 All right, welcome back. We are continuing our work on bills to get out before our committee shuts down. Morning committees will shut down very soon. So, Jen, thanks for coming back with us. We're working on two bills. Two, 10 and 430. How much, how many, how much is in 430 that we need to look at this new. Not a ton. I sent it to you last night. Yeah. Committee, can we just go through that one and, and finalize it? I think, and then let's, we'll, we'll really hash out. Let's go through it. Okay. Give me a second to pull that up. I'm sorry, which one are we doing? For Dr. Dr. We're going to call it. The raptor. Exactly. Bill. The velociraptor. The. Something. The. The velociraptor. The. The velociraptor is. The velociraptor is the. The. The velociraptor is the. The velociraptor is the. The velociraptor is. The velociraptor is the. The velociraptor is the. The velociraptor is the. The velociraptor. It is an act relating to expanding eligibility for doctor dinosaur to all income eligible children and pregnant individuals regardless of immigration status. At least that's its current title. And so we looked at language yesterday. I have highlighted in blue. And I sent you this last night. Eva, this is not the language. Sorry. Sorry, Nellie. I don't think I sent it to you. No, I didn't send Nellie this one. All right. You want to go to 120 while we get that sort of set up? How long will it take? Well, I can put the language up on, I can send it to Nellie and then put the language up on the screen and we can look at it while she's posting. Good. Sorry, Nellie. It should also be in your email. Just send that to her. Putting it up. Okay. Now you have language in blue. So this is H430. Again, it's the Doctor Dinosaur, Doctor Dinosaur-like coverage. So what I've done here is add a new, I've made this new sub-chapter two sections with the first one being legislative intent. And so this helps us really kind of make that connection to Doctor Dinosaur without raising the concerns Eva had about tracking the language in the program itself in a way that would require them to do a full Medicaid eligibility determination and denial first. So in the new section, Doctor Dinosaur-like coverage legislative intent. And it says in establishing Doctor Dinosaur-like coverage for children and pregnant individuals who are not eligible for the Doctor Dinosaur program because of their immigration status. So this is the intent of the General Assembly that the hospital medical dental and prescription drug benefits and eligibility criteria for the coverage set forth in section 2092 of this chapter should align to the greatest extent practicable with the benefits and eligibility criteria of the Doctor Dinosaur program. Then we get into that coverage piece. So now we have the Doctor Dinosaur-like coverage. And the coverage. So again, we still have this term, including migrant workers who are employed in seasonal occupations. And then we have AHS provide hospital medical dental and prescription drug coverage equivalent to coverage in the Medicaid, Vermont Medicaid state plan. So that's what we have for this population in Doctor Dinosaur. So we have the following categories of Vermont residents who have an immigration status for which Medicaid is not available and who are otherwise uninsured. We have children under 19 years of age whose household income does not exceed the income threshold for eligibility under the Vermont Medicaid state plan. We have pregnant individuals whose household income does not exceed the income threshold for eligibility under the Medicaid state plan for coverage during their pregnancy and for postpartum coverage equivalent to that available under the Vermont Medicaid state plan. So coverage is really trying to address the concern that was raised in the house about what happens if the eligibility income levels change in the regular Doctor Dinosaur program, or there's an extension of the postpartum coverage for a year, which is an option that will be made under the American Rescue Plan Act. So this ties the eligibility and that postpartum coverage and the benefits up here to what we have in the Vermont Medicaid state plan. So it's equivalent to, but it's not actually putting somebody on those programs. Does that make sense? Yes. And then we have the language that we looked at in yesterday, which I've kept highlighted because the House Committee has not officially seen it yet. So blue was what I added yesterday, green was what you've already seen. That the confidentiality provisions set forth in section 1902A of this chapter shall apply to all applications submitted and records created pursuant to this section, except that AHS shall not make any information about applicants or enrollees available to the US government. We have the, again, the agency can adopt rules to carry out the purposes. We have that 1.4 million in one time funds. With this language added here that the outreach and information would include would be culturally and linguistically appropriate. With this new second sentence, the outreach and information shall include information on the confidentiality of records pertaining to applicants and enrollees. I think that that is it other than the name change to an act relating