 OK, and welcome back from our break, a short break. And we're now at a point of maybe having a discussion about what we heard in terms of what we might want to add or how we want to frame the information we want back. Representative Rosenquist or Carl. Thank you. No, I just thought, as they say, as our last presenter, this is very good at detailing the three different types of pre-authorization, which I think many of us didn't realize that based on what we've heard, it would seem like a very definite thing we should be asking this panel that would ask you questions. Can it look seriously at getting rid of the annual renewal? There may be some great reasons for it at the moment. It doesn't seem that useful. And two, the changing the spoke to the differential in medication prescription going from 16 to 24, looks like it doesn't really make a lot of sense. So those two, I think, are easy ones to possibly dispose of or advise the committee. The third one is a little more complicated. We did hear some definite differences between the efficacy of the different treatments. So anyway, I have just a opening. OK. Thank you. Thank you. Representative McFawn, you had your hand up and then down. Exercising. Yes, I did, Madam Chair, because Representative Rums and Crest just said what I was going to say. I think that those three that we should ask the board to include those three questions. OK. Yeah. One of the things that Jackie said that I wrote down was that I don't know how to put this in legislative language, but to ask how much is bias with regard to people who are substance users is impacting this prior authorization process. And we've had multiple witnesses talking about bias now, and I think that's been helpful to open our eyes about that. And then the other thing she said is that are there other ways to achieve what Diva, well, this is what I wrote down. These aren't her words, but are there other ways that to achieve what Diva needs to get out of this, which is to control the finances, frankly, control what the spend is, are there other ways to do that while I'm not going to say eliminating bias because I know that that is very difficult to do, but to at least reduce the bias that seems to be present. So those are two things I took away from in addition to what Carl and Topper just said in addition to that I took away from the last witness. So one thing I'm still struggling with, and I really appreciate the last couple of days that we've heard two very opposite perspectives. But what keeps coming through for me and keeps getting elevated is what we started with probably a week, 10 days ago. The comment that I made that this seems like this financial situation for Medicaid seems to be born on the back of the most vulnerable people. I'm waving. Welcome in. Welcome. Thank you for being here. Please join our discussion. We're sort of having a discussion, and we'll tell you where we are. Sorry, go ahead. So it just seems like people who have the means to have private insurance, people who have the means to go pay cash are experiencing less barriers. And is that who we are in Vermont? I understand the financial situation. I know the state has to monitor costs and people costs. But why does that have to be born on the backs of the most vulnerable people who need to have access open to them as much as possible so they can improve and be healthy individuals? I guess I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'm not quite sure. Now that the most vulnerable are bearing it more than others, but maybe you could explain that a little more. You're saying the private insurers, obviously, they're somebody's pain that was built more than the state, correct? OK. Private insurance doesn't require prior authorization and Medicaid does. So Medicaid is for people who are poor, who have no other access. So did we hear that all private insurers the two main insurers in Vermont do not require any? There are only two left. And, well, SIGNA. SIGNA is still here. And they also do not have prior authorization. SIGNA? SIGNA. But I mean, I understand what you're saying, but I guess I also have to point out that not all MAT requires prior authorization for Medicaid. It's not. So it's only when we get to a certain point. And so it is a reduced number of people. But some of the things that were pointed out here today, like the differences between the 16 and the 24 and who needs prior authorization in that intervening space. To me, that seems like a relatively accomplishable thing. But I think we just, I mean, for me, I think we have to maybe be careful about avoiding over-generalizations because there are a whole host of people get access without prior authorization through Medicaid as well. It's just, I mean, there are other circumstances, though, that the other insurers do not require. And Medicaid does, yeah. For people listening, I just want to be clear. Commissioner, thank you for taking the time to be here. We heard some fascinating testimony this morning that I think crystallized that as one of the doctors said, there are two camps. And that there is not that the physician world does not necessarily see what we are doing in the same way, which is why we have rolled back from, we know exactly what to do, to asking the Drug Utilization Review Board to do some things and for you to come back, Deepa, to come back with a report. And I think we shared with you. Did we share with you that draft? You did, Madam Chair. Yes, thank you for that. And we have been talking some more. And one of the things that we, and we're sort of talking right now about what are the questions that we want or what are the prime. And one of the things we learned was about there's a different dosage limit in the hub and spoke depending upon whether it is a hub or a spoke. And