 So today, we're going through some of the bills that we have, and I don't want to call them leftovers, but they are bills that we had wanted to look at during the whole COVID pandemic. So in that sense, they're left over as a result of the pandemic. And we have with us today, Senator Westman, the sponsor of S91, an act relating to parent child network. And then after Senator Westman, you know, I'm going to suggest, Katie, unless you think otherwise, your opinion on having both Senator Westman and Senator Benning go back to back with, is that okay with you. That's fine with me. Okay, good. And then that in that way I don't want to hold either one of you up from your morning obligations. Senator Westman, welcome, and thanks for being here. Thank you for having me. Rich Westman for the Senator from one way out. I would say first off, I may be the lead sponsor on it, but on my screen. Senator lions, you're in between Senator Hardy and Senator Booker. They're both sponsors of the bill also so we have a good crew to support parent child centers. I specifically in the group worked with the parent child centers to help put together this bill. A little history parent child centers were put in statute about 25 years ago now, sometime in the late 1990s. And since that time, child centers have become more formalized and amount of services they offer has expanded. And they become a lot more integral in the delivery of services in all of our communities. Just as a reminder, there are 15 parent child centers across the state now. And, and the breadth of their services. You know, is is quite expansive. They do home visits, they do early early childhood services, they do parent education, they do playground work, they do parent support groups. They offer concrete supports for the whole family. They do community development work, and they do research and referral and all of those things. This bill would hold on all of the 15 to doing that center based work. This bill establishes in statute, the parent child center network to ensure accountability among and distribute funds to designated childcare centers. That's the first thing the bill does. It amends the criteria for designation as parent child centers. The criteria would be in that portion. It appropriates base funding to parent child center network and I might say there's a section on funding in here that would have to be changed because this is last year's bill. We did take money. We took some of the COVID monies and put towards the parent child centers to help them with their work. So the funding piece might need some work. I think that would establish an annual inflation to monies appropriated to the parent child center network. I think, given the last few years of, of history, going back. The health and welfare committee has been involved in some of the issues in the back and forth push on funding and services for the parent child center. That also is part of the reason that this all came up. We had some of the assessments and counseling, as you will remember, whether it should be at the state level in DCF or whether it should be in the parent child centers a couple of years ago was up as an issue. So, so the broad outline is that this more formally puts them in place and tries to put them in a place where it formalizes their relationship with the state and the partnership that has developed and solidifies all of that. And I sincerely hope that your committee takes it up. And as I said, the effective data this bill would have been July 1 of last year so there will be some changes in that. But the basic premise behind this is is still extremely valid and I think important for us to look at. Okay. Thank you. That's terrific and thank you for bringing this to us. I think that we will probably go forward with the bill will listen to Katie a little bit later about the details, but then it seems it sounds like some of the heavy lifting is going to be done in your afternoon committee. Well, I think, you know, from the policy standpoint, establishing the network and the framework around that will will lay the groundwork for any work that any appropriation might that might happen going forward in the future. Let's go back to those the assessments and the counselors that we fought back in force. What role the parent child center should have. We need to look at all of that and that will dictate a lot of the way the money flows. Good thank you for that comment I think that was very helpful. Perfect. And, you know, I didn't mention it, you're the chair of the committee, and we did talk a lot about the role of the different players in the delivery of service to at risk kids and families and there may be a recommendation that you might speak to when we formally get a report. We're working on that we're our final child care protection oversight committee report coming to us soon so this is good was chaired quite well that committee. Thank you. We're going to come full circle. Okay, any questions for Senator Westman on his sponsorship of the bill. Senator Hardy. Yeah, I don't have a question question Senator Westman but I did want to just add. I, first of all, I appreciate you did a great job. I appreciate your work on this bill over many, many years. And I'm glad that we're taking this up early in the session and just wanted to also, you know, make the connection that we, we did a lot of really important work last session on early childhood education. And I think that child centers are a crucial part of that network and that system and I think it's really important that we update their, their statutes and make them much more integrated into the work of the state when it comes to early childhood education and care so thanks. Senator Westman. The majority of the parent child centers offer. Child care. Yep. I'm just trying to say I am short when I'm off the screen that Senator Hardy and Senator Hooker can answer lots of questions about this. Of course. I know I don't want to let you leave without acknowledging Janet month, former senator from Chittenden County who worked so hard to actually get parent child centers into statute and it was really an honor to work with her. I'm also a senator from the Senate so this is a continuation of, as you said before, a long history of involvement on part of many people. Yes