to eligibility for Dr. Dinosaur like coverage for all income eligible children and pregnant individuals regardless of immigration status. And just a quick question. Will that new title be reflected in that first paragraph? No, because this is what it is currently called. So it's after passage, after passage it will be. Yes. Right. Now it may have the title change when it goes back over to the house. I'm not always entirely clear on when the House Clerk and Senate Secretary make those changes but this lead in language refers to the bill that you received. Got it. Does have that title. Okay committee other questions. And Nellie, I guess it must be up on our webpage. He does say it's posted refresh. There is. So this is a strike all amendment to H430. Jen, I guess you can probably take it down unless someone has a question about specific language. That's good. Okay. Excellent questions. Okay. Well, it looks like we could act on this bill. H430. This is a strike all amendment. H430 draft 2.2. Is that right, Jen? I believe so. I want to make sure I'm looking at the right number. I know. Yeah, it's blue. It doesn't change when you stay the same. It doesn't change when you take the highlighting out. It does not need to you haven't made any additional changes so I will just remove the highlighting. All right, good. All right. Committee, I would entertain a motion. I move passage of draft number 2.2 of H430. Okay. Discussion. Okay. Hearing none. Senator Taranzini. Thank you, Senator Lanz. This is why you get paid the big dollars. This is that extra thousand I was told. Yes, it is. Yeah, that's right. Still waiting for that, by the way. Me too. I'll call the roll. I'll start with myself. I will be. Yes. Senator Hooker, please. Yes. Senator Cummings. Yes. Senator Hardy. Yes. Senator Lyons. Yes. I get five to zero to zero. Okay, good. So I'm, I'm, I think I, I'd like to report this unless there's a strong desire for who hasn't. Senator Hooker hasn't done a major bill yet. I mean, it's up to you. Huh. I can't hear you. You just muted yourself unless Senator Hardy wants to do it. I don't know. Well, it's either me or you, because I, I, I would like to do it, but I'm happy to have you do it. Because you haven't done. I don't think you've did the last one you did was S 22. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Now you're doing 46. Okay, I'm, I'm fine. Okay. Thank you. I will send you this. And I'll tell you why I wanted to do it. Thank you. Thanks for doing that, Jen. And thank you for your work on this bill. This, this has been a, I haven't had the opportunity to look at undocumented folks within the healthcare system. So this is great. And I'll tell you why I did want to do it and I have why I feel supportive of it. And again, I may stand up and say something. And that is of the work that I've done over time with undocumented workers and their families within the healthcare world and in the healthcare system. So it's something. Important. Okay. So let's. In other languages. It makes it even more fun. All right. So let's go back to 120, please. And then Senator Hooker, this one will definitely be going to appropriations. Okay. And I don't know. I don't know what the discussion was. We had it on our list of bills upfront. There was not money in the budget for this as it came from the house. So the, the Senate committee on appropriations may. May or may not include it, but it's, it's in, and I would hope that the bill keeps its integrity going forward and doesn't get co-opted, but you never know. Just that's a heads up. And I know here's what I'm thinking committee, if this one, if there's any problems with this one going forward, this is something now that we have and we can introduce her again next year. Can we do that, Jen? Can we introduce this as a bill? Potentially. I mean, it, yes, it's already introduced, but I know. Okay. I mean, it already exists, but, but I think you're doing another one. Okay. All right, let's go for the. Let's do the S 120. I haven't heard the direction that this bill is going to take. I sent an, I have communicated with the pro tem about it, but we'll see. So S 120. Okay, when we had stopped, we were looking at the new, we just finished working on a new number two on the powers and duties. Okay, so we're looking at the same one. Or did you do any updates on the task force yet or anything like that? I mean, I have a working document going. I can put it, put that up if you want to look at it as we. Yes, I think that because our time is getting short. Okay. We will work on it together. All right, so here is what I had changed the task force throughout, but I added at the end of powers and duties the task force shall consider the following keeping in mind the principles for healthcare reform and acted in act 48 and codified at the intersection 93 71. Great. Does that work for folks. Looks good. Thanks, Jen. Great, sure. All right, and then we have this new number two how Vermont's current healthcare system is impacting Vermont residents and businesses and their access to affordable healthcare. That is so good. Thank you, Senator Cummings. And Jen. Okay, great. All right. And then. Okay, Oh, I see something that I keep forgetting to bring up and it