that was questioned as to the why. And some of us around the table might like us to say they should be the same. So there are two hands still, right, Madam Chair? OK, I said we'd ask you. I'm happy to hear what I know, if that helps. And then the other one was a question about the yearly annual review or the annual prior authorization for what is a chronic condition. So those were two of the major questions. The third being probably what brings, what brought us to here in the first place. Why prior authorizations medically? We get the money part. But why else? And those are some of the questions we have. But please go ahead, you were going to say something. Oh, sure. No, thanks, Madam Chair. And I just also want to thank you all for having me here, in particular, today to just talk through some more of this. And obviously it's a very complex situation. I think to answer the first question and why there's a difference between the max dose of 24 milligrams in a hub versus the max dose of 16 milligrams in a spoke is in my mind. And again, I'm going to just, for full disclosure, I am not the medical expert. But I do have a good enough understanding here of us too. It is not an issue of preference in terms of expertise, credentialing, and such on the providers part. As much as it is a difference in how those patients in hubs are monitored versus the patients in spokes, I believe in it is my understanding. And it would be a great question for those providers to answer themselves is in the hubs, they are very closely and more frequently seen. And they have to go in for their appointments and receive medication and such. So my understanding is that is one of the reasons why the dosing is 24 milligrams versus 16. Again, I'm not a clinician. So that would be a more of a question for them. But that's what I know in terms of that rationale. I am wondering if you have any, if you had what your thoughts were about. And I think, of course, this is a moving target. We keep adding or subtracting things. And what is your opinion? Is this something that Diva is willing or able to do? We understand there's what's in the three page amendment. So I actually, when I looked at the amendment, there were very few items that I would change, to be honest with you. When I saw the draft last evening, I was just absolutely thrilled that you landed where you did. Simply because I think there's only one area where I can say, and it's more of a process thing than it is anything else and how our Drug Utilization Review Board operates. And I think I can point you to it if that's helpful right now or we can wait until later. No, it will be very helpful. And legislative council may be on, is listening and is about to be able to, legislative council, if picture is not here but is listening and when we need her to present other things, she'll either be a voice or if can a picture. Perfect, perfect. So this particular area is, let's see, it is A, it is letter A. I'm trying to find it on my screen now. But it basically says, honor before December 1st, 2022, the Drug Utilization Review Board shall review the following. And it says, and submit its finding and recommendations to the Department of Vermont Health Access. The way that it works in our world is that DEVA typically will do a lot of the research ahead of time and present that information to the review board for their consideration. That's, and it's just like I said, it's a process question. So they wouldn't necessarily submit findings to DEVA as much as they would review the information, add their own expertise and then make a decision at that point. So I didn't want you to think that they were going out and doing the research because that is not how the board operates. OK, thank you. Thank you. That's helpful. Can I ask a question? Yeah, OK. So I'm just curious, is there any chance ever for others as something outside of the administration to present research or evidence as well so that they would help them? Yes, absolutely. We would welcome that. So we definitely have had other presentations to the board, whether it's a new drug class that's being presented, we often have outside vendors or anybody who would like to contribute. Thank you. So Commissioner, just to clarify so I can wrap my mind around this line, what you are proposing is that DEVA would do the initial research requested and the questions that we have or the sub-pieces here and looking at various aspects of prior authorization, et cetera. Then you would present that to the Drug Utilization Review Board, who would then respond to that to DEVA, who would then bring that to the legislature? If they were recommending changes, is what you're saying, or put it in the report? I'm not. Both. Is there recommending changes or just to report out on their considerations? Yes, it really isn't our process to make those decisions in a silo at all. So we would want to have a robust discussion with our board to identify, does this make sense, clinically, fiscally, and the like. And then at what point we can discuss that, then we would put it in the report. I think you have a few due dates. We don't have any concerns about anything else in this draft. I think it was really just a change from submitting to the word submit to provide its recommendations. That's maybe just a word or two changes, all we were asking for or to consider, for you to consider at least. Does that make sense? Representative Small, did I answer the question? Yeah, I'll let you know if more questions come up. Commissioner, having us understanding that there are, for lack of a better term, this is a bit simplistic, two camps. We'd like to make sure that both camps have an opportunity, that the perspectives of both camps. And I want to say our assumption is that the Drug Utilization