Committee Summary for Senate Health and Human Services (04/09/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB70 2024-1453h 00:02:06.399 - 8:45:43 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the use of electronic medical records.	Nagel, David(R)[B-]2024
HB679 00:30:00.399 - 9:13:37 AM	Public Hearing	relative to immunization requirements.	Potenza, Kelley(R)[A]2024
HB357 01:55:43.599 - 10:39:20 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the department of health and human services' rulemaking authority regarding immunization requirements.	Kofalt, Jim(R)[A+]2024
HB358 02:51:07.920 - 11:34:44 AM	Public Hearing	relative to exemption from immunization requirements on the basis of religious belief.	Kofalt, Jim(R)[A+]2024
HB597 03:51:25.120 - 12:35:02 PM	Public Hearing	establishing a designated behavioral health access point within the enhanced 911 system.	Boyd, Bill(R)[B]2024
HB597 04:00:37.319 - 12:44:14 PM	Executive Session	establishing a designated behavioral health access point within the enhanced 911 system.	Boyd, Bill(R)[B]2024
HB731 04:02:16.880 - 12:45:53 PM	Public Hearing	relative to supportive housing options for individuals with developmental disabilities.	LaMontagne, Jessica(D)[CT]2024
HB455 04:33:42.799 - 1:17:19 PM	Public Hearing	relative to reports by the department of health and human services regarding Medicaid enhancement for children and pregnant women.	Edwards, Jess(R)[B+]2024
HB455 04:34:48.799 - 1:18:25 PM	Executive Session	relative to reports by the department of health and human services regarding Medicaid enhancement for children and pregnant women.	Edwards, Jess(R)[B+]2024
HB94 04:37:26.080 - 1:21:03 PM	Public Hearing	relative to coverage of circumcision under the state Medicaid plan.	Soti, Julius(R)[A+]2024
HB94 05:23:48.878 - 2:07:25 PM	Executive Session	relative to coverage of circumcision under the state Medicaid plan.	Soti, Julius(R)[A+]2024

HB70 2024-1453h: Representative Nagel, Belknap County District 6 Support00:02:06.399 - 8:45:43 AM; Representative Nagel introduced HB70, emphasizing his opposition to electronic medical records (EMRs) due to their cost and impact on private practice. He shared personal experiences and statistics to illustrate the inefficiencies and high costs associated with EMRs, such as a $1 million upfront cost for Lakes Region Mental Health. He argued that EMRs do not facilitate communication between providers as intended and instead focus on billing and data collection. Nagel also mentioned receiving standing ovations when suggesting the disposal of EMRs, indicating widespread dissatisfaction among healthcare professionals. He proposed an amendment to HB70 to define EMRs and prevent their mandatory use, allowing providers to opt-out without penalty and to submit prior authorization requests without an EMR. He also stressed the importance of preserving private practice and the doctor-patient relationship, which he believes is threatened by the current EMR system.
HB70 2024-1453h: Sabrina Dunlap, Senior Director of Government Relations for Anthem Oppose00:23:00.480 - 9:06:37 AM; Sabrina Dunlap expressed Anthem's opposition to HB70, stating that it is a solution in search of a problem and moves New Hampshire in the wrong direction. She highlighted that the shift to EMRs was led by CMS, not insurance companies, and emphasized the need for proper use of EMRs when already in place. Dunlap pointed out that the bill restricts how EMRs can be used in situations where they are already implemented, such as limiting the data that can be required. She argued that if the intent is to reverse the use of EMRs, the bill does not achieve this and instead hampers basic functions with providers. She suggested changing the effective date to November 1 if the bill were to move forward.
HB70 2024-1453h: Cam Leine, Orin Reno, representing Sigma Oppose00:27:04.080 - 9:10:41 AM; Cam Leine reiterated the points made by Sabrina Dunlap from Anthem, emphasizing their opposition to HB70. He mentioned not having seen the proposed amendment but stated that based on the verbal description, it does not address their concerns regarding the bill.
HB679: Representative Kelly Patenza, Strafford District 19 Support00:30:00.399 - 9:13:37 AM; Representative Patenza introduced HB679, which aims to remove state-mandated vaccines from the childhood schedule that do not prevent transmission, arguing that such vaccines should be a personal protective decision rather than a mandate. She listed polio, hib, and DTAP as vaccines that do not provide community benefits through reduced transmission. Patenza highlighted ethical concerns about mandating medical interventions without direct community benefits, potential side effects, and the importance of parental choice in medical decisions for their children. She emphasized that the bill would not impact how providers recommend vaccines, as they follow the CDC schedule, and noted that New Hampshire law currently mandates nine vaccines for school attendance, with exemptions available.
HB679: Representative Yearly Pol, representing Milford and Mont Vernon Support00:38:17.079 - 9:21:54 AM; Representative Pol supported HB679, stating that the bill was reviewed by the House Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs Committee and found to be good policy. He argued that public immunization should be based on transmission and public good, and previous challenges to vaccine mandates were based on whether vaccines prevent transmission. He did not provide further details on his stance in the transcript provided.