is, there are two things that have been bugging me a little bit. One is I don't, I don't know how the task force gets together by July 1. That's probably an impossibility given that they may not even be identified. So, and then the other one is the number of meetings, eight meetings beginning in September is, I don't know how that happens. So I'm, I'm raising this as a, as a very practical concern. So, on the beginning honor before September 15 and then, I don't know two or three months for eight meetings. And I actually dreamt about this one last night because it was, I could see the pressure to complete eight meetings of that period of time get and knowing what any support people are going to have to do to make it happen. So, I think there needs to be a different number in there. Let's start with that one. I agree, Jenny, I have to set our lines. I think it is up to how about, what did you say in up to eight. Let's make it up to eight meetings covering all set all areas of the state. Well, why don't we say up to six, I mean up to eight and then you then you feel compelled. I'm just worried about the pressure that that whoever is guiding this group along is going to feel about visiting every single county and having eight meetings. It's not up to eight and I mean, think about up to something up to something. We're all up to something so rather than a set amount if you know he's getting early snowstorm and why don't we say a sufficient number of meetings not to exceed and approach like that. I know I don't either. They got a budget it and and it says that it couldn't be in person or remote. I mean, it does but nevertheless you know there's notice that has to be given out and the people who are keeping notes have to keep notes in between. If it's a the office of legal of legislative operations these people are going to be working overtime. I mean really hard. Not easy to do what's done and communicating with people about zoom, having a public hearing on zoom is not simple. So I think that one of the things to think about is you have the first meeting the task force happening by July you have them considering a lot of things other than. I mean that number two I think is really the kind of the hearing from the public part and maybe some of these other pieces, but how you see these. I don't know if you're going to set a total number of meetings but how you see the non public hearing part of this group's work rolling out and how they, what their end product is supposed to be and how that relates to what they're doing and these other powers and duties and public hearings. I'm hearing what you're saying I think the suggestion then would be. I still think July 1 is way too early when we could be August 15. And that the meeting that the, the task force shall have an organizational meeting, no later than organizational meetings no later than August 15 that that gives folks an opportunity to get together and talk about what's coming next. That planning and then the September 15 date would be the date by which the task force would have public hearings up to, and then say up to six. It's possible that the task force may want to meet two times before, and then the public hearings would be up to six so that's eight meetings included so a total of eight. So if it's below and their compensation reimbursement, it does say not more than 12 meetings. So you might want to go Jen. No I said that's a good point. Not more than I don't know how any task force between in this timeframe is going to meet 12 times unless there's a couple of meetings in there that last an hour. So we'll be silent on a number of public meetings and just say compensation shall be given up to X meetings, and then let them decide how many public meetings they want to have and how many non public. How does the committee feel about that suggestion. I mean they're all public. They're all public public. Right it's the difference between the hearing, whether it whether it's to hear from the public or whether it's to discuss in public. Yeah, I think that sounds good so shell. I agree with Senator Lyons that July 1 is too early. I'm okay with August 15. And then we, the beginning on or before September 5 shall hold public hearings right just be silent on that 15th. If August 15 is getting a little late, if you haven't formed the task force yet, maybe August 1 to make it a month, rather than a month and a half. Between the time you're having having done some of this before I think August 15 is really the timeframe within which people are ready to get back and do things. And then there's a whole month between August 15 and September 15. The task force could meet two or three times, you know, I think probably meet a couple of times. If you have the honor before, you know, it doesn't have to be as late as whatever date you. Yeah, you're right. You can say so if you said August 15 and people wanted to meet July 1 that's still on or before August. That's good. So are you wanting a late. So do you want August 15 in here on or before. Right. That's the last date that it should happen. Right. Yeah. Okay. Flag that is a change. And then your public hearings. Then I think Nolan's comment about being silent on numbers but having a number of meetings