and I can't. I can't with that can't help but mention that at that time. The President chair of Senator appropriations was the secretary of agency, and was integral in the creation of their original. was 25 years ago not to date any of us but the world has changed. Yeah and the pandemic doesn't help. No it doesn't. Okay thank you so much and I think what we'll do at this point is we're going to switch gears over to S69 and Senator Benning and have Senator Benning introduce his bill on suicide prevention initiatives and then after that we'll go to Ledge Council and walk through both bills. So Senator Benning thank you for being here. Thank you Madam Chair and let me say first that I'm Joe Benning. I represent the Caledonia district in the state senate, the Caledonia district being all of Caledonia County and the six northeastern most towns in Orange County. Madam Chair I'll start by saying I was very touched by your opening words and I completely agree that we have a unique opportunity as reminders to be able to chat with each other in a calm and civil basis and do things that actually help people which is what this particular bill is all about. I will also say at the outset that I'm a little bit out of sorts at the moment as horrible luck would have it. I received a call during our elk car meeting earlier this morning that one of my clients is suffering a mental breakdown has been lodged and I have to deal with that sometime today so this is very timely bill even though it was identified as a leftover bill from the previous session I can appreciate the committee's taking the time to take it up and I do hope that you will. First the bill itself was pretty much born in a conversation with the administration where I said you know as republicans were often batting back other legislation that we don't like what can we do that's positive and so we sat down and came up with a series of conversations that led to these entities you now see embedded in this bill and I'm also happy to say I'm going to up Senator Westman by one and say three members of your committee are actually on this bill as well so I greatly appreciate the bipartisan efforts and we'll try to break the bill down in a short series of statements. First there is a request for $125,000 to go to the Department of Mental Health to increase to 70% the in-state call response at Vermont's local crisis call centers. You might be interested in just hearing a list of who those call centers are because every one of you has actually got one of these entities in your backyard. The Clara Martin Center, Counseling Service of Addison County, the Howard Center, Healthcare and Rehab Services, Memorial County Mental Health, Northwestern Counseling and Support Services, Pathways, Rutland Mental Health Services, United Counseling Service, Washington County Mental Health and Northeast Kingdom Mental Health Services. Those call centers are critical and I'm going to give an example of why I think we need to increase the funding. About four and a half weeks ago I was sitting in my law office which happens to be on a major corner in the town of Linden. My office is actually on the ground floor. My sign is literally on the corner of a major intersection and a homeless man who I had seen on the street several times and said hello to. We often chatted about life in general but on this particular Friday evening as I was getting ready to walk out the door it was the coldest night we had coming up for weather-wise. We were facing the coldest night of the year and he came up my steps literally shivering saying that he had been kicked out of his residence that he had no place to go was literally shaking through this conversation and worried that he was going to freeze to death that night. I said about making a series of phone calls to crisis centers and I was unfortunately unable to get anyone so I took the money that I had in my pocket gave it to him and asked him to go to the cumberland farms next door get himself something to eat and then I drove to the house of a person that I know runs our local crisis center. The good news is she was able to get him a bed for the night and then subsequently into the veterans administration because he had serious medical issues that needed attention so not only did he eventually get to where he needed to be but the frustration that I had in trying to reach somebody at the call centers is a direct result of them just not having enough resources to have the man 24-7. The first section of this deals with that by asking that $125,000 be donated to the Department of Mental Health for the purpose of increasing those call center responses. The second section has to do with the headline of the article the zero suicide program but there's a lot more to that conversation. We are asking section two to have $400,000 appropriated to the Department of Mental Health for two separate portions one to go to expanding the Vermont suicide prevention centers zero suicide program throughout the state and if you're not familiar with what that is I would simply suggest that you Google zero suicide program in Vermont and you'll be able to watch an 11 minute video that is specifically targeted at legislators to learn about the program and what their needs are. The second section is that the money might be also shared to coordinate statewide suicide prevention efforts. This is a a subject that is near and dear to me. I've spent the past 20 years or so as a motorcyclist riding with a group of motorcyclists around the North American continent and we have all become very good friends and had the ability to enter into each other's lives in a way most people don't. Suffice to say it was a very bonded group of individuals and one of them who was a veteran decided to take his own life and it had an impact on all of us as well as that individual's families. The problem especially with veterans is something that I think we are only beginning to get hold of. We all understand that there is a problem it doesn't take a rocket scientist when reading an obituary to learn not just in the case of veterans but in the case of any individual when you're reading an obituary and you have no explanation of what happened to them with respect to their death. The chances are pretty good it is either a overdose or