HB679: Unnamed Speaker Support00:39:24.160 - 9:23:01 AM; The speaker argues in favor of HB679, stating that passing the bill would put New Hampshire in a better legal situation. They address concerns about potential decreases in vaccination rates and mention a case of a child dying from measles in Texas, clarifying that the bill does not address measles vaccines but focuses on vaccines that do not stop transmission. They emphasize the importance of basing decisions on science and transmission data.
HB679: Jerry Kerk, Retired Orthopedic Spine Surgeon and Retired State Representative Oppose00:41:54.400 - 9:25:31 AM; Jerry Kerk expresses opposition to HB679, highlighting the potential negative impact on vaccine-preventable diseases. He discusses the ambiguity in the bill's language regarding 'prevent transmission' and its implications. Kerk shares personal experience with a patient affected by polio, underscoring the severity of the disease before the vaccine. He explains the difference between the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) and the oral polio vaccine (OPV), noting that under HB679, the IPV could not be required despite its effectiveness in preventing paralysis, even though it does not stop transmission. He urges the committee to kill the bill.
HB679: Lissa Trexler, Registered Nurse Support00:46:00.640 - 9:29:37 AM; Lissa Trexler supports HB679 and delivers a statement on behalf of Veresa Evans Esquire. She argues that mandating vaccines should be based on ethical considerations, including the vaccine's safety, necessity for public health, and ability to prevent transmission. Trexler cites Jacobson v. Massachusetts, suggesting that the U.S. Constitution might prohibit mandates for vaccines that do not stop transmission. She believes the bill aligns with both ethical and legal standards.
HB679: Laura K, Bedford, NH Support00:49:45.920 - 9:33:22 AM; Laura K from Bedford supports HB679, emphasizing the necessity of a public welfare basis for medical mandates. She argues that vaccines mandated for children should be proven to prevent the spread of disease. She raises concerns about the risks associated with vaccines, mentioning the 1986 Federal Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Laura K criticizes misinformation about vaccine efficacy and urges the committee to pass the bill to restore public trust in health recommendations.
HB679: Maggie Gro, West Lebanon, NH Oppose00:52:39.680 - 9:36:16 AM; Maggie Gro, a resident of West Lebanon and practicing epidemiologist, opposes HB679. She argues that while the bill aims to promote community benefit, requiring complete prevention of transmission is unrealistic due to the evolving nature of viruses and bacteria. As a parent and board president of an early childhood center, she is concerned about the potential loss of federal funding, such as the Child Care Block Grant, which supports low-income families. She fears that changes to vaccine mandates could have unintended consequences on their operations.
HB679: Maggie Gro, West Lebanon, NH Information Only00:52:39.680 - 9:36:16 AM; Maggie Gro discusses potential impacts of the bill on federal funding, expressing concerns about the implications without directly stating support or opposition. She mentions the childcare block grant and its relation to vaccine mandates, indicating a need to review specific requirements.
HB679: Kathy Stratton, CEO of the New Hampshire Medical Society Oppose00:56:16.000 - 9:39:53 AM; Kathy Stratton, representing 2,000 physician members, opposes HB679 due to its potential negative impact on public health. She highlights the ambiguity in the bill regarding targeted vaccines and the significant risks it poses to children and vulnerable populations, including increased healthcare costs and lost school time. She references CDC data on the effectiveness and economic benefits of vaccines, urging the committee to vote inexpedient to legislate on the bill.
HB679: Dr. Gary Soilson, family physician in Concord, NH, and past president of the New Hampshire Medical Society Oppose00:59:01.680 - 9:42:38 AM; Dr. Gary Soilson opposes HB679, arguing that it misrepresents vaccine development and disease prevention, posing a threat to public health. He emphasizes the historical impact of vaccines on preventable diseases and criticizes the bill's focus on transmissibility as overly simplistic. Soilson shares personal experiences with diseases like Hib, underscoring the effectiveness of mandated vaccines and urging the committee to vote inexpedient to legislate.
HB679: Kim Danis, registered nurse Oppose01:06:59.480 - 9:50:36 AM; Kim Danis opposes the bill, pointing out its broad and unclear language regarding vaccine exclusions and evidence thresholds. She discusses the ongoing study of vaccine effects and the importance of herd immunity, emphasizing the need to protect those who cannot be vaccinated.
HB679: Carlen Farrier, representing the New Hampshire Nurses Association Oppose01:09:30.319 - 9:53:07 AM; Carlen Farrier, speaking on behalf of over 50 nurses, opposes HB679, highlighting the public health benefits of childhood vaccinations. She mentions the potential strain on an already burdened healthcare system if vaccination rates decrease and references a measles outbreak in Texas to illustrate the consequences of low vaccination rates.
HB679: Kate Fry, Vice President of Advocacy at New Futures, and Trina Inglefinger, Early Care and Education Policy Coordinator at New Futures Oppose01:13:07.120 - 9:56:44 AM; Kate Fry and Trina Inglefinger oppose HB679, citing concerns about public health and potential loss of federal childcare funding. They argue that vaccines are crucial for herd immunity and that existing exemptions balance public health with personal beliefs. They warn that the bill could risk $30 million in federal funds annually, emphasizing the importance of maintaining vaccine requirements.