Review Board, as a board that is appointed, shall I say by one camp, it's going to be heavy on one camp side. So how we ensure that there's a diversity of at least information and opinions presented, who knows what the result will be. But that's my job to sort of say what no one else is saying. Oh, I think that's reasonable, Madam Chair. One of the things that I have done, I've only been here about three months now, but it has been a quick learning experience for me. But regarding the various boards that we have, what I've really tried to do is understand who's on these boards. Would it maybe look at reconstituting them if the terms are expiring so that we do have diverse opinions. And, you know, it's also difficult to, in this current world where our providers are, they're often too busy to do some of this work. So we want to make sure we keep our board members and ensure that they're able to balance all of their other commitments as well. So it is a priority for me and I do appreciate all perspectives and it's important to tell you make good decisions. So I hope that helps. No, it does help. It helps very much. I'm wondering, I'm just wondering if there is a, if there's a way in that we, that there can be a phrase or a word or, you know, a phrase or to, to put what you just said in, in this section. I mean, you know, the other perspective, not, I mean, we don't want to say that way, but perhaps. Balance, balanced presentations or balance. I'm not sure what I would use for, I'm sure we can come up with something that, that all point of views are considered. Okay. But I would say. Okay. I think that's important. So I don't have any. Concerns about. I'm good. Katie, are you able to. Enter this. Hi. Hi, how are you? I don't know. Have you been able to. Perhaps we, we may be looking for your expertise. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if the commissioners in terms of. How to maybe weave in. The concept of multiple perspectives being. Present. Right. So I'm looking at that section for. And right now. The advice and recommendations are sort of coming from the drug utilization review board. I'm not sure. I don't know. I don't know if there could be language about consultation with stakeholders. Sorry. I'm going to turn off my camera. It's fine. And we realize that it's nice. This is where, you know, of course. Yeah. Nevermind. We love kids. We love kids. We love it. It may not be the top. We love it. But I don't know if there are any. I don't know. If there is any. I don't know if there may not want to be starred stage and screen. So you understand. Thanks. Thanks for your patience. So I was thinking about language about including consultation with stakeholders, maybe specifying. A specific type or group of stakeholders. But there might be other considerations out there. May I just add another comment that a chair. I don't know if this is. review board is is a public meeting and so I other points of you would be welcome at that meeting and I don't know if we would need to put language in here to cauterize that or not or not cauterize that's a wrong that's a surgery term. I am wondering if well there's a couple of things that are going on in my mind one of which is that we have a by the end of today this if there's a if there's an amendment we want to have that amendment written and so that the body can see it as well and we are real and we would like to be working with with you sort of on it which is why we wanted you to sort of see this and we had made a few other tweaks we talked about the clinical review and I have and I believe that and ledge council had been working on some of those in terms of that and I know there's a public comment period I may I hear that and I we might we might like your first suggestion better than your second suggestion about that yeah I wonder if it could be something along the lines of with consideration to the diverse views of spoke providers really getting at the folks who are in the field in the area knowing that kind of leaning on the expertise piece while also recognizing those camps that we've been referring to I think that's a great point representative small so let me ask you this if we as we we have I believe one or two openings on the board right now and from a recruitment perspective if we recruited a member from a spoke for example targeting various areas would that solve for the concern here some names please I'll send you the link to apply but would that would that meet the need in terms of diverse perspectives because we do have we have various clinicians hubs and spokes that the challenge is really the time commitment to be a board member sometimes absolutely okay absolutely amenable to that one thank you commissioner thank you it's a great point thank you madam chair I would just offer the kind of distinction as far as when we're looking for engaging diverse and balanced perspectives that it's not only taking place when the findings are presented but that actually as you do the review as you create the findings that you're engaging with diverse perspectives is that does that make sense absolutely yes I think that's that's best practice to be honest um it's clear that a when I'm looking I'm looking at what we sort of sent to you that a is where you were pointing out that we had the process we had the process backwards backwards or whatever and so they're not submitting their findings and recommendations so that piece needs to be to reflect what in fact the process is I think for accuracy see that would be absolutely yeah absolutely otherwise it looked great and I appreciate the work that you all done on this it's I was I was pleased to be honest I didn't know what to expect so I I realize sometimes this committee has a reputation I have no idea what you're talking