 AM
Explains amendment 1491h as assigning responsibility to an existing committee, notes it's a replace-all but integrates with existing statute, highlights new subsections on first page line 23 and technical committees on page two.
HB657 1491h
Information Only01:46:51.484 - 11:45:42 AM
Describes how the amendment fits into existing statutes, points out new AI elements like record-keeping on line 21, reporting requirements on lines 27-31 satisfying RSA 5-D:5, and annual report on line 20.
HB657 1491h
Support01:47:37.597 - 11:46:28 AM
Confirms the amendment updates existing statutes for AI relevance in 2026, notes it drops in AI references across sections, no problems raised, moves to pass amendment 1491h.
SB548
Information Only01:49:13.282 - 11:48:04 AM
The chair introduces the bill on healthcare provider contract standards, SB 548, explaining it assigns the insurance commissioner responsibility for proper terminology in notices about potential contract breakdowns between insurers and hospitals to avoid bias complaints. The chair calls for any problems and proceeds to a unanimous vote.
SB548
Information Only01:51:16.026 - 11:50:07 AM
Peter Bragdon suggests changing 'public hearing' to 'public information session' in the bill to manage public expectations, as it implies no decision-making authority. He notes bouncing the idea off the commissioner who was indifferent, emphasizing that people might expect the commissioner to overturn terminations.
SB548
Information Only01:52:06.626 - 11:50:57 AM
A committee member questions the department's terminology for similar sessions, noting they use 'info sessions' not 'hearings'. The chair decides to keep it as 'public hearing' despite the suggestion.
SB548
Support01:52:56.788 - 11:51:47 AM
The representative explains that while statutes use 'public hearings', the bill clarifies they are informational only, with no approval or disapproval of terminations. They commit to managing expectations in notices and procedures.
SB610
Information Only01:54:05.991 - 11:52:56 AM
The chair introduces SB 610, noting a shift from interim study to an amendment replacing the bill, offering variations for the department on long-term care.
SB610
Support01:55:05.649 - 11:53:56 AM
The representative supports the amendment, highlighting a key paragraph explicitly allowing the department to regulate and approve innovative long-term care products to address market issues and promote viability.
SB524
Information Only01:56:26.083 - 11:55:17 AM
The chair distributes an amendment for SB 524, explaining it replaces the bill with language from a previously passed bill on beer and wine sales by off-premise licensees, noting it was yanked from the consent calendar. This is for information only, to be taken up later without a hearing.
Unclear
Information Only01:57:13.563 - 11:56:04 AM
The chair wraps up the subcommittee, announces future hearings and subcommittees organized by topic, urges attendance for lively discussions, and notes the deadline to report bills is May 5th, with a committee luncheon to follow. Discusses the next meeting on the risk pool and a Senate version of a bill.
SB661
Support03:20:56.280 - 1:19:47 PM
Senator Gray introduces himself as the major architect of SB 661, representing District 6 including Alton, Rochester, Gilmanton, and Stratford. He explains the bill focuses on accessible risk pools, allowing communities to save money through risk management. He details changes from the previous year, including establishing a member equity stabilization fund controlled by the risk pool, requiring 4% of deposits to be allocated to it based on actuarial recommendations for contingency reserves between 12-20%. Additional funds can be used flexibly. He discusses ongoing discussions with HB 1491, anticipating both bills to proceed separately to provide choices for assessable and non-assessable pools, with amendments stripping certain sections from HB 1491. He answers questions on combining bills, noting complexity due to different regulatory frameworks (RBC for insurance vs. 5B statutes).
SB661
Oppose03:28:01.283 - 1:26:52 PM
Margaret Burns opposes SB 661 because it restricts the state to only one type of risk pool, favoring assessable models that create budget unpredictability. She argues the bill ignores non-assessable pools like Health Trust, which exist nationally and in NH, and limits member choice for cities, towns, schools, and counties to select stable or fluctuating models, or alternatives like self-insurance. She highlights a vague insolvency standard on page 6 that could trigger assessments unpredictably. She supports HB 1491 as a compromise with clearer, more rigorous regulations under insurance statutes, ensuring both pool types and expert input.
SB661
Oppose03:36:36.390 - 1:35:27 PM
Scott DeRoche and Jeannie Herrick strongly oppose SB 661, stating it would ban non-assessable pools like Health Trust by capping reserves at 20% (below national 34-38% average) and mandating assessments for solvency, leading to volatile budgets and surprise invoices. They cite past disruptions from low-reserve models in NH, where two pools depleted reserves and assessed members. Health Trust has maintained stability without assessments or unpaid claims using actuarial standards. They advocate for HB 1491's risk-based capital (RBC) system, used nationwide, with rate approvals and early intervention, which is more rigorous than current law or SB 661, preserving fixed-cost coverage for public sector entities.
SB661
Information Only03:42:11.162 - 1:41:02 PM
The speaker stated 'Okay, then. One more. It's all over again tomorrow.', indicating a procedural note about one additional item and the process resuming the next day.