HB679: Pam Dapoli, school nurse from Manchester, NH, and President of the New Hampshire School Nurse Association Oppose01:16:34.239 - 10:00:11 AM; Pam Dapoli opposes the bill, focusing on the effectiveness and necessity of mandatory vaccinations in schools. She explains that high vaccination rates protect the community and that removing requirements based on the bill's criteria could lead to increased infection rates, jeopardizing the health and safety of students and staff.
HB679: Dr. Amy Watson, pediatrician, private practice owner in Concord, resident of Chichester, NH Oppose01:19:16.480 - 10:02:53 AM; Dr. Amy Watson strongly opposed HB679, arguing that it is not grounded in sound medical science and could harm children and communities. She highlighted the outdated reference to the DTAP vaccine in the bill, explaining that it was replaced in 1996 with a safer version. Watson emphasized that vaccines, while not designed to completely prevent transmission, significantly reduce severe illness, hospitalizations, and deaths. She provided examples like the HIV vaccine's impact on reducing meningitis and airway infections in children. Watson expressed concern about recent outbreaks of polio and measles, attributing them to vaccine misinformation rather than vaccine failure, and urged opposition to the bill to protect children.
HB679: Dr. Amanda Moral, President of the New Hampshire Pharmacist Association Oppose01:27:03.440 - 10:10:40 AM; Dr. Amanda Moral opposed HB679, noting that the bill's wording is open to interpretation and not aligned with evidence-based medicine. She explained the discontinuation of the solo tetanus vaccine in favor of combination vaccines to offer broader protection with fewer shots. Moral highlighted that vaccines undergo rigorous clinical trials focused on antibody response, which is used to infer protection against disease and transmission. She cited the significant reduction in hip infections and polio cases post-vaccination as evidence of vaccine efficacy and urged the committee to vote against the bill.
HB679: Dr. Julie Kim, pediatric oncologist from Hanover, NH, President of the New Hampshire Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics Oppose01:30:06.719 - 10:13:43 AM; Dr. Julie Kim, representing over 200 pediatricians, opposed HB679, arguing that it would change the scientific definition of vaccine efficacy, making New Hampshire the only state to disregard this standard. She expressed concern that this could lead to the loss of the Childcare Development Block Grant, impacting 28% of children under 5 in NH. Kim emphasized the importance of maintaining current vaccine policies to avoid confusion and increased vaccine hesitancy among parents.
HB679: Betty Gay, individual Support01:33:18.000 - 10:16:55 AM; Betty Gay supported HB679, advocating for parental choice in vaccinations. She recounted the increase in recommended vaccines over time and questioned the necessity of mandating vaccines if they do not fully protect against transmission. Gay raised concerns about the safety and testing of vaccines, suggesting that clinical trials for childhood vaccines do not use the proper baseline comparison, and referenced the MMR vaccine study as an example of underreported adverse effects.
HB679: Dr. Benjamin Chan, State Epidemiologist at the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, joined by Colleen Smith, Bureau Chief for Infectious Disease Control Oppose01:36:37.040 - 10:20:14 AM; Dr. Benjamin Chan opposed HB679, highlighting its ambiguity and lack of clarity on which vaccines would be affected and what threshold they must meet for preventing transmission. He explained that most vaccines, while not 100% effective at preventing transmission, still reduce disease spread to varying degrees. Chan warned that the bill could prevent the department from requiring most currently mandated vaccines for school and childcare, which could lead to outbreaks, citing the measles outbreak in Texas as an example. He emphasized the importance of high vaccination rates to protect children and communities.
HB679: Karen Hebert, Director for the Division of Economic Stability at DHS Oppose01:48:56.080 - 10:32:33 AM; Karen Hebert opposed HB679, noting that it could jeopardize approximately $80.2 million in federal funding for child care subsidies in the next biennium. She explained that the federal funding is contingent on state laws aligning with federal health and safety regulations, which include following public health recommendations. Hebert highlighted that the bill's language could put at risk the child care subsidies for about 5,000 children and the operations of 617 child care providers.
HB679: Tori Shaheen, New Hampshire Families for Vaccines Oppose01:51:09.760 - 10:34:46 AM; Tori Shaheen, representing New Hampshire Families for Vaccines, strongly opposes HB679. She argues that the bill introduces a new requirement for vaccines to demonstrate prevention of transmission in clinical trials, which she claims is not standard practice. Shaheen explains that vaccines are designed and tested to prevent hospitalization and death, not necessarily transmission. She believes the bill sets an unattainable standard that could decrease vaccine uptake and lead to the resurgence of controlled diseases. Shaheen emphasizes that transmission dynamics are better assessed post-licensure during surveillance, where vaccines have shown to reduce transmission indirectly by reducing viral load, speeding up infection clearance, and reducing symptom severity.
HB357: Jim Kofalt, Representative, Hillsborough County District 32 (Wilton, Temple, New Ipswich) Support01:55:43.599 - 10:39:20 AM; Representative Jim Kofalt introduces HB357, aiming to change RSA 141C:20-a to remove the Commissioner of Health and Human Services' authority to add immunization mandates by administrative rule. He argues that such serious decisions should be made by elected representatives accountable to their constituents. Kofalt cites the example of attempts to mandate the COVID vaccine and questions their safety and efficacy. He notes that voluntary vaccination rates are high, suggesting that removing mandates will not significantly affect vaccination rates. He also mentions Idaho's recent legislation removing state mandates, indicating a trend towards giving parents more choice in medical decisions for their children.
