Committee Summary for House Ways and Means (03/18/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB224 00:04:58.639 - 9:03:44 AM	Public Hearing	relative to rebates to ratepayers from the renewable energy fund.	Notter, Jeanine(R)[A]2024
HB224 01:22:04.080 - 10:20:50 AM	Public Hearing	relative to rebates to ratepayers from the renewable energy fund.	Notter, Jeanine(R)[A]2024
HB524 02:55:15.160 - 11:54:01 AM	Public Hearing	repealing the New Hampshire vaccine association.	Granger, Michael(R)[A+]2024
HB728 03:33:44.720 - 12:32:30 PM	Executive Session	authorizing video lottery terminals at charity gaming facilities and repealing historic horse racing licensing.	Doucette, Fred(R)[A-]2024
HB728 03:48:01.720 - 12:46:47 PM	General Working Session	authorizing video lottery terminals at charity gaming facilities and repealing historic horse racing licensing.	Doucette, Fred(R)[A-]2024

HB224: Representative Ner Support00:04:58.639 - 9:03:44 AM; Representative Ner introduced House Bill 224, aimed at lowering energy costs in New Hampshire. The bill proposes rebating most of the renewable energy fund back to rate payers, which could save between $2.5 and $7.3 million annually. The necessity of the bill was highlighted by recent rate hikes by the New Hampshire Electric Co-op. The representative also mentioned that rebating funds is not a new concept, referencing the successful rebating from the regional greenhouse gas initiative over the past 13 years. The bill has been amended to exempt administration costs and funding for the Office of Energy Innovation, focusing on rebating the money back to rate payers to lower energy costs.
HB224: Representative Shamberg Information Only00:06:51.960 - 9:05:37 AM; Representative Shamberg asked if rebating the renewable energy fund back to rate payers could set a dangerous precedent by potentially undermining confidence in dedicated funds for energy solutions. Representative Ner responded that it does not.
HB224: Representative Elberger Information Only00:08:14.319 - 9:07:00 AM; Representative Elberger raised concerns about the impact of international tariffs on energy prices, noting New Hampshire's reliance on Canada for gas and diesel. He questioned what would happen if renewable resources are not ready to replace these imports, to which the response was that New Hampshire should develop its own energy supply to avoid reliance on other countries.
HB224: Representative Ford Information Only00:09:03.240 - 9:07:49 AM; Representative Ford expressed concerns about the relevance of international energy reliance to the discussion at hand, suggesting that the topic was a tangent. They also mentioned that Representative Elme's light was on, indicating a potential question or comment, but it was clarified that no question was forthcoming.
HB224: Representative Elme Support00:09:54.399 - 9:08:40 AM; Representative Elme discussed the original purpose of a fund related to HB224, which was to incentivize and increase the use of alternative and renewable energy in New Hampshire. They noted that the fund's inactivity was due to decisions by the Public Utilities Commission and the Department of Energy, not due to a lack of need. They also questioned the fiscal impact of the bill, suggesting that the savings might be minimal but emphasized the importance of returning money to taxpayers, drawing a comparison to previous actions with Reggie.
HB224: Representative YY Information Only00:11:56.399 - 9:10:42 AM; Representative YY engaged in a discussion about the national energy scene and the impact of the fund on New Hampshire taxpayers. They questioned the effectiveness of the fund, which has not been used for its intended purpose for several years, and expressed skepticism about subsidies. They also compared the situation to previous arguments about Reggie, highlighting the cumulative effect of small taxes.
HB224: Representative Aly Information Only00:13:37.920 - 9:12:23 AM; Representative Aly inquired about the potential savings for taxpayers if the bill were to pass, suggesting that the decrease in energy costs might be small but significant in preventing future increases. They also asked about the variability in the impact to ratepayers, which was estimated to be between 2.5 to 7.3 million dollars annually.
HB224: Representative UL Information Only00:15:10.320 - 9:13:56 AM; Representative UL requested clarification on whether the fiscal note could be revised to reflect a more accurate estimate of the money that would be distributed to taxpayers, questioning whether the amount would be noticeable.
HB224: Representative Opal Information Only00:15:10.320 - 9:13:56 AM; Representative Opal asked Representative N about their awareness of the number of people affected by the bill, indicating a focus on understanding the broader impact of the legislation.
HB224: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:16:15.720 - 9:15:01 AM; The speaker discusses the employment impact of renewable energy projects in New Hampshire, mentioning that 3,500 people, mostly master electricians, are employed in these projects. They express concern about the financial impact on business profits tax and municipalities if these projects are stopped, suggesting that the projects are funded by taking money from people, similar to a personal request for funds for a new roof.