about no I appreciate the work I really do and I'm I'm thrilled to be able to be part of the conversation so thank you um um as we sort of look I mean as as Katie um as less counsel re reworks that one sentence um or that that part um would you be amenable to however she does it to somehow put a a phrase or something around what the Department of Health Access will do absolutely in making their recommendations they will have researched or considered yes happy to do that there must be a better word than to say the different camps but the diverse opinions the diverse perspective perspective for professional judge I mean it really is a different um because I was all I was all on board with one of the people who testified and I keep forgetting what it's called an active congress kept saying that the pre-authorization for the mono product was took an active congress and um then the two people we heard today um who actually represent different perspectives on other issues sort of said well um yes there is but no it's not an active congress so it was like oh okay oh you have a very difficult job I'm not sure who is this more difficult ours or yours a really good point um you know um you know we realize that um I mean we're just hoping that this um that this amendment which we understand from joint fiscal um uh representative Whitman you've talked to joint fiscal yeah and we've been in touch uh with no one mind well at joint fiscal office and he's basically responded that um while he won't have a revised fiscal note until after the bill passes maybe because he knows that it can happen but that this amendment as is has no fiscal impact um so of course there's still the fiscal impact for our pilot appropriations which are included in our prior one but um and that was in uh consulting with diva that you both agreed that as we have here no fiscal impact um thank you so are we looking to change this draft yeah I think we're looking to change this draft and um Katie um um Katie may not be able to be on right now um uh I believe now I'm going to turn to um to dain and to Taylor who've been working on this and dain mostly um are there there was there's some changes from the first this first draft and are can you go over any of them with us happy to um so first I'll just sort of um I'll reflect back what um we discussed yesterday and then and the kinds of changes that we thought to make as a result of that and then I'll try to reflect back what I've heard today okay um and what we're kind of considering adding so from yesterday um it was just a minor change on section four as far as sort of just clarifying um so when you say honor before December 1st 2022 the drug utilization review board shall review the following and submit its findings and recommendations related to prior authorization to the department of from on health access so that was just an effort to sort of clarify we've written it's uh we realized that we wrote the whole section without quite calling that out as the issue um so that should be straightforward um number two looking at the feasibility and costs associated with adding monobuprenorphine products as preferred medications um and then to add and review the current process for verifying adverse effects so that goes back to the sort of uh what we heard from dr lord yesterday about needing to say prescribe an anti nausea medication before being able to move on to mono so again just uh having their review and looking at what's our current process what are alternatives related to um getting somebody onto monobuprenorphine and then uh things that we've heard that's the only two things from yesterday and what i've heard from today that we're interested in is um investigating creating parity between the hub and spoke um providers for their quantity limits and the second one being uh removal of the uh annual renewal investigation of that investigation of everything here is investigating you know um but uh the annual renewal yeah yeah all of all of this is to get findings and report back everything that we're saying here um and I would say that on um section seven one thing that I heard from representative small as a potential addition and maybe for committee discussion is to add um information on how many of the denials were then approved after receiving further information being able to sort of capture that data point um um so can I clarify that representative do you mean after we have denied them sometimes we then approve them and you would want to know know how many of those changed yes please okay is that is that something that's feasible to do I mean go out I will have to check on that I don't know exactly how granular we can be but I will check um and you want that as part of the report correct and in section seven it yeah and in that the last report I guess we're building on to the report that you're already giving yeah yeah continuing it oh and we're continuing it I guess you it's unsetted this year it's the report's unsetted so we are we are um re-upping it for three more years and in addition to a second report right there was another report that you had asked for here yes so there's two in section section four page two of the amendment it's through the drug utilization review board that we've discussed this and then on section seven it's basically the current report that we've received for the past three years looking to continue it as well as bolster it with some additional data um I actually have one more that's what I have a question about that we moved on to um commissioner um with regard to that um the the uh request that you're going to look into seeing whether or not that data is that granular or not um so I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if it's reported if it's in this report and it's