HB357: Colleen Smith, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Infectious Disease Control, Department of Health and Human Services Oppose02:07:23.320 - 10:51:00 AM; Colleen Smith, along with Dr. Ben Chan, opposes HB357, emphasizing the importance of the Department's ability to respond quickly to public health emergencies through rulemaking. She highlights the deliberative process involved in adding vaccinations, which includes input from medical professionals and public hearings. Smith notes that the last addition to the vaccination schedule was in 2003 and stresses that the current system has worked effectively for decades. She also points out that if HB357 were passed, New Hampshire would be among a very few states without certain immunization requirements.
HB357: Jessica LaMontagne, Representative, City of Dover Oppose02:09:32.239 - 10:53:09 AM; Representative Jessica LaMontagne opposes HB357, arguing that it shifts the authority from a non-partisan, evidence-based process led by medical experts to the state legislature, which she believes could lead to politically influenced decisions rather than sound public health policy. She expresses concern over the potential for lower vaccination rates and disease outbreaks, using the example of measles and polio. LaMontagne shares a personal story about her husband's father who contracted polio, illustrating the severe consequences of vaccine policy rollbacks.
HB357: Paul Uf, Representative, Hooksett and Danbury Support02:13:14.639 - 10:56:51 AM; Representative Paul Uf supports HB357, arguing that the legislature is better suited for rulemaking authority than the Department of Health and Human Services, which he believes might have a too narrow focus on disease elimination rather than considering potential side effects of mandates. He mentions the chronic disease and autism rates in his district, suggesting a connection to vaccination mandates. Uf also refers to recent vaccine mandates at local institutions, indicating a potential for rapid changes in policy.
HB357: Laura Condan Support02:16:28.079 - 11:00:05 AM; Laura Condan supports HB357, emphasizing that the bill is about shifting decision-making from rulemaking to statute regarding vaccine requirements. She argues that medical professionals risk professional repercussions for disagreeing with established medical opinions, and thus, these decisions should be made by the citizenry, not medical professionals bound by professional associations.
HB357: Laura K, Bedford Support02:17:51.679 - 11:01:28 AM; Laura K from Bedford supports HB357, stating that it will ensure vaccine requirements for children are decided through a comprehensive legislative process, involving input from doctors, public health experts, and the public. She mentions the bill will enhance public confidence, reduce vaccine hesitancy, and maintain rulemaking for certain vaccines until they naturally expire. She also notes that the bill will allow for quicker legislative action on new vaccine mandates and remove conflicts of interest from DHS due to their involvement in vaccine purchasing.
HB357: Lissa Trexler, Stoddard Support02:21:44.319 - 11:05:21 AM; Lissa Trexler from Stoddard supports HB357, highlighting that the bill aims to place public health decisions, such as school and daycare vaccine requirements, in the hands of elected representatives. She emphasizes the importance of a transparent and accountable decision-making process, arguing that the current system allows major policy changes without public debate. She believes HB357 will restore public trust and give families a voice in health policies affecting their lives.
HB357: Kathy Stratton, CEO of the New Hampshire Medical Society Oppose02:23:16.880 - 11:06:53 AM; Kathy Stratton, representing the New Hampshire Medical Society, opposes HB357. She expresses concerns over the proposed changes to the decision-making process, suggesting it could lead to fluctuating requirements and undermine public confidence in health policies. She values the current rulemaking authority of the Department of Health and Human Services and other agencies, which she believes effectively addresses public health challenges.
HB357: Dr. Gary Sollesson, Family Physician, Contoocook Oppose02:25:25.439 - 11:09:02 AM; Dr. Gary Sollesson, a family physician from Contoocook, opposes HB357, focusing on the effectiveness of the current rulemaking process through JELCAR and the Department of Health and Human Services. He warns of significant ramifications if the decision-making authority shifts from experts to the legislature, particularly concerning vaccines like varicella, hepatitis B, and HIB. He corrects misinformation about hepatitis B, emphasizing its importance in preventing mother-to-infant transmission.
HB357: Carlen Frier, New Hampshire Nurses Association Oppose02:29:04.960 - 11:12:41 AM; Carlen Frier, representing the New Hampshire Nurses Association, opposes HB357. She argues that the proposed legislation would endanger vulnerable populations by rolling back vaccine requirements and removing the authority of health experts. She stresses the importance of childhood immunization for community protection and criticizes the idea of leaving such decisions to elected officials influenced by political trends.
HB357: Dr. Julie Kim, President of the New Hampshire Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics Oppose02:30:11.680 - 11:13:48 AM; Dr. Julie Kim opposes HB357, highlighting the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing diseases like hepatitis B, varicella, and HIB. She emphasizes the need for expert decision-making by the Department of Health and Human Services and expresses concerns about the potential for increased disease risk if the authority shifts to the legislature.
HB357: Amanda Moral, President of the New Hampshire Pharmacist Association Oppose02:33:25.880 - 11:17:02 AM; Amanda Moral opposes HB357, arguing that removing vaccine requirements would weaken public health protections and leave vulnerable populations at risk. As a pharmacist and educator, she emphasizes the importance of vaccines in preventing chronic diseases and urges the committee to oppose the bill.