HB224: Representative Cat McGee Oppose00:17:14.679 - 9:16:00 AM; Representative Cat McGee, the ranking member on the House Science, Technology, and Energy Committee, opposes HB224. She explains that the bill seeks to eliminate a successful renewable energy fund program, which would return funding to electric utility customer bills. McGee highlights the benefits of the fund, including energy resilience, reduced emissions, increased investment, and energy independence, all of which circulate dollars within the New Hampshire economy. She criticizes the bill's fiscal note for being one-sided and not capturing the loss of renewable energy investments. McGee also discusses the financial implications, suggesting that the average yearly contribution to ratepayers would be less than $10 per year, which she argues is not significant enough to justify eliminating the fund. She emphasizes the program's success, noting that it has a waitlist and has supported nearly 10,000 projects across the state, leveraging private investment.
HB224: Representative J Information Only00:28:49.760 - 9:27:35 AM; Representative J responds to a question about the constitutionality of the renewable energy fund program in relation to Article 83 of the New Hampshire Constitution, which protects free and fair competition. They argue that the program encourages behavior with a minimal 10% incentive to leverage private dollars, aiming to keep energy costs low and promote energy independence. They suggest that all forms of energy receive some form of subsidy, questioning the notion of constitutionality in this context.
HB224: Representative Shamber Information Only00:31:39.200 - 9:30:25 AM; Representative Shamber asks about the inclusion of private and commercial ratepayers in the 540,000 electric rate payers and whether the Attorney General's office has provided a legal statement on the program being a monopoly. The response indicates uncertainty about the inclusion of commercial and industrial ratepayers and asserts that investments in renewable energy projects do not constitute a monopoly.
HB224: Meg Stone Information Only00:32:53.279 - 9:31:39 AM; Meg Stone, a legislative liaison with the Department of Energy, provides a neutral stance on HB224 but highlights areas needing clarification. She explains the renewable energy fund's funding mechanism through alternative compliance payments and its use in supporting various renewable energy initiatives. Stone notes that the bill removes the ability to fund rebate and grant programs and adds a requirement to rebate excess funds to electric ratepayers. She points out ambiguities in the bill's language regarding the continuation of incentive programs and the definition of 'excess' funds. Additionally, she confirms that the governor's budget has tapped into the fund to balance the state budget, mentioning a withdrawal of $10 million.
HB224: Timothy Horan, Durham Oppose00:39:45.240 - 9:38:31 AM; Timothy Horan from Durham, Strafford County District 10, expressed opposition to HB224. He highlighted his involvement in environmental activism, particularly against fossil fuel infrastructure, referencing his family's role in the Olympic oil refinery battle and the subsequent formation of the Cro Anti-Pollution League. Horan criticized the bill for favoring fossil fuels and nuclear power while cutting funding for offshore wind and solar energy, which he believes have fewer external costs. He argued that the bill's policy and numbers do not work in favor of sustainable energy solutions.
HB224: Greg Moore, Americans for Prosperity Support00:41:59.359 - 9:40:45 AM; Greg Moore, a regional director for Americans for Prosperity, spoke in support of HB224. He emphasized the need to consider the broader legislative context, mentioning three other bills that impact the renewable energy fund: one that disables the office of offshore wind, another that moves $10 million from the renewable energy fund to the general fund, and a third that phases out the renewable portfolio standard. Moore argued that these changes make the renewable energy fund unnecessary and suggested that the committee should consider these factors in their decision-making process.
HB224: Heidi Croll, Granite State Hydro Power Association Oppose00:44:56.040 - 9:43:42 AM; Heidi Croll, representing the Granite State Hydro Power Association, opposed HB224. She explained the purpose and function of the renewable energy fund, which is funded by alternative compliance payments and intended to increase renewable energy supply and lower compliance costs. Croll argued that diverting funds from the renewable energy fund disrupts its self-correcting mechanism, which leverages private investment and helps reduce the cost of renewable energy certificates. She provided calculations showing the minimal impact of refunding $5 million from the fund on electricity bills and emphasized the fund's role in boosting the state's economy and promoting energy independence.
HB224: Nick Kof, Conservation Law Foundation, Concord Oppose00:51:48.359 - 9:50:34 AM; Nick Kof, a senior attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation based in Concord, testified against HB224. He argued that the bill would eliminate the renewable energy fund, resulting in trivial benefits for the average ratepayer. Kof cited calculations from the New Hampshire Department of Energy's annual report on the renewable energy fund, estimating that the average residential customer would receive a rebate of only 34 cents per month in 2023. He emphasized the fund's benefits to towns, municipalities, school districts, and low-income ratepayers, highlighting specific projects like those at New Hampshire Catholic Charities. Kof urged the committee to find the bill inexpedient to legislate (ITL).