for the task force overall. That gives some latitude. So a couple of questions here. Do you want a beginning honor before a certain date? Does it matter when they decide to hold their. You know, do you want to not this is sort of a, yeah, I guess it's beginning honor before but yeah, you know, you don't necessarily need to specify a date start date for that if you don't want. What do you think about that? I'm fine with the honor before it kind of gives some structure but flexibility. Yeah. Either one. Okay. Okay, then leave that. Okay, but you want to take out the number. Yes. Do you want to keep the and then instead of saying each in different Vermont counties. I don't. I think it's difficult to be thinking a lot of it's going to be remote because I know. Because it's sort of, you know, held in the virtual world. What about saying something like to hear from Vermonters from people across the state. That's how I'm trying to figure out how to make it more about hearing from people rather than the county. How about hold public hearings in various regions of the state. How about to hear from people in various regions of the state because it's also zoom remember that it could be, it could be zoom. You could also, again, be silent on that. And if it's going to be zoom, then maybe the committee may decide rather than regional each meeting has a specific focus maybe on access, maybe on costs, maybe on, you know, I mean so maybe if you don't dictate you can let the committee decide how. If the look at if the if it's in different regions of the state, the committee can also decide to take to hear about different aspects of different parts of the charge you're right so I'm agreeing to say. I'm wanting it to reflect people from different, you know, I mean I put in here hold public hearings to hear from Vermont residents from different regions of the state that, or you could say from from all across the state or from around the state. Maybe around the state is better. I like around the state. So if you're just hearing from them from around the state it doesn't specify where it has to be right held. Yes, it's hard to, it's hard to specify where it's going to be held and because it brings up a couple of problems one. If it's zoom, it's zoom you can't just not going to travel to appeal here to zoom if you're not there. But the other, the other issue is. If these are being held then where are they being held so there's some logistical work to find a town meeting a meeting place town hall or a school or something to hold meetings that that requires some work. Okay. Well, so can you look at the language that Jen has just put up there. Right so it just says hold public hearings to hear from Vermont residents from around the state. I don't know if you want to keep this together information from today I mean I think you may not need that gray highlighted piece. Yeah, we don't we don't really need it. Is that we just want to take that out. Yeah. Yeah, let's just keep it simple. I'm in the let's keep it simple, like the ends and you should just come up with all the language just keep it simple. All right, do you want to keep public hearings may be held in person or by remote means. Yes, sounded like you did. Yeah. Do you want each public hearing to begin with a panel discussion involving task force members and local stakeholders selected by the task force. You know, I think that's a decision the task force can make that maybe that they don't want to start that way. And you know, that might do it that way once and then find out that it's not helpful. You know so. Let's go to the Cummings. Let's go to the Cummings. Okay. Do you want a summary of the findings from field hearings included as an appendix to the report. I do. That I think would be helpful. Yeah, yeah. And you know the summary could also be a recording. That's the other thing. Well, that's not a summary. I mean I would summary. That's it. That's a verbatim. That's a bit on not written. Yeah. So let's keep it even if it's just a paragraph that says that the, you know, Addison County thing we heard this, this and this kind of summary. It doesn't, we don't have to specify how it's summarized, but I think a summary of what is learned that these is important to include. In some form. Done. Okay. So then we have the assistance. So hire a consultant to coordinate the task forces work. And then also the administrative technical and legal assistance from the office of legislative operations, the office of legislative council and the joint fiscal office. Yep. And recommendations do by January 15th on the most cost effective ways to expand access to affordable health care for vermonters without health insurance and those facing high health care costs and the various options available to implement the recommendations. Is that what you want them to come back with. Sure. I, you know, I'll see why not. That's fine. I'm just asking this. We're still. I want them not to come back with something like this. Well, or something different is there's something different. Yeah. I'm not hearing anything. So, okay. So the first meeting would occur now on or before August 15th. So the first meeting would occur on January 15th. And then the second meeting, which