HB357: Dr. Amy Watson, Pediatrician, Chester Oppose02:34:39.680 - 11:18:16 AM; Dr. Amy Watson, a pediatrician from Chester, strongly opposes HB357. She stresses the importance of the current system, where vaccine policy is managed by experts in public health, epidemiology, and infectious disease. She warns that shifting authority to the legislature would limit the state's ability to adapt to health threats and argues that the legislative process is too slow and lacks the necessary scientific expertise to handle such decisions effectively.
HB357: Pam Denapoli, Registered Nurse, President of the New Hampshire School Nurses Association Oppose02:36:28.680 - 11:20:05 AM; Pam Denapoli opposed HB357, focusing on the rulemaking aspect of the bill. As a registered nurse, she values the guidance from experts in the field, particularly referencing section 141 C20 of the bill, which allows the commissioner to instruct healthcare providers and the public on methods of disease prevention and control. She expressed concern over the bill's recommendation to sunset certain vaccines by 2026, questioning the legislature's ability to make informed decisions that would guide her practice.
HB357: Kate Fry and Trina Engelfinger, New Futures Information Only02:37:39.280 - 11:21:16 AM; Kate Fry and Trina Engelfinger provided information regarding the rulemaking process, highlighting its deliberative nature and legislative oversight. They noted that adopting new vaccines involves a vaccine selection committee and clinical considerations, with extensive public hearings and review by the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (JLCAR). They expressed concerns about the impact on the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) if the bill were to pass, as it could conflict with federal requirements.
HB357: Tori Shaheen, New Hampshire Families for Vaccines Oppose02:44:27.920 - 11:28:04 AM; Tori Shaheen, representing New Hampshire Families for Vaccines and speaking as a parent with a background in microbiology, opposed HB357. She emphasized the importance of keeping rulemaking with experts to evaluate infectious disease literature and make informed decisions. Shaheen also corrected misconceptions about hepatitis B, highlighting its infectious nature and its link to cancer, and argued against the bill to prevent potential risks from infectious diseases.
HB357: Representative Patenza Oppose02:47:33.040 - 11:31:10 AM; Representative Patenza opposed HB357, arguing that the current system where the legislature sets policy and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS) does the rulemaking works well. He highlighted that the six required vaccines were set by the legislature and not through DHS rulemaking. He emphasized the collaborative relationship between the legislature and DHS, asserting that the legislature should retain the responsibility for setting policy.
HB357: Kim Danis, Dartmouth Ambulatory Care Oppose02:49:37.120 - 11:33:14 AM; Kim Danis, represented by another speaker, opposed HB357, highlighting the importance of medical experts and public health officials in responding to health threats. She argued that removing DHS's authority to update vaccine requirements would shift critical decisions to the legislative process, which is not designed for rapid adaptation to emerging health threats.
HB358: Representative Jim Kofalt, Hillsborough District 32 (Wilton, Temple, New Ipswitch) Support02:51:07.920 - 11:34:44 AM; Representative Jim Kofalt supported HB358, explaining that it aims to correct an issue from a previous bill (HB1035) that removed the notarization requirement for religious exemptions but inadvertently led to the creation of a form by DHS. He argued that the bill clarifies the original legislative intent to only remove the notarization requirement, addressing concerns about privacy and the potential misuse of the form's information.
HB358: Colleen Smith, Bureau Chief for the Bureau of Infectious Disease Control, Department of Health and Human Services Oppose02:56:58.800 - 11:40:35 AM; Colleen Smith, representing the Department of Health and Human Services, opposed HB358, highlighting the form's role as a tool for schools to collect information about religious exemptions in a standardized manner. She emphasized the form's importance during outbreaks for identifying unimmunized children and expressed willingness to work on clarifying language in statute if needed.
HB358: Angela Bole, DuPont Group, representing the New Hampshire Chapter of the Academy of Pediatrics Oppose03:05:19.319 - 11:48:56 AM; Angela Bole, representing the New Hampshire Chapter of the Academy of Pediatrics, opposed HB358. She noted the chapter's stance against the bill and supported broadening the term of primary care providers to include nurse practitioners, emphasizing their critical role in primary care.
HB358: Dr. Amy Watson, Pediatrician, Chester Oppose03:06:24.399 - 11:50:01 AM; Dr. Amy Watson opposed HB358, arguing that eliminating the immunization exemption form and replacing it with a one-line signed statement would remove helpful information about vaccine exemptions and student vaccination status. She stressed the importance of this information for public health measures during outbreaks and the need for accountability when personal or religious exemptions are chosen.
HB358: Pam Denapoli, Registered Nurse, Manchester Oppose03:07:58.800 - 11:51:35 AM; Pam Denapoli, speaking as a school nurse in Manchester, opposed HB358, stating that the form is unnecessary to change and does not violate patient rights or infringe on parental control. She emphasized the form's importance for school nurses to efficiently and reliably understand vaccination coverages, especially in large districts, and noted an increase in exemptions since the notarization requirement was dropped.