HB224: Meredith Hatfield, The Nature Conservancy Oppose00:56:13.920 - 9:54:59 AM; Meredith Hatfield from The Nature Conservancy opposed HB224, emphasizing the importance of the renewable energy fund for energy resilience and independence. She referenced the Department of Energy's annual report on the fund, which details numerous funded projects. Hatfield argued that reducing the fund's ability to incentivize clean energy technologies would be irresponsible, especially given the volatile energy prices and the need to address climate change. She also addressed the constitutionality of the fund, stating it was carefully crafted 20 years ago in line with state energy laws. Hatfield suggested that raiding the fund would be an unconstitutional taking of dedicated ratepayer funds.
HB224: Sam Evans Brown, Clean Energy New Hampshire Oppose00:59:15.960 - 9:58:01 AM; Sam Evans Brown, executive director of Clean Energy New Hampshire, opposed HB224. He highlighted the benefits of the renewable energy fund, particularly for public entities that have used the grants to invest in heating infrastructure, reducing energy bills. Brown criticized the fiscal note of the bill for not capturing the savings to local and county governments from the fund. He calculated that the average ratepayer would only save 47 cents per month if the fund were rebated, arguing that the costs of losing the fund's benefits would be substantial. Brown also explained the market-based nature of the program and how rebating the funds would break the intended feedback loop, turning it into a tax.
HB224: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:05:41.599 - 10:04:27 AM; The speaker sought clarification on the bill's language regarding administrative costs, funding for the office of offshore wind industry and development, energy innovation, and incentive payments. They expressed concern about the clarity of the bill's impact and the process of interpreting incentive payments to avoid mistakes.
HB224: Department of Energy Representative Information Only01:06:58.119 - 10:05:44 AM; The representative from the Department of Energy noted the bill's language is unclear regarding its impact. They explained the typical process of setting an annual budget for incentives and rebates for the renewable energy fund. They highlighted that the bill's sponsor intended to empty the fund, but the language of the bill needs clarification to reflect this intent accurately.
HB224: Charlie Nebling, Boscawen, NH Support01:08:51.719 - 10:07:37 AM; Charlie Nebling, a professional forester from Boscawen, NH, spoke in support of the bill, emphasizing the benefits of wood as a renewable resource for heating applications. He discussed the economic benefits to New Hampshire from commercial and institutional wood heating and combined heat and power applications, which have been supported by the renewable energy fund. He corrected misinformation about a bill to repeal the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), stating that House Bill 219 was amended to perpetuate the RPS benefits.
HB224: Jason Stock, Executive Director, New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association Oppose01:15:38.159 - 10:14:24 AM; Jason Stock, representing the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, opposed the bill. He highlighted the importance of biomass and thermal projects for the forest products industry and the state's economy. He mentioned the economic analysis done by Plymouth State University and the role of the renewable energy fund in supporting biomass projects. He expressed concern that defunding the renewable energy fund would negatively impact the operations of the law and urged the Department of Energy to expend the funds given the program's oversubscription.
HB224: Representative Granger, Laura Condon Support01:22:04.080 - 10:20:50 AM; Representative Granger introduced the bill, emphasizing the importance of free and fair competition in trades and industries, and highlighted the state-sanctioned monopoly of the Vaccine Association on the purchase of childhood vaccines. He mentioned that the bill focuses on how vaccines are paid for and introduced Laura Condon, who has extensive data on the topic. Laura Condon, from Bedford, New Hampshire, supported the bill, arguing that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) should not be involved in buying and selling vaccines for commercially insured children. She believes that private businesses can handle this more cost-effectively, especially during budget crises. Condon provided detailed data and examples to argue that the Vaccine Association's claimed savings are exaggerated and that the program's administrative costs are high, ultimately increasing the cost of health insurance for New Hampshire consumers. She also addressed claims about the impact on vaccine availability and costs, asserting that the bill would not affect vaccination policy or availability but would save money and increase efficiency.
HB224: Representative Shamberg Information Only01:31:56.920 - 10:30:42 AM; Representative Shamberg questioned the financial impact of the bill, citing a claim by the New Hampshire Insurance Department that removing the vaccine program could cost families an additional $7.5 million. He asked if the bill was an appropriate way to encourage vaccination by potentially increasing costs for medical facilities. Laura Condon responded by clarifying that the fiscal note did not mention the $7.5 million figure and explained that vaccine providers purchase vaccines at significant discounts, and the cost changes are negotiated between providers and insurers, not directly linked to premiums. She emphasized that the bill does not change vaccination policy and that vaccines would still be available through private purchases as in other states.