of course would select house and Senate co-chairs from among its members at its first meeting. And they'd alternate acting as chair at meetings. A majority of the membership constitutes a quorum. And it ceases to exist on January 15th. Very good. All right. We have per diem. Commensation and reimbursement of expenses for not more than how many meetings. I'm just, I just know what the time. Factor is fine here. What do you think? Senator Cummings. It is good. It's good. Whatever prop so give us. Okay, go for it. Well, it's built into the 175,000 appropriation. It's already in 175. So that would change. Oh. No. I don't think it has to. I don't think it has to change. I don't think it has to change. Yeah. What did the house have if that's what they put in? This should be this. This is yours. Senator. There's no house bill. This is. All right. Yeah. No. And we. That's right. The other one. So legislative operations here as well. Not to the joint fiscal office. Yeah. I think eight is fine. I agree. It's good. Okay. I think that can be captured within the 175. Okay. Okay. So that's the end of your. What? Task force language. Okay. And then we get into the ACO. Oh, I can take this part out. We get into the ACO. Data collection. And analysis piece. Okay. Anything with that. Okay. Then we have the PBM three 40 B. Language. Yeah. So we got. In YouTube request worlds, a couple of emails, but one went to just. Center lions and me. And why I haven't seen it yet. What is it? Yeah. No, it's okay. And one went to just me. And the other one went to just me. And the other one went to just me. And the other one went to just say more or less the same thing. So I can summarize for you. That this is. Really about prescription. The pharmacies making the administrative costs more difficult for hospitals and clinics to participate in three 40 B. And the other one went to just me. And the other one went to just me. Refusing to provide any kind of discount under the program. And they name a specific pharmacy. Oversight that's doing it, which I won't talk about, but. And so this is to avoid private. Pharmacy. Benefits pro managers from putting administrative burdens on the hospitals and those clinics to participate. You know, which is something that I wanted to be part of for them to, to participate in the three 40 B program. So that's the sort of answer to the question I asked, which is what is the problem we're trying to solve. And I can read the whole thing if you want, but that's kind of the basics. Is there, are we okay with that? That's really about. Senator Cummings. We can't hear you. No, just an aside. We're good. All right. You couldn't hear me. I can imagine. So we're, you're good with this language. We're, we're set on this section. Okay. And we have the state health improvement plan. With again, putting in the commissioner. Yeah. And then the next section has that. The commissioner submitting copies and any updates in the timeline for adoption of a new state health improvement plan. And I will note that the current state health improvement plan. Uh, covers 2019 to 2023. So I'm not sure. I mean, I think they have made. Updates and I would expect that probably this next one would be to start for 2024. Right. Um, I just have it open. Um, all right. And then we have, uh, and I did take out that section on the auditor access. So, and I've renumbered the section. So. Okay. If you were looking for things based on old numbers, that's why. Then we have the green mountain care board report. On the health insurance administrative expense. And how those increases have lined up with the consumer price index increases over the last five years. Then the ACO. Care coordination report. And then, um, the various primary care. Visit reports and the, the impacts of the individual and small. Group market and the large group market. Um, of, of implementing provisions like that. I'm thinking that that. Study might inform some of the reporting that the task force does. I mean, so there might be some benefit to having this study in the first place. Uh, That's all. Sure. And that, I mean, the task force could certainly ask, ask for updates from these folks as they're doing the work. Um, If they have any conclusions to share. And then we have the effective date. And so, um, I'd left this highlighted in here in case you made changes. To it, but if you're keeping that. PBM language. Then this would be an effective date. So it would take effect on January 1st and apply to contracts entered into or renewed after that. You could probably have it take effect on, you know, July 1st of this year and applied all countries as long as it's perspective. Okay. Making changes. I think that makes sense. Sure. There's a particular reason other than. Uh, Utah's was a. January 1st. So I like that. But I don't think that needs to be that way. Okay. Since it's all forward looking. Okay. All right. And then we just need a new title. Okay. This is a quiz. Is this a task force on the access and affordability to healthcare? Or what? Another miscellaneous subjects. Yes. You want a miscellaneous miscellaneous healthcare subjects. I think we want the task force. I think we want the task force. That's. Yes. Why that purpose is to let people know we are still working on healthcare. Right. I remember that I have to go back up to the top. Task force on affordable accessible healthcare. Task force on. Affordable accessible healthcare. Do you want, is it just that? Or do you want another healthcare provisions or something? And related healthcare provisions. Not. I don't know if it's really if they're related, but. And other healthcare. Other healthcare. Great. Put this on the next page. Oh, good. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So. Committee that. Thank you, Jen. This looks really. We've made some. Long. Steps. I was going to say strides, but. Big steps. So committee, the, the question that, that Senator Hooker raised earlier was, is this a committee bill? Or is it a. Is it a committee bill? I don't know what the distinction will be when we pass it out. I know that Senate finance had luck. With their committee bill. Has S one 20 already been through rules or not until you voted out. Not until we voted out once. Either way. Huh? It's the same way either way. I don't think it matters. I don't think it matters. I think it matters. I think that's one 20 has the. Other senators on it. So they may want to stay on the bill. Well, I'm not on the bill. Right. And neither is Senator Tarenzini. So the question is, do you want us to be on the bill? I'm agnostic actually. So if you guys want to be. Take it forward, that's fine. I don't care if I think whatever's easier. If it's easier to have it as a committee bill, that's fine. Senator Tarenzini, do you want to be on, have this be as a committee bill? Are you okay with it that way? I'm fine either way. Center lines up. I'm going to support the bill. So if my name's on it or not, it doesn't matter to me. Yeah. No, as a committee bill, it's a committee bill. So there are no names on it and it does make it a little bit more. I would say compelling to take it up. When it's a committee bill. When it's a committee. When it's a committee. When it's a committee. When it's a committee. When it's a committee sounds great. Sure. Okay. Let's do it. Jen. Can we just do that? Okay. I'll need to get it processed as a committee bill. You know, I have to get a request. Number and all that, but I need to have it edited anyway. So. Okay. Yeah. So yes, it's, it's easy enough for me. It's just going to be a copy and paste. All right. I just have to write a. I don't know what's in it. That'll be simple. I'm sorry. Well, I have to go through. On to the floor and then back to us and then back to the floor kind of thing. No, it won't, it just won't get introduced until we've done all of that. I see. It'll go right to rules. It will, I think it will go right to rules and then. And then it will go to appropriations. Then it will go to appropriations. And then it will go to. Theoretically, the one 75 will already be in the big bill. So since it is a one time thing. It, and it's not general fund dollars. It might actually. Be a good thing. Okay. All right, Jen. So. This then is the committee bill with the title that you just put in. Yes. Anything else we need to do on this bill. I think I've remembered all the, the, oh, I do have one other thing. So we sent our letter with hearing aid language on the DFR. And I think Nolan, do you know if that made it into the budget? The hearing aid or Jen, do you know if our hearing aid, DFR language for benchmark plans made it into the budget? I don't know. Is there any value in putting that language into this bill? I mean, suppose it's not included in the budget and we, we keep hearing about how important hearing aids are and please pass the language that's in. The budget. So if we have a $132, no question that if something doesn't happen, we're going to see that bill in our committee again or in. Senator Cummings committee on hearing aids. So the question is, do we want. Jen, how. Is it, can we just add the. Language. In this bill. Sure. So really what you'd be doing is making sure that the legislative priorities for what gets looked at, including hearing aids and those other items is part of the benchmark plan review and then having the report come back to you. So that would be the rationale. Yes. That's fine. So and it's kind of belts and suspenders. Of course, when the bill goes to appropriations, they can take the belt away or the suspenders away. Sure. I can certainly add that. It's fine with me. It would include the whole list, though, right, Jen? The same language we have. Yes, I just copied it out of the memo and I'm going to paste it into here. So that's exactly what you've seen before. Okay, that's good. That one, that one's been bothering me a little bit because I just think it's so important to people. I guarantee we're going to hear about hearing aids going forward and the task force is going to hear about hearing aids going forward. It's one of the things the federal government could do. Just really do a lot. All right. Okay, I will be putting it in as a new section 10 and making section 10, section 11. Okay. So I will turn this into a committee bill and have it edited and send it around to all of you. I should be able to send that around to you hopefully later today if that works. So the question is, do you want to vote on the bill