a suicide in the case of many of the overdoses they are also suicides. So how do we get a handle on that? Well the answer is to try to get some money into these programs that are trying to assist. This coordination effort is really a unification effort to learn what works and what doesn't work with respect to the multiple approaches that people have been taking and try to utilize as best we can whatever resources are available in those things that do actually work. And finally in section three there is a request for $50,000 to go to the Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living or for the purpose specifically of improving the elder care clinician program or to the vet-to-vet visitor program or both. I think most of you are probably already aware of Dale's elder care clinician program. I'm not going to expand on that here other than to say we're all getting older and eventually we ourselves may be interested in partaking of some of these services but I did want to talk a little bit about the vet-to-vet program. It is a national program that is a consumer provider partnership that utilizes veterans themselves in the recovery and a peer counseling capacity to help other veterans. Officially there is a six-week peer facilitator training program that teaches veterans how to facilitate peer group sessions and introduce program learning types. So the idea of getting veterans themselves to help each other is a very worthwhile program to address what I see as veteran suicide and hopefully we can get some more money donated to that cause. I'll close with the thanks I guess for the members of this committee that joined on to this piece of legislation. I do think it's an ideal time to spend money in these areas. This is somewhat out of my comfort zone because I don't usually come to the legislature and ask for money to go to certain programs. That's just the nature of how I ran as a republican but these are worthy programs and we have a very pressing need at this point in time and I think it was George Akin who said it best if Vermonters can't help Vermonters what's the reason we have government. I'll end it with that and be happy to answer any questions. Thank you Senator Benning that was great. Any any questions from folks? I know we'll have to get some testimony on the details of all the programs and the content of the bill after we go through it with Katie. Senator Hardy. Thank you Madam Chair. Senator Benning since this bill was introduced last year are these amounts still accurate? I think I heard something that there may be something in the governor's budget about suicide prevention and so I'm assuming that there's these numbers may be updated is that yes if I had any critique of his presentation yesterday I was hoping he was going to mention my name and my bill but there are numbers that are currently designated in that budget presentation. I have not updated myself Senator to figure out whether they match what's in this bill. The bill is a placeholder if you will to get the conversation going about what should be done and thank you for your question because it reminds me that the last section of the bill had a effective date that needs to be changed as well. Right and just to put a thank you senator just put a bookmark in on possible witnesses I think it would be helpful to have the adjunct in general come in and talk about efforts that he has been doing with the National Guard. I've talked to him several times and he's part of a national group working on suicide prevention and for National Guards and veterans so I love to hear that Senator Tarencine. Which one of us is it? Who has the question? No it's wonderful. Ruth would you mind getting Senator Hardy getting that contact information and Senator Benning I might ask you also if you have specific recommendations for testimony we'll sort it out we're pretty good in here about knowing who's who. Yeah I can I can say right off the bat Senator that the administration does wish to participate in this conversation. Well we will we will we will welcome them. All right thank you Senator Tarencine you have a question hold on here we got one more question. No I appreciate you calling on me Senator Lyons sorry about the little one there he was frustrated he couldn't get the Dunkin Donuts in his mouth so Senator Benning thanks for advancing this you know it's it's mornings like this that remind me why I ran for the Senate to start with and that's for good legislation like this and thank you Senator Lyons for you know us discussing it and hopefully we can we can make some headway with it this this back half of the session because it's it's critically important it seems like we're hearing more and talking more about suicide and what we can do to prevent it especially in light of the pandemic and so I'm thrilled that we're going to discuss this. Terrific Senator Hooker. Thank you Senator Lyons and thank you Senator Benning I just want to add my thanks and especially thank you for including elders because we hear a lot about suicide among young people and veterans but sometimes we forget that people who are elderly enter into those dark spaces and I appreciate that thank you. I would say especially during these times of COVID yes the elder population is very lonely and that's a critical issue right now for us to be addressing. All right thank you thanks so much. Thank you all we'll see you on the floor. Oh yes that's right all right Katie we're I'm going to what we have in front of us is about 45 minutes left and we have two other bills these the last these two bills I think are the ones that really need a little more in-depth presentation at this point so let's go through those two bills and then hopefully we'll have a half an hour left or close to it to go through the bills that Jen will be helping us with the other two as 74 and as H 153 but Katie thanks for being here. You're welcome Katie Mclin office of Legislative Council welcome back it's nice to see everyone and I will go in the order that the sponsor is presented so I'll pull up S91 first okay I'm seeing S91 okay we got it great so this as Senator Westman said is the parent child center network bill as he mentioned there's already language there's a chapter in statute dedicated to the parent child centers so this bill