HB358: Representative Paulav, Hooksett and Dunbarton Support03:10:16.120 - 11:53:53 AM; Representative Paulav supported HB358, expressing personal experience with the form as a parent. He found it confusing and argued that it goes beyond the original intent of the statute, suggesting that if the form is used to debate vaccine benefits, information should be provided for both sides.
HB358: Betty K Support03:11:02.560 - 11:54:39 AM; Betty K spoke in support of the bill, emphasizing the importance of providing information about the side effects and religious benefits of not being vaccinated. She argued that without this information, parents are left without informed consent and face pressure from pediatricians. She highlighted existing problems in pediatric offices where parents are told their children could die if not vaccinated, without being informed about potential risks of vaccines. She urged support for the bill to address these issues.
HB358: Laura Condan, Bedford Support03:12:05.439 - 11:55:42 AM; Laura Condan from Bedford supported the bill, describing it as a simple measure to relieve an administrative burden. She emphasized that the bill protects a religious exemption to vaccination and argued that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS) should not require a specific form for this exemption, as it is not mandated by law. She noted that schools often demand this form in practice, effectively making it a requirement. Condan compared this to the medical exemption, which does not require a specific form. She stressed the privacy concerns, explaining that the form should not leave the nurse's office or go to DHS, as it would violate privacy rights. She concluded that the bill corrects an error and urged its support.
HB597: Representative Bill Boyd, Hillsborough County District 12, Merrimack Support03:51:25.120 - 12:35:02 PM; Representative Bill Boyd introduced House Bill 597, which aims to establish a behavioral health access point within the enhanced 911 system. He noted that the bill had unanimous support from the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee and passed on the House consent calendar with bipartisan support. Boyd mentioned his collaboration with the former police chief and current director of the 911 system, Mark Doyle, on this bill. He expressed readiness to answer any questions from the committee and introduced Assistant Director Tim Scott for more detailed inquiries.
HB597: Tim Scott, Assistant Director Support03:53:19.920 - 12:36:56 PM; Tim Scott spoke in support of House Bill 597, highlighting the collaboration between the 911 system and the 988 mental health crisis line. He explained that the bill updates the law to reflect current practices where 911 calls appropriate for mental health assistance are transferred to 988. Scott noted the effectiveness of this system and answered questions about the differences between 911 and 988 services, emphasizing that 911 is designed for life-threatening emergencies while 988 offers support for mental health crises, often resolving issues over the phone without the need for physical responders.
HB597: Holly Stevens, Director of Public Policy, NAMI New Hampshire Support03:56:11.319 - 12:39:48 PM; Holly Stevens from NAMI New Hampshire supported House Bill 597, explaining the distinction between 911 and 988 services. She noted that 988, established in July 2022, often resolves mental health crises over the phone, unlike 911 which is a triage system sending physical responders. Stevens emphasized that the bill codifies the current practice of transferring appropriate calls from 911 to 988, which helps free up 911 for physical health and public safety emergencies. She praised New Hampshire's collaboration between the two systems and mentioned that 988 staff are specially trained to handle mental health crises and connect callers with community services.
HB597: Jenny O'Higgins, Senior Policy Analyst and Legislative Liaison for Behavioral Health, DHS Support03:58:46.000 - 12:42:23 PM; Jenny O'Higgins provided a brief overview of the behavioral health crisis system in New Hampshire, highlighting the three pillars of a best practice behavioral health system: someone to talk to, someone to respond, and somewhere to go. She explained that HB597 is related to the crisis call centers (988) and the rapid response system, allowing for appropriate 911 call transfers to the 988 system. She praised the partnership between the Department of Safety and 911 through the 988 coalition, noting New Hampshire's leadership in this area nationally. O'Higgins emphasized the importance of ensuring mental health and first responders work together to provide the right response at the right time, enhancing safety and care for individuals.
HB597: Committee Vote04:00:37.319 - 12:44:14 PM; The committee moved into an executive session to discuss HB597. A motion to move out of the executive session was made by Senator Avard and seconded by Senator Long. The committee voted to pass HB597 without opposition.
HB731: Representative Lamont Tang, Prime Sponsor Support04:02:16.880 - 12:45:53 PM; Representative Lamont Tang introduced HB731, which aims to address the housing crisis's impact on people with disabilities in New Hampshire. The bill proposes to clarify exemptions from licensure for certain facilities to reduce costs and encourage the development of new housing models for people with disabilities. Tang shared personal experiences and highlighted the need for more housing options, including certified but not licensed apartments within larger buildings. She explained that the bill would not exempt all-inclusive community models from licensure but would support other models that allow residents more choice in service providers. Tang addressed concerns about safety, emphasizing that the bill does not compromise safety standards and was crafted with input from the Department of Health and Human Services.
HB731: Representative Kathy Stout, Manchester Support04:12:27.840 - 12:56:04 PM; Representative Kathy Stout, who chaired the study committee on the impacts of the housing crisis on people with disabilities, supported HB731. She discussed the findings from the committee's six meetings, which included input from providers, housing and disability advocates, and affected families. Stout emphasized the need for housing solutions that cater to the middle ground between fully independent living and high-care facilities, particularly for those with developmental disabilities who are low-income. She highlighted the importance of affordable, scalable housing options and stressed that HB731 would help address these needs by allowing for certified apartments within larger buildings.