HB224: Representative Timothy Horan, Strafford County District 10 Oppose01:37:54.199 - 10:36:40 AM; Representative Horan expressed opposition to the bill, defending the Vaccine Association established in 2002 as a partnership between the Commission of Insurance, the Department of Health and Human Services, and private entities. He argued that the program has been efficient and beneficial for 23 years, questioning the proponents' intentions and the feasibility of private sector handling. Horan criticized the policy behind the bill, suggesting it would cost taxpayers more in the medium term and that the numbers supporting the bill do not make sense due to flawed policy. He advocated for maintaining the Vaccine Association, describing it as a quasi non-governmental organization that has been effective and overseen by the government.
HB224: Representative Susan Aly, City of Lebanon Information Only01:41:32.239 - 10:40:18 AM; Representative Susan Aly spoke on behalf of a constituent who is part of a 5,000-doctor pediatrician practice within Dartmouth Health, located near and working in Lebanon, New Hampshire. The constituent conducted a deep dive into the financial data using Prevnar 20 as an example, which is a vaccine for strep pneumonia. This testimony was intended to provide detailed financial analysis related to the impact of the bill on vaccine purchasing and costs.
HB224: Unknown Speaker, Dartmouth Hitchcock practice in Lebanon Oppose01:42:31.440 - 10:41:17 AM; The speaker discussed the impact of the potential changes to the New Hampshire Vaccine Association on vaccine administration. They highlighted that in 2024, their practice administered 1,076 Prevnar 20 vaccines, with 75% of patients being commercially insured. They noted that the state previously provided these vaccines at no cost, but the current system allows the state to purchase vaccines at a wholesale cost, which is significantly lower than the commercial cost. The speaker expressed concern that if the association were abolished, practices would face a huge financial strain due to the need to pay in advance for vaccines at commercial rates, which could lead to increased costs and complexity for both practices and families. They also mentioned the potential for some practices to be unable to offer vaccines due to the financial burden.
HB224: Unknown Speaker Oppose01:44:03.040 - 10:42:49 AM; The speaker continued discussing the financial implications of the potential changes to the vaccine association, emphasizing the significant discounts provided by the CDC for vaccines. They highlighted the financial strain on practices due to the need to pay in advance for vaccines at commercial rates, which could lead to increased costs and complexity for both practices and families. They also mentioned the potential for some practices to be unable to offer vaccines due to the financial burden.
HB224: Unknown Speaker Oppose01:44:50.520 - 10:43:36 AM; The speaker further elaborated on the financial implications of the potential changes to the vaccine association, emphasizing the significant discounts provided by the CDC for vaccines. They highlighted the financial strain on practices due to the need to pay in advance for vaccines at commercial rates, which could lead to increased costs and complexity for both practices and families. They also mentioned the potential for some practices to be unable to offer vaccines due to the financial burden.
HB224: Unknown Speaker Oppose01:46:04.360 - 10:44:50 AM; The speaker concluded their testimony by emphasizing the potential negative impacts of the bill on families and practices, including increased costs, complexity, and burden. They also mentioned the potential for some practices to be unable to offer vaccines due to the financial burden.
HB224: Representative Murphy, representing two rural towns Oppose01:47:35.280 - 10:46:21 AM; Representative Murphy expressed opposition to the bill due to feedback from doctors and constituents in their rural towns. They highlighted the concern that the elimination of the association would force practices to negotiate multiple contracts with pharmaceutical companies, increasing overhead and potentially leading to increased healthcare costs for patients.
HB224: Patrick Miller, Executive Director, New Hampshire Vaccine Association Oppose01:49:18.599 - 10:48:04 AM; Patrick Miller, the Executive Director of the New Hampshire Vaccine Association, opposed House Bill 524. He explained the association's role in ensuring stable and equitable contributions from health insurers to the state's childhood vaccine purchase program. He highlighted the program's efficiency, the significant savings it provides, and the potential negative impacts of the bill on providers, payers, employers, and the state. He emphasized that the association's elimination would lead to increased healthcare costs and premiums, and provided detailed financial data to support his argument.
HB224: Andrew Hosmer, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Oppose01:58:54.880 - 10:57:40 AM; Andrew Hosmer, representing Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, the state's largest nonprofit health insurer, spoke in opposition to the bill. He highlighted the integral role of the New Hampshire Vaccine Association in the state's healthcare fabric, expressing concerns about the potential abolition of the association. He noted that vaccines purchased through the association benefit from discounted CDC rates, which are significantly lower than commercial rates. The potential increase in costs to providers, if they had to purchase vaccines directly, could lead to higher claims costs passed onto members of Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare. He referenced a publication from the New Hampshire Insurance Department, emphasizing the collaborative effort that has kept health insurance premiums low in the state, attributing part of this success to the Vaccine Association's cost-saving mechanism.