updates that chapter so we're focused more on a network than individual centers and you'll see that the title changes on line 16 and lines 18 and 19 reflect that change that we're talking about a network and not individual centers so first the definition of parent child center is the proposal is to update it to mean a community-based organization that serves as a central hub and lead provider of primary prevention services for families with young children on behalf of the state and this section also adds a definition of the parent child center network which means an AHS community partner composed of designated parent child centers that ensures accountability and collaboration among designated parent child centers and subsection B where we're pretty much striking out most of the language here at the introduction of subsection B and there's new language being added that shows how the network can be expanded so this language says that the network can recommend the secretary of AHS or designee one or more new parent child centers for designation every six years and upon receipt of this recommendation from the network the secretary designee is to review each center that's recommended by the network for designation to ensure that it meets the criteria that is set forth below in subsection C and that a parent child center that's recommended by the network and determined to meet the criteria that we'll look at next is to be deemed by the secretary or the secretary's designee to be part to be a designated parent child center and part of the network so subsection C these are this is the criteria for designation and you'll see some of the language in subsection C is not underlined so this is existing law receiving funding from one or more private local federal sources qualifying for a tax exemption under 501C and then having a parent representative on its board of directors representing designated geographic catchment area that's all an existing law but the new criteria begin online 15 so that is completing a peer review every three years which is to be conducted by the network providing each of the eight core services that we'll look at next in subsection D indicating an intent to participate in the network as a member and lastly working to achieve population level quality of life outcomes related to children and families so those are the criteria one of the criteria as I mentioned was having one of the eight core competencies so that language is set forth below in subsection D so here we have the list of the core competencies that each designated parent child center would have to have in order to be part of the network so a designated parent child center would do home visits provide early childhood services provide parent education host play groups and parent support groups offer concrete supports provide community development and resources and referrals so those are the eight core competencies and then there's a clause that says that any parent child center that was in existence last year January 1 2021 is deemed to have met the designation requirements the next section has to do with funding and how sort of the mechanism for funding works for the network so in subsection A the secretary is to annually disperse a joint appropriation for all of the parent child centers to the network and it's the network that would be distributing the funding to each parent child center and then any increase to base funding would be based on community need provision of additional services or the designation of a new center in subsection B the network is to work in partnership with AHS to develop appropriate measures of accountability and to provide any financial or programmatic information is necessary to enable the secretary to evaluate the services provided through grant funds and the effect of the services on consumers and the accounting of the expenditure of grant funds and then lastly there's language in subsection C that in determining the annual appropriation for the network the secretary is to employ an annual inflation factor and the guidelines there the inflation factor is reasonable and adequately reflects economic conditions and then you have an appropriation it's this bill was introduced last year so this appropriation is for fiscal year 2022 so if you were to move forward this would of course have to be updated but it was um 7.5 million in fiscal year 2022 to the network and then effective date again would have to be updated if you moved forward with this draft so that is the first bill okay let's just pause for a second I don't want to get into a discussion around the various sections of the bill until we've had an opportunity to hear testimony but your presentation is pretty clear um so it would allow for the parent child centers to be part of a broader network uh both in the state and then nationally so we will and the appropriation piece is something that all the money ends up down the hallway but we'll uh so we'll take you know unless I hear differently from folks we will probably follow through uh with some testimony on this bill and look to see how we can make improvements if necessary any questions of clarification all right good katie back to you okay uh pull up s 69 your voice your your your your your sound just went down I don't know why maybe it'll come back as you speak we'll try it hear me very little you can't hear me yes we can keep going it'll come you did I'm not sure what's happening there it is no you know it happened before it just um it takes a minute to get back up so okay let's see what happens so are you seeing s 69 I might have to stop share and restart oh I did okay you're good great so senator benning did most of my work on on this bill but as he described um this bill is a series of sections each section has an appropriation for a different program aimed at suicide prevention as he also noted this bill was introduced last year so all of the appropriations are for fiscal year 22 and if you chose to move forward with this bill you'd have to update the fiscal years and possibly the amounts so the first section is the vermont's national suicide prevention lifeline so this was in 125 000 appropriation for fiscal year 2022 to the department of mental health for the purpose of increasing the in-state call response at