reported as a denial is it reported as the sort of like final action or is that um the interim action I think that's the final action but I'm not the expert on that piece so I will find out from our pharmacy team okay all right awesome thank you um and I want to ask the committee um or maybe it's asking the committee and commissioner um we're asking you you know in the report or whatever in section four um around these questions that relate to the drug utilization review board and the clinical yes uh that's thank you I was going to bring that up I think that that was something that came up basically and so in my research last night as I was doing getting ready for the bill presentation happy to hear the committee's feedback on this but essentially that there's a drug utilization review board and a clinical utilization review board we know that it's within the DURD's charge to look at prior authorization looking at the clinical utilization review board's charge is also has to do with prior authorization and speaking to diva this morning my understanding was hearing from uh nisa james is that essentially the department would be doing that anyway internally reviewing with the clinical review board as well when they come up with their findings and receiving feedback that's absolutely correct and I think it actually provides a more holistic look at what we're doing and the decisions we're making by bringing it to both boards so it is what we do so is what's being suggested dame that we add clinical utilization review board and drug utilization review board since that's what the department would be doing anyway for it okay and when you say when we say we are looking for a report could we're interested in some specific questions so could the report be those sections of the minutes from related to those questions or or or their ultimate you know I guess I'm trying to figure out what's the how how how big a report you are looking for to yeah so my my understanding and um commissioner uh please let me know if uh I'm off here but essentially the majority of the report and the finding that's going to be something that's available and produced by diva right so that will be that will be available to us what we're really getting from the d urb and the c urb is their recommendations their approval or you know what they now that we have this information what are their recommendations for changes which is what those boards do anytime that they're looking at a new medication or any kind of policy changes they give a thumbs up or a thumbs down as to a recommendation related to one of these things so it could be meeting minutes you know I mean there's just I mean I I'm just uh um I was reading into your comment commissioner when you said oh there's two reports um and try I guess I was trying to um reassure you that we're not that we're not looking for um something major um thank you and legislative council you are um I understand um might be available now um uh can I ask a question then while we go ahead ask a question I'm and I think this is for the committee but I'm not sure earlier today Madam Chair talked about when we had the testimony that she had asked a couple pharmacists about the override and how often they used it and that it was not used that often and I just wondered if it's there it seemed to be twofold one that if patients asked or if the people going to get their prescription asked them to activate it and then or is it them asking the patient or the uh I don't know the prescriber or prescriber but the the person who's going to get their prescription asking so which which way does it go and if and it doesn't happen regularly and there seems to be is there education needed around this and should we put this in here anywhere because it does seem to be something that could be better understood in the field so I just put it out there because I did okay there is I was an individual supposed to know that they have the ability to ask for that where would they find that information out right if there's if there's the you know a delay in getting the prior authorization for instance exactly how do they know that or if they show up in the pharmacy and the pharmacist says I'm sorry I haven't gotten prior approval yet I always imagined from the testimony that it would be the pharmacist who'd say but don't worry I can give you three days and then but that's not what's happening and then so how is the person supposed to know to ask I've heard that there's a possibility that you could override that can you help me would they have to like the ability to ask like I just pictures certain people who even if they knew they have that right to ask they wouldn't ask that yes also sounds really complicated to try to track and to put into a report and so and in simplifying it this is the direction we would want to go for the committee I wonder if we could examine an automatic if the if Medicaid would be amenable to an automatic institution of that three-day override so if the prior authorization hasn't gone through and the person goes to request their medication it isn't an ask that they would have to make but it would automatically apply they would get the three days and then would be able to come back great correct again as a report just to correct commissioner not something to put into practice but something to examine just understanding the barriers on both ends for those who are consumers as well as for pharmacists so let me let me ask the committee and then we'll ask you is that something you would like to add to the report the information all those informally who would like to add that to the report please raise your hand Madam Chair are you saying add the sentence that Taylor just said yes as as a a requirement that it's automatic no as a as an