HB224: Dr. Christine R. Snow, Conquer Pediatrics Oppose02:02:15.199 - 11:01:01 AM; Dr. Christine R. Snow, a primary care pediatrician from Conquer Pediatrics in Concord, spoke against the bill, emphasizing its negative impact on small private practices. She detailed the financial implications, showing a significant cost difference between vaccines purchased through the state versus a private vendor. For their practice, the cost for vaccines in January would increase from approximately $33,000 to $86,000 if purchased privately, a $26,000 increase for one month. She also highlighted the unavailability of certain vaccines at private vendors, which could disrupt their supply. Dr. Snow expressed concerns about the bill's 60-day implementation period, stating it would be impossible for their practice to secure the necessary funds to purchase vaccines at the higher rate. She discussed the complexity of negotiating with insurance companies and the potential increase in premiums, which would further strain small businesses like theirs.
HB224: Tom Elbushies, Conquer Pediatrics Oppose02:03:15.599 - 11:02:01 AM; Tom Elbushies, also from Conquer Pediatrics in Concord, supported Dr. Snow's opposition to the bill. He shared the practice's history and its commitment to remaining independent, serving 5,000 patients. He reiterated the financial burden the bill would impose, using the January vaccine order as an example of the cost increase. He also mentioned the complexity of insurance negotiations and the potential for increased premiums, which would affect their practice's financial stability.
HB224: Gwendelyn Gladstone, Retired Pediatrician, Exeter Oppose02:13:05.639 - 11:11:51 AM; Gwendelyn Gladstone, a retired pediatrician from Exeter, shared her historical perspective on vaccine administration before the current system was in place. She argued that the proposed changes would create significant barriers for small practices, leading to delayed vaccinations for children. She highlighted the potential for outbreaks, referencing the current situation in Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, and emphasized the fiscal impact on the state due to increased demands on the Department of Health and Human Services.
HB224: Kermit Brunell, Pediatrician, Bedford Oppose02:14:51.400 - 11:13:37 AM; Kermit Brunell, a pediatrician who practiced in Bedford, discussed the financial implications of the bill on patients and parents. He explained that without the current system, patients would need to visit county health departments for vaccinations, increasing costs and potentially delaying vaccinations. He questioned who would benefit from the bill's passage, suggesting it would not be insurance companies, providers, or the state, but rather increase costs for counties and consumers. He also provided detailed cost analysis of vaccines and the financial burden on pediatric practices.
HB224: Angela Bole, New Hampshire Nurse Practitioners Association, Peterborough Oppose02:20:38.200 - 11:19:24 AM; Angela Bole, representing the New Hampshire Nurse Practitioners Association from Peterborough, emphasized the critical role of nurse practitioners in primary care and their reliance on the vaccine association. She highlighted the potential negative impact on small businesses and the increased burden of costs for storing vaccines. She argued that without the association, the vaccine chain would be jeopardized, affecting primary prevention and care access, and urged the committee to move to an inexpedient to legislate.
HB224: Representative, Mar Hook Support02:25:09.160 - 11:23:55 AM; The representative from Mar Hook argued in favor of the bill, focusing on the financial aspects. They claimed that the majority of states without similar vaccine associations do not experience significant differences in vaccination rates or health insurance premiums. They criticized the New Hampshire Vaccine Association for potential conflicts of interest and inefficiencies in fund management, suggesting that the state could manage without it.
HB224: Dr. Alexandra DeBlasio Bonoso, Pediatrician, Hampton Falls Oppose02:29:00.040 - 11:27:46 AM; Dr. Alexandra DeBlasio Bonoso, a pediatrician from Hampton Falls, strongly opposed the bill, emphasizing that it would not reduce the tax burden but would make vaccinations more expensive and harder to access. She highlighted the benefits of the current system, including no cost to families and the ability to tap into federal buying power. She focused on the impact on families with fluctuating incomes and the potential health and financial burdens of expensive vaccines like the RSV vaccine.
HB224: Martha Gilman, Dual Certified Family Physician and Osteopathic Manipulative Specialist Oppose02:33:11.120 - 11:31:57 AM; Martha Gilman, a dual certified family physician and osteopathic manipulative specialist, discussed the impact of the bill on direct primary care practices. She mentioned a specific practice in Hooksett that relies on the New Hampshire Vaccine Association to provide vaccines to other offices. She also pointed out that children under three years old cannot get vaccinations at pharmacies, emphasizing the importance of the current system for this vulnerable population.
HB224: Carlen Frier, New Hampshire Nurses Association Oppose02:34:51.439 - 11:33:37 AM; Carlen Frier, representing the New Hampshire Nurses Association, opposed HB224. She highlighted the financial and administrative implications of eliminating the vaccine program, emphasizing the cost-effectiveness of the current system. She noted that the program allows for bulk purchasing from the CDC at a 29.9% discount, which benefits all children regardless of insurance status. Frier also discussed the impracticality of clinicians having to manage vaccine coverage and costs during short visits, and the additional administrative burden that would result from the bill's passage.