HB731: Ana Spok Support04:17:37.640 - 1:01:14 PM; Ana Spok, the manager of the Bureau of Licensing and Certification at the Department of Health and Human Services, expressed support for HB731. She explained that the bill aims to increase housing availability for highly functioning individuals with disabilities who do not require extensive clinical services. The bill proposes amendments to RSA 151:2, II-a to include license exemptions for buildings that house both independent individuals and those receiving services, and for entities providing housing to three or more individuals receiving services without personal assistance. She highlighted the involvement of the state fire marshal's office and the community's long-term effort in shaping this legislation.
HB731: Will Walker Support04:23:46.880 - 1:07:23 PM; Will Walker, a constituent, expressed strong support for HB731 with some reservations. He provided documents to the housing committee the previous year, detailing the housing situation for people with developmental disabilities in New Hampshire. As a father of a 26-year-old son with autism, he views supportive housing as a potential option for his son. His main concern is ensuring that such housing is safe, secure, and sustainable. He is hopeful that certification can alleviate some of his fears but admits to not fully understanding the difference between certification and licensing.
HB731: Karen Rosenberg Oppose04:25:34.640 - 1:09:11 PM; Karen Rosenberg, policy director at the Disability Rights Center, testified in opposition to HB731, urging further study. She expressed concern that the bill could lead to facilities that isolate individuals with developmental disabilities without adequate safety and oversight. She mentioned past concerns about building requirements and a tragic incident at a licensed facility, emphasizing the need for continued oversight to protect vulnerable individuals after their parents are gone.
HB731: Vanessa Blae Information Only04:28:22.640 - 1:11:59 PM; Vanessa Blae, director of policy and planning for the New Hampshire Council on Developmental Disabilities, provided context on the need for inclusive living models for people with disabilities. She noted New Hampshire's history of moving away from state institutions and the current challenges faced by aging parents of adults with disabilities. While not directly opposing the bill, she emphasized the need for careful consideration of safety and well-being in any new housing model. She expressed willingness to work with the committee and legislators to improve the bill and ensure safety.
HB455: Representative Papichi Mueller Information Only04:33:42.799 - 1:17:19 PM; Representative Papichi Mueller introduced House Bill 455, which requires quarterly reports from the Department of Health and Human Services on Medicaid enhancement for children and pregnant women. The bill, originally belonging to two colleagues who could not attend, passed the House Policy Committee 17-0 and was passed through on a voice vote, indicating its non-controversial nature. Mueller humorously mentioned missing a hearing for one of their own bills and was open to questions but felt that the bill's straightforward nature might not necessitate extensive discussion.
HB455: Committee Vote04:34:48.799 - 1:18:25 PM; The committee moved into an executive session for House Bill 455. A motion to pass the bill was made and seconded, followed by a unanimous vote in favor with no opposition, resulting in a consent vote of 3-0.
HB94: Representative Saudi Support04:37:26.080 - 1:21:03 PM; Representative Saudi introduced House Bill 94, which aims to stop Medicaid funding of infant circumcision, arguing it as a housekeeping measure since federal and state laws already prohibit funding unnecessary elective surgeries. He detailed the unnecessary nature of the procedure, citing its lack of health benefits and significant tissue loss. He referenced other states and countries that have stopped funding it, and highlighted potential cost savings for Medicaid, suggesting the funds could be better used elsewhere.
HB94: Representative Saudi's Wife Support04:39:51.840 - 1:23:28 PM; The wife of Representative Saudi, originally from Hungary, shared her perspective on infant circumcision, noting its rarity outside the U.S. She discussed the lack of informed consent among parents, the unexpected complications and costs associated with the procedure, and argued against its coverage by Medicaid due to its unnecessary nature and the potential for better allocation of funds to more pressing health needs.
HB94: Senator Cindy Rosenwald Oppose04:44:13.560 - 1:27:50 PM; Senator Cindy Rosenwald, representing Senate District 13 in Nashua, opposed House Bill 94, labeling it as anti-Semitic. She emphasized the religious significance of circumcision for Jews, comparing it to baptism for Christians, and urged the committee to reject the bill to stand against anti-Semitism.
HB94: Senator Al Schiller Oppose04:48:09.600 - 1:31:46 PM; Senator Al Schiller opposed House Bill 94, focusing on the issue of religious freedom. She argued that removing Medicaid coverage for circumcision would create a two-tiered system, disproportionately affecting lower-income Jewish families. She also raised concerns about the historical use of such restrictions as tools of anti-Semitic persecution and the potential health benefits of circumcision as acknowledged by medical organizations.
HB94: Deborah Uler Oppose04:49:18.480 - 1:32:55 PM; Deborah Uler, representing the Seacoast District 24, opposed House Bill 94, highlighting the importance of religious freedom and the discriminatory impact of the bill on Jewish families. She discussed the potential health benefits of circumcision and the risk of creating health disparities by denying Medicaid coverage, urging the committee to find the bill inexpedient to legislate.