vermont's local crisis call centers to 70 percent its appropriation in section two is for two programs so in fiscal year 2022 the appropriation is for 400 000 to the department of mental health the first um program that this appropriation would be for is for the um suicide prevention center's zero suicide program throughout the state and that program is a system-wide framework to prevent suicide among individuals under the care of the health and mental health systems throughout the state and the second program under um that 400 000 would be appropriated for is establishing a new position a full-time position that would be shared between the departments of health and mental health to coordinate statewide suicide prevention efforts in coordination with the u.s department of veterans affairs and lastly there's a $50 000 appropriation in fiscal year 2022 for today for the purpose of expanding the elder care clinician program or the vet-to-vet visitor program or both of those programs and as senator bedding said the vet-to-vet visitor program involves veterans being paired with aging or disabled veterans to meet them in their homes for multiple visits a month two to three visits a month and then lastly we have an effective date of July 1 2021 which would need to be updated if you chose to move forward with this piece of legislation okay thank you um this one is this one it has a lot of money in it so one of the our job is going to be to evaluate the policy that's in here and i'm i'm going to suggest that we have some other bills in the committee that have recently been introduced uh senator hooker and i and others have put some bills in and i'm thinking that it might be helpful for us to go through those bills as well and to see if there's some integration that we can make you know and that instead of but my my concern is if if a bill doesn't require an appropriation we may now want to have to send it to appropriation so we'll take a little time to look at the bills that have come to us around mental health issues and then we can have that discussion together after we've gone through those bills as well but this one um certainly mental health at every stage of life is uh pretty much of an emergency right now so just uh we'll go with that any questions of clarification at this point all right good yes no senator benning did your job katie and you but you did it you you're the only one who can do your job all right uh so katie thank you and um help us identify some of the uh legislation that we have in our committee that we might look at concurrently with s69 not that we want to put them all together but there might be some pieces that fit that would help in all of your spare time okay good all right we'll we'll move on we're we're we're on a good trajectory of time so senator mccormick is here and we'll move on to the next bill which is s74 and um senator mccormick i'm asking you to be as um concise as possible after you have testified as uh lead sponsor then we'll have gen carby go through the bill more specifically thank you madam chair i like to think i'm always concise um i'm for the record senator richard mccormick doing business as dick mccormick uh i'm a former member of this committee actually two go rounds over the years and um chief sponsor of um s74 i've submitted written testimony and my spoken testimony will follow that outline although i'd rather not read what you already have in front of you um s74 makes technical changes to act 39 which is the uh now the existing vermont law providing medical assistance in dying um when we passed act 39 it was a fairly innovative law uh it was not a lot of experience to look at uh and we relied heavily on the exist what was then the existing law in oregon when oregon passed their law they had nothing to look at and a good deal of the oregon discussion pro and con was conjectural uh the bad the uh advantages of the of the bill were or conjectural and so were various uh anxieties about possible problems and remedies were conjectural the oregon law which vermont used as our model um is rich in safeguards against possible abuses we now have i think it's 11 states with similar laws oregon goes back to the 90s this has been the law in vermont for many years and we now have solid realities to look at and based on on which to base the law what this bill does is it addresses three areas of act 39 that have been demonstrated to be unnecessary and burdensome for for dying people who tried to use the law uh the the the first uh change that the bill would make has to do with telemedicine when we passed this law telemedicine was an idea it was an innovation now it's it's a boilerplate it's how it's often done i had the privilege as a member of this committee of of speaking on the floor about telemedicine as as a response to coven for example uh and um the law as it is presently written requires that a request from a dying person for a prescription be made in person uh that is an anomaly telemedicine is now frequently used the usual procedure against there are times in telemedicine is probably not appropriate and we're an in-person uh meeting with patient and doctor are necessary and the standard procedure is that that's up to the doctor and uh were this to pass into law uh the doctor would still have the option upon an electronic communication of saying i think i need to see you in person but this allows for that this return this this makes the the the law under act 39 consistent with usual medical practice which is that that the doctor would decide whether or not telemedicine is is acceptable or not um there's the uh the second uh provision has to do with that there the present law has a fairly long procedure to obtain a prescription and involve and includes a two week delay for just to make sure that the patient is not acting hastily and there's the present law requires that after the two week delay there's an additional 48 hours uh and this bill would remove that 48 hour additional requirement finally the bill uh makes explicit what our attorney general says is implicit in the law and it is this though the present law as written provides protection for doctors who participate in medically aiding medically hastening death uh it does not provide it does not explicitly provide those protections to