HB224: Amy Watson, Pediatrician, Private Practice Owner in Concord Oppose02:38:19.840 - 11:37:05 AM; Dr. Amy Watson, a pediatrician from Concord, strongly opposed HB224, warning of its devastating financial impact on private medical practices and families. She clarified that dismantling the New Hampshire Vaccine Association (NHA) would not save the state money, as the New Hampshire immunization program's budget is covered by federal grants from the CDC. Watson also highlighted that the bill would lead to increased costs for families through higher insurance premiums and potential administration fees for vaccines. She stressed the administrative and financial burdens that would be placed on practices, especially smaller ones, potentially forcing closures and limiting healthcare choices for families.
HB224: Nick Penovich, Retired General Surgeon Oppose02:43:34.200 - 11:42:20 AM; Nick Penovich, a retired general surgeon, opposed HB224, drawing historical parallels to emphasize the importance of vaccination programs. He referenced historical events, such as the smallpox epidemic in Boston and the Revolutionary War, to argue that vaccination efforts, while not always cost-effective in the short term, are crucial for public health and success in crises. He expressed concern over the potential closure of small practices and the lack of cost savings for the state government if the bill were to pass.
HB224: Chris Kennedy, Centene and Better Health Plans Oppose02:47:33.120 - 11:46:19 AM; Chris Kennedy from Centene and Better Health Plans opposed HB224, emphasizing the benefits of the New Hampshire Vaccine Association for insurers, consumers, and providers. He highlighted the cost-effectiveness and access to important medicines provided by the association, particularly for children on Medicaid. Kennedy noted the administrative cost savings and the rarity of unanimous agreement between the commercial insurance industry and the provider community on this issue, urging the committee to recognize the value of the current system.
HB224: Sabrina Dunlap, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield Oppose02:51:38.760 - 11:50:24 AM; Sabrina Dunlap from Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield opposed HB224, focusing on the stability and predictability the vaccine association provides for childhood vaccine pricing. She argued that the bill would disrupt these benefits, leading to higher vaccine costs and premiums for members and employers across all markets. Dunlap stressed the long-standing effectiveness of the current system and the lack of any upside to its disruption, hoping for the continuation of the vaccine association's function.
HB524: Kathy Stratton, New Hampshire Medical Society Oppose02:55:15.160 - 11:54:01 AM; Kathy Stratton, CEO of the New Hampshire Medical Society, testified in opposition to HB524. Representing over 2,000 physicians in New Hampshire, she highlighted the negative economic impact the bill would have on healthcare in the state. She emphasized the success of the current funding and administrative model through the New Hampshire Vaccine Association, which allows for bulk purchasing of vaccines at a 30% discount. Eliminating this association would increase costs by an estimated $14 million over 18 years. She also mentioned the increased administrative costs and inefficiencies that would result from the proposed changes. Stratton concluded by expressing concern over the impact on workforce challenges and the potential discouragement of younger medical professionals from pursuing careers in primary care and pediatrics.
HB524: Lacy, Auburn Oppose02:59:00.000 - 11:57:46 AM; Lacy, a native of Auburn, New Hampshire, spoke against HB524 as a resident and taxpayer. She expressed frustration over the proposal to eliminate a program that she believes is beneficial and necessary for New Hampshire families. She argued that the program, which provides vaccine availability, should not be handed over to pharmaceutical companies, as it could lead to increased costs and reduced state control over healthcare programs.
HB524: Louise Spencer, Concord Oppose03:01:18.319 - 12:00:04 PM; Louise Spencer from Concord, representing herself and the Ken Street Coalition, opposed HB524. She emphasized the public's attention and understanding of the bill's implications, challenging the dismissal of public opposition as uninformed. Spencer highlighted the significant public opposition to the bill, as evidenced by numbers on a website, and stressed the importance of public voices in legislative decisions. She underscored the coalition's role in educating the public and facilitating action on healthcare issues.
HB524: Abby Rogers, Division of Public Health Services; Colleen Smith, Bureau of Infectious Disease Control Oppose03:04:05.080 - 12:02:51 PM; Abby Rogers, legislative liaison for the Division of Public Health Services, and Colleen Smith, bureau chief for the Bureau of Infectious Disease Control, opposed HB524. They argued that the bill would disrupt a successful partnership that has served New Hampshire families for over 20 years. They highlighted the fiscal impact, including increased costs due to the loss of bulk purchasing power and the need for an appropriation to prepare for public health emergencies. They also discussed the logistical challenges and educational needs for providers if the bill were to pass. Rogers and Smith concluded by expressing concerns over reduced vaccine accessibility and increased risks to children's health.