HB94: Bill Nap, District 6 Oppose04:51:58.958 - 1:35:35 PM; Bill Nap, representing District 6, expressed opposition to HB94. He emphasized the complexity of medical practice, which involves biological, psychological, social, and spiritual aspects of a patient. He argued that the bill oversimplifies the issue of circumcision, reducing it to a biomedical matter, which contradicts the holistic approach taught to medical students and residents. He highlighted the historical and cultural significance of circumcision across various faiths and continents, and discussed the minimal risk associated with the procedure. He also pointed out the financial aspects, noting that Medicaid reimbursement for circumcision is low, yet obstetric practices continue to perform it out of respect for parental choice. He concluded by advocating for continued coverage by third-party insurers, citing the American Academy of Family Practice's stance.
HB94: Paul Burch Oppose04:56:59.400 - 1:40:36 PM; Paul Burch thanked the committee and distributed materials, including a study mentioned by Dr. Nagel. He highlighted that both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have stated that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, including prevention of UTIs, penile cancer, and transmission of STDs like HPV and HIV. He listed other Medicaid-covered beneficial but not mandatory practices in New Hampshire. Burch also addressed the potential impact of the bill on Jewish and Muslim communities, suggesting it might make them feel less welcome in New Hampshire.
HB94: Barry Buella Support05:01:35.440 - 1:45:12 PM; Barry Buella argued in favor of HB94, emphasizing that girls are protected against cosmetic sexual surgery, and boys should be as well. He believes that the religious argument for circumcision is false, citing the separation of church and state, and suggesting that government should not subsidize religious ceremonies. He shared a personal story about his mother's regret over his circumcision, expressing his own lifelong regret and advocating for individual choice in the matter.
HB94: Anthony Lquadro Support05:03:54.240 - 1:47:31 PM; Anthony Lquadro, who has worked on this issue for over a decade, criticized the arguments against HB94 as disinformation. He refuted the religious argument, stating that Medicaid never covered religious circumcisions. He mentioned that 17 states have dropped coverage without issues and challenged the validity of the American Academy of Pediatrics' expired policy statement on circumcision. He provided a cost-utility analysis showing that neonatal circumcision is not a good health policy and cited the Canadian Pediatric Society's stance against it. Lquadro argued that New Hampshire should be the 18th state to stop funding unnecessary circumcisions.
HB94: Peter Adler Support05:07:06.240 - 1:50:43 PM; Peter Adler, a Dartmouth graduate, lawyer, and expert on circumcision and the law, spoke in favor of HB94. He argued that circumcision is not medically necessary, not cost-effective, harmful to boys and men, and a violation of their rights. He referenced his legal research, including a 2011 article, which stated that Medicaid should only cover medically necessary services. Adler claimed that providers falsely certify circumcisions as medically necessary, which he considers Medicaid fraud. He highlighted the financial burden on taxpayers and the potential for psychological harm and violation of bodily integrity. He also addressed and dismissed arguments against the bill, calling them 'malarkey.'
HB94: Robert Barry, General Counsel of the Division of Medicaid Information Only05:13:51.638 - 1:57:28 PM; Robert Barry, substituting for Dr. Ballard, offered to take questions on behalf of Dr. Ballard but did not provide substantive testimony on the bill.
HB94: Representative Papovichi Müller Support05:13:51.638 - 1:57:28 PM; Representative Papovichi Müller, a co-sponsor of HB94, addressed concerns about the bill infringing on religious freedom. He emphasized his commitment to religious freedom, having sponsored the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He argued that supporting religious freedom does not mean funding religious practices with public money. He clarified that the bill does not prevent anyone from performing religious rituals but questions the appropriateness of using taxpayer money for non-medically required procedures. He challenged the notion that families cannot afford the procedure if it is so important to their identity, especially given the low Medicaid reimbursement rate.
HB94: Honorable Gary Merchant, State Representative Oppose05:16:32.958 - 2:00:09 PM; Representative Merchant expressed concerns about the bill's impact on parental rights, particularly for financially struggling parents on Medicaid. He argued that removing Medicaid coverage for certain procedures would limit parental choice, emphasizing the importance of economic accessibility to preserve these rights.
HB94: Wendy Clawson, Belmont Support05:17:48.400 - 2:01:25 PM; Wendy Clawson, a mother from Belmont, supported the bill, sharing her personal decision as a Jewish woman to not circumcise her son due to the risks involved. She argued against using tax dollars for religious procedures, emphasizing community support within the Jewish community and questioning the necessity of government funding for such decisions. She also highlighted the potential health risks and ethical concerns associated with circumcision.
HB94: Senator Avar Oppose05:23:48.878 - 2:07:25 PM; Senator Avar opposed the bill, citing concerns about targeting individuals and potential anti-Semitism. He referenced historical examples of identification leading to persecution and expressed worries about the broader implications of the bill on religious and political freedoms.
HB94: Senator Long Oppose05:24:55.280 - 2:08:32 PM; Senator Long supported Senator Avar's motion to recommend the bill as inexpedient to legislate (ITL), agreeing with the concerns about parental rights and the use of public funds for religious purposes. He also questioned the timing and necessity of the bill.

Rochefort, David(Chairman)(R)	Avard, Kevin(V Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Birdsell, Regina(R)[C+]2024
Prentiss, Suzanne(D)[F]2024	Long, Pat(D)