pharmacists and other healthcare givers and s 74 would make explicit what is already implicit and this is not a technicality one could say well if pharmacists are already covered there's really no problem the problem is that the pharmacists don't rely are not confident in that implicit protection uh the feet on the ground reality is vermont has one pharmacist who will prescribe and then they're near what nearby pharmacists in new hampshire so that the the access to this benefit is is is impeded by the three provisions in law that the bill uh seeks to address and uh i'll answer questions or i'll go back to my morning committee thank you senator uh that was um very clear and as you said you're always concise always so um questions uh for senator mccormick as lead sponsor of the bill yeah and senator mccormick we know that you have worked on this issue for many years and appreciate your um consistent support of the work in the legislature on this thank you and and you and i have worked together i i think uh my first session uh i worked on this with dick walters and now he is no longer with us so yeah and i should mention claire and if she was chair of this committee when you did this and yeah she was it was a it was a it's been a handoff consistently and it's been a good collaborative uh process that i do want to say and i think you did uh say this or imply it at least that this bill is about fixing what we already have in place it's not about validating or putting in place our current program okay so let's let's move on to senator i'm going to say thank you and take care of the natural world we'll try all right Jen thanks for being here this morning and we i guess we'll just dive into looking at s 74 and going through its provisions briefly and then after that we'll move on to our our next bill great well good morning jennifer carvey from the office of legislative council and i will put the language up on the screen thank we find where i've hidden it all right can you see can you see the s 74 language of s 74 no we have some statutory language up well that's a health care facility definition oh well we're in that same statute but i'm for whatever reason having trouble finding my here we go now can you see it yes thank you oh good all right um so this is s 74 and i think um senator micormick did a good job of of walking you through what the provisions are but i will show you what they look like in context and as both the chair and senator micormick mentioned these are changes to an existing framework that has been set up for allowing patients to request medication certain patients to request medication for the purpose of hastening death so in the first section here we're looking at the requirements for the prescription and documentation and the way this law is set up it talks it's really done through the the lens of the physician who would be doing the prescribing and so it talks about the types of things that the or the actions that the physician must take in order to not be subject to any civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action for prescribing this medication and so the first changes here deal with um as senator micormick said whether the request the oral request from the patient must be made in the physician's physical presence uh or whether it could be done in another manner such as telemedicine and so in this case is striking through two requirements that the oral requests the first one and the second one that must be at least 15 days after the first request be done in the physician's physical presence similarly it would eliminate a requirement that the physician's examination of the patient to determine that the patient was suffering from a terminal condition be based in part on the physician's physical examination so the examination would not need to be a physical examination um could be done through telemedicine or another means and the review of the patient's relevant medical records and finally in this section um they would eliminate the 48 hour delay requirement um for the physician writing the prescription which under the current law and this is actually why I had this language up on my other screen um it requires the physician to have written the prescription after the last to occur of three events those being the patient's written request for medication the patient's second oral request and the physician offering the patient an opportunity to rescind the request so those would all still be there but this would get rid of the 48 hour delay between the last of those events to occur and the physician writing the prescription and then the second section of the bill would add some specific language to an existing provision on limitations on actions that would say that no person shall be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action for acting in good faith compliance with the provisions of this chapter so under the existing law there are some other provisions on limitations on actions one specifying that physicians nurses and pharmacists and anyone else is not under any duty cannot be under any duty by law or contract to participate in providing medication to a patient under this chapter and specifying that a health care facility and health care provider cannot subject a provider to discipline suspension loss of license loss of privileges or other penalties for actions taken in good faith reliance on the provisions of the chapter or refusals to act under the chapter um this would add language saying that nobody would be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action as long as they were acting in good faith compliance with the provisions of this chapter and it would take effect on passage okay thank you Jen that was really clear the combination of senator McCormick's explanation and and going through the bill is very helpful and it does remind us that there are other conditions surrounding some of each of the three so that's also helpful um questions for Jen clarification obviously we have questions about data that supports um making these changes and we'll we'll get testimony in that will help us understand why the requests are being made okay wow we're good so unless I hear differently again this is a bill that we would like to hear more about and we'll we'll move forward on that