HB524: Representative Y Information Only03:10:50.760 - 12:09:36 PM; Representative Y discussed personal experiences with polio vaccines and questioned the operational costs and implications of the bill on state operations. They highlighted the need for clarity on the financial impact of the bill, including personnel and negotiation costs.
HB524: Colleen Smith, Bureau of Infectious Disease Control Information Only03:12:00.640 - 12:10:46 PM; Colleen Smith explained the overlap between the federal Vaccine for Children program and the state's operations. She noted that there is no elimination of positions even if the relationship with the New Hampshire Vaccine Association changes, as the same staff handle both programs. She also mentioned the potential need to streamline functions if the federal grant were to be removed.
HB524: Colleen Smith, Bureau of Infectious Disease Control Information Only03:14:00.840 - 12:12:46 PM; Colleen Smith further clarified the operational details, stating that the same person handles orders for both insured and uninsured children, emphasizing that it is not additional work but the same work handled by the same personnel. She also addressed the handling of vaccine orders and the role of the New Hampshire Vaccine Association in immunization practices.
HB524: Colleen Smith, Bureau of Infectious Disease Control Information Only03:15:08.560 - 12:13:54 PM; Colleen Smith clarified that none of the vaccinations, including those for COVID-19, are mandated under the New Hampshire Vaccine Association program. They are optional and not required for school or childcare entry. She also addressed the efficiency and effectiveness of the current operations compared to having two separate programs.
HB524: Douglas Failen, President of the New Hampshire Academy of Family Physicians and DMC Primary Care Oppose03:18:31.040 - 12:17:17 PM; Douglas Failen spoke in opposition to HB524. He highlighted the concept of vaccines as a public good and criticized the bill for attempting to solve a non-existent problem without a replacement plan. He discussed the financial efficiency of the New Hampshire Vaccine Association, noting its low operating expenses. He also pointed out the potential disruption to primary care offices if the responsibilities of NHA were shifted to them, and questioned the motives and arguments of the bill's proponents, including concerns about transparency and the use of scientific studies.
HB728: Representative Ulery Vote03:33:44.720 - 12:32:30 PM; Representative Ulery moved to retain HB728, citing the need for flexibility in dealing with upcoming budget and policy changes. The motion was seconded by another representative.
HB728: Representative Elme Information Only03:34:57.359 - 12:33:43 PM; Representative Elme discussed an amendment they proposed, which includes a plan for a problem gaming program, as the original bill lacked specifics on what the program would entail.
HB728: Representative Ames Support03:36:25.479 - 12:35:11 PM; Representative Ames supports the motion to retain the bill and agrees with the amendment discussed by Representative Aly. He highlights the importance of the amendment's provisions related to the matter at hand and anticipates further discussions with the finance committee and the Senate to address the video lottery terminal question.
HB728: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:37:14.760 - 12:36:00 PM; The speaker discusses the amendment's aspect of directing all state revenue from video lottery terminals, after expenses, to the education trust fund. They explain the constitutional requirement that mandates state lottery funds must support public schools and justify the amendment's small change in allocation to adhere to this requirement.
HB728: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:38:08.560 - 12:36:54 PM; The speaker continues to discuss the amendment, emphasizing its alignment with the constitutional mandate for lottery funds to support public schools. They mention that the money not allocated to charities or expenses, including problem gambling outlays, is traditionally directed to the education trust fund and anticipate further discussion on this allocation during the budget process.
HB728: Representative Opal Information Only03:39:43.760 - 12:38:29 PM; Representative Opal seeks clarification on the rules regarding a committee's decision to retain a bill. He inquires if retaining the bill means it won't be brought to the floor until the next year or if there's an opportunity to revisit it later in the current legislative session. The response explains that the bill would be reconsidered in the fall, and a decision would be made whether to move it forward to the full house.
HB728: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:41:05.720 - 12:39:51 PM; The speaker suggested that both sides should discuss the problem gaming plan, which is a significant part of the amendment, with the finance committee. They also mentioned the constitutional issues regarding the use of video lottery terminal funds, which are intended for education rather than other uses like division two retirement.
HB728: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:42:00.680 - 12:40:46 PM; The speaker discussed the historical context of the law related to the lottery commission and its original intent to fund public education. They also mentioned Senator Langan's suggestion about reducing the state's share to 32.5% to encourage casino developers to expand their facilities.
HB728: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:42:57.960 - 12:41:43 PM; The speaker expressed skepticism about casino developers expanding their facilities into palaces if the state's share was reduced, citing business decisions based on clientele and potential profits.
HB728: Representative YY Information Only03:43:49.120 - 12:42:35 PM; Representative YY discussed the complexity of the bill and the need to retain it to see how it fits into the broader budget. They suggested that retaining the bill would allow the House to take a position on problem gaming and the percentages involved, which could be lost in floor discussions.