pending our review when Jen sends it around? We can do that. We have done that in the past. And then if there's a concern about the bill, we can probably get back together. I think the budget's not going out till Tuesday. Is that right, Nolan? Do you know? I thought it was today. I did voting it today, but I think the work is happening to sort of put it all together over the weekend. Yeah. Okay, so let's do, I think we probably should vote on it then. And then it goes to rules. Okay. I'll have to deal with where it goes to and how it's handled and check in with the pro tem about that. So I'm, so shall we vote then? I'm not seeing anyone say no, don't vote. And then Jen, when you send this around to us, if somebody, if there's a big glitch, we can, we can come back. We've done that before, I think. Okay. Committee. Yes. So, so do you need a motion to take? I've need a motion to pass the committee bill entitled and I leave it to you to remember the title. Task force on affordable and accessible health care and other health care related. Related to health care and other health care topics. Provisions. Provisions. Whatever you want. Whatever the legalese is. Good work. Okay. Okay. Is that a motion? Yes. Discussion? Okay. Thank you all. This has been a real hit. This, this has actually been kind of good, I think, for us to do this. It's been great. And I think that the task force is an excellent idea and going out and hearing people is going to be terrific. It's all the way through the process. Yeah. So. Do we need a vote? Any other, any other Senator Taranzini? One more time. Okay. At this time I'll call the roll. Myself. Yes. Senator Hooker. Yes. Senator Cummings. Senator Hardy. Yes. Senator Lyons. Yes. Five zero zero. Thanks. All right. So that's good. And I know that who would like to report this. Senator Hooker. I didn't hear you, Senator. I think Senator Hooker or Senator Hardy should report this one. Yeah, I do too. So Senator Hooker, why don't you report it? And you're also reporting 430. And H46. I'll take H46 off your hands. Okay. And I'll let you do both of those. All right. And you, and Will, that's good. Okay. Thank you. So H46, can you send me what Katie sent you? She sent me a copy. Okay. Nellie, so we're good on all these things. Everybody has really pitched in and worked hard. And Senator Hardy, you've worked super hard on some of these bills and really appreciate that. My pleasure. Yep. I'm so proud of us for voting out all of these bills today. It's really amazing. Thank you, Jen, for all of your work. It's good. So I'm looking, hang on a second. Okay. So here's Nellie. I have a request for Nellie for each one of us. I'll send Nellie a list of the bills that you are each reporting and that I'm reporting and ask her to get you a witness list for the bills. Okay. And then you should be receiving a clean copy from Jen or Katie. And Nolan, if you have, I know you have, can get the fiscal notes off on these, maybe just send them to Nellie and have her post them. And then we can each pick up the ones that relate to the bills that we're reporting. I'll have them all done by Monday. Perfect. We have met our principal criterion of finishing early. Jen and Nolan, thank you. You have both been extremely helpful in our deliberations. Really very much appreciate your work. We are so lucky. So lucky. Thank you. Yeah. So committee, we finished early. It's been a pleasure. So next week we do have some more work. And we're going to have some things on our agenda to look at on Thursday. Next we are meeting jointly with judiciary. I think you saw the note yesterday. Both Senator Sears and I asked to have this Commissioner Levine's testimony from the house. It's actually when they first took up the issue of buprenorphine and it's really it's almost a legalization, but you should look at H 225. Did I send that around to you yet? No. Okay. I'll send that to you. We're going to look at 225 with judiciary. The bill will be in judiciary, but it does have there are implications around clinical medical treatment, addiction in particular, and the role that buprenorphine may or may not play in addiction. But again, holding people making making it illegal for younger people to hold a certain amount of buprenorphine. So we will look at that we'll have testimony from the the medical side and the counseling side and judicial side. And it will be really a focus on the judicial questions, illegal questions, but it's important for us to be there and then to weigh in on whatever happens to that bill. Go ahead. Did the bill get through rules? I'm not sure whether it's through rules yet or not. Not yet. It's still there, but if and when it comes out, it will be in judiciary. Okay. And we are hearing testimony from various groups. It's yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that's that that that's the whole point of our media our joint meeting next week is to hear some testimony. The bill has come over late, but there are a lot of people who believe that this will help with the perception around addiction as a medical issue. And so we'll hear from we'll hear that perspective. Okay. And then we have appointments. So we'll do that next week too. Okay. That's good. I'll see you next week.