HB728: Representative Alme Information Only03:45:04.199 - 12:43:50 PM; Representative Alme agreed with retaining the bill and planned to present the case to the Democrats in the finance committee. They hoped that useful parts would also be presented to the Republicans to avoid last-minute changes to the agreed percentages with developers.
HB728: Representative VI Information Only03:45:49.720 - 12:44:35 PM; Representative VI mostly agreed with Representative Alme's points but highlighted the need to navigate political situations. They acknowledged the influence both sides could have on their respective parties.
HB728: Clerk Information Only03:47:08.840 - 12:45:54 PM; The clerk called the roll for the vote on House Bill 728, which resulted in a unanimous decision to retain the bill with a vote of 20 to 0.
HB728: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:48:01.720 - 12:46:47 PM; The speaker announced a committee meeting scheduled for Tuesday the 25th to discuss two new bills, HB302 and HB696, which will be subjected to a public hearing. The meeting will also consider whether to expedite these bills or others already before the committee. The deadline for acting on HB728 was mentioned as March 20th, which necessitated the executive session held earlier. Further deadlines for other bills were discussed, including a need to report all remaining bills by April 3rd.
HB728: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:49:03.159 - 12:47:49 PM; The speaker continued discussing the scheduling of committee meetings, confirming a meeting on Tuesday the 25th and another on the following Tuesday, March 31st. There was confusion about deadlines for reporting bills, particularly those in second committees, and it was clarified that the committee had met the deadline for first committee bills and was now focusing on second committee bills.
HB728: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:50:17.640 - 12:49:03 PM; The speaker provided updates on upcoming committee meetings, confirming the schedule and discussing the deadlines for reporting bills. They also mentioned the necessity of addressing second committee bills by April 3rd.
HB728: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:51:20.840 - 12:50:06 PM; The speaker continued to discuss the deadlines and the committee's schedule, emphasizing the need to address second committee bills by the upcoming deadlines. They confirmed the meeting schedule for the following weeks.
HB728: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:52:26.399 - 12:51:12 PM; The speaker mentioned a meeting scheduled for Tuesday the 25th and another for Tuesday the 1st, and briefly discussed the arrival of Democrats on Monday the 1st. They also touched on new information regarding lottery revenue estimates, which had increased from 172.5 million to a conservative estimate of 185 million, as reported by Director McIntyre.
HB728: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:53:14.640 - 12:52:00 PM; The speaker discussed the revised lottery revenue estimates, which had increased to 185 million from the previously reported 172.5 million. They sought a straw poll from the committee on whether to inform the finance committee of this new figure, emphasizing that the increase was due to higher-than-expected HHR revenue.
HB728: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:57:40.680 - 12:56:26 PM; The speaker continued the discussion on the lottery revenue estimates, confirming the majority support for informing the finance committee of the revised figure of 185 million. There was a concern raised about the timing and whether to formally present this change to the house before the finance committee could use the new amount.
HB728: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:58:52.800 - 12:57:38 PM; The speaker clarified the reasons behind the revised lottery revenue estimates, noting that the increase was due to the HHR component, which had risen from 20 million to an estimated 35 million. They mentioned that the governor's office had been informed of the 185 million figure, making it less urgent to rush the change through the house.
HB728: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:00:07.120 - 12:58:53 PM; The speaker expressed caution about adopting the new lottery revenue figure too quickly, suggesting waiting a few weeks or a month to confirm whether the increase was sustained or an anomaly. They emphasized the importance of ensuring the budget was based on accurate, long-term projections.
HB728: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:00:54.399 - 12:59:40 PM; The speaker supported the idea of waiting to confirm the sustainability of the increased lottery revenue, noting that rushing to change the budget could lead to unnecessary cuts that might be reversed by the Senate upon discovering additional funds. They shared personal observations of increased activity at the source of the HHR revenue, suggesting the increase might be durable.

Janigian, John(Chairman)(R)[B+]2024	Ohm, Bill(Clerk)(R)[B]2018	Ulery, Jordan(V Chairman)(R)[A-]2024
Almy, Susan(D)[CT]2024	Oppel, Thomas(D)	Smith, Steven(R)[B+]2024
Malloy, Dennis(D)[CT]2024	Schamberg, Thomas(D)[CT]2024	Southworth, Thomas(D)[CT]2024
Tierney, James(R)[B-]2024	Cole, Brian(R)[B-]2024	Aures, Cyril(R)[A]2024
Bolton, Bill(D)[CT]2024	Elberger, Susan(D)[D-]2024	Smith, Geoffrey(D)[D-]2024
Soti, Julius(R)[A+]2024	Spahr, Terry(D)	Bryer, Scott(R)
Murphy, Mary(R)	Ford, Mary(R)