as another question for them to look at to make it automatic or not yeah exactly okay all right thank you so I'm a committee of what what I'm going to say is I guess this is my as we're managing time and everything else this will be representative Whitman's amendment and represent Whitman if you would as we continue a little bit more with the discussion work with Kate with Legislative Council on language that we've talked about and share it with the commissioner and so and and and then we as a committee would take a vote tomorrow morning um on that on that on the final language with my dream is that uh commissioner that you would find the revisions acceptable you don't have to love them but acceptable um um and that um you know you too would have until nine o'clock tomorrow morning to let us I mean actually if you could um if representatives Whitman could work with you or your staff or shit you know um or your staff could work with pledge council that that's my that's my thought about a process um in terms of timing and moving forward and I see on chopper you have a question yeah I just thank you madam chair I just want to make sure that um when Katie's drafting that the four questions that we talked about this morning uh are in her mind somehow yes that's um thank you for that uh clarification that is what we would be um commissioner sort of thinking about at one clarifying the real process um to maybe at potentially adding a question around um uh I want to say it would be the pharmacist automatic three-day emergency and we're talking emergency whatever that is and then the the the questions around um parity between settings to explore that and there may be a really good reason but they're different camps and the other one was um why the annual review for um what is a chronic condition and maybe figure out how to put the concept of getting the information from diverse professional medical opinions somewhere in and that those are the themes of that are different or added that we'd be thinking about that representative Whitman I think would be thinking about adding is there anything else or anything that people um we're talking about we're talking about anything else in adding and adding to the report yes represent a small you're making face oh I was just laughing because that seems like a dangerous question madam chair if there's anything else um I have nothing else okay then clearly no one else does no I'm uh Carl do you have um anything else it sounds like we what you were reiterating sounds like some of the issues I want to clarify but Dane and I talked about it also so okay all right um Ray you were sort of you want to make sure we sort of look at the whole concept which we are in terms for asking them to and Dane you're going to be the author of this amendment so well I had one idea that I'd like to check with all of you about whether it's uh worth something to investigate further uh take some time looking at and that's how we heard from a few people the sort of continuity of care for Vermonters who have been incarcerated describe the mono product and then moving out and then needing to transition to another product and just looking at that that process and practice and whether or not that could be reconsidered if I may it was also on my list I didn't mention it um I know and I appreciated that I thought I thought you might madam chair um and one consideration I will bring up is that if we do include that in the amendment that amendment will then have to go to corrections and institutions for consideration so I wonder if maybe we add it to uh representative Wood's list for next year um out of things for us to consider and look deeper into oh oh oh we could ask joint justice we could ask joint justice oversight to look at that over the summer in the bill we can yeah another section would have to which uh commissioner you don't have to necessarily no that wouldn't I don't believe is that I can I could check with the with the current chair of the joint justice oversight but that wouldn't require it to go to corrections no that's why I kept it on my list as well but commissioner what we heard um and we may be premature and putting this in except it was I think for many of us it was a bit of a horrifying we we heard that in and in the correctional facilities um folks are given the mono that that is what they are given that that is the drug that they are given and I realize that's not you that is um the corrections doctors which is someone they contract with right and then they leave so if this really is outside of um this is a section you wouldn't have to worry about it because it would it's really has to do with the contractors who um then only give them three days or one day of supply where it comes into then trouble when it comes into your world of medicaid is um then the person has to immediately go on so go on to suboxone and that transition for some can be very hard I understand um but that would be a whole um we can either formally or informally ask justice oversight and let's let's think about well I want to give the commissioner the ability to think about that um what we would be doing is we would be asking the justice oversight committee um which deals with corrections and other issues related to justice to put that on their summer plan and which might mean having people come in and testify right that's what that's what it would mean yeah it would mean having you have that's what would mean so I want to give you the opportunity to think about that thank you yeah thank you I think that is it's an important issue but doesn't necessarily fit with this initiative right now um it's very important though so I'm yeah this is what the area is talking about um so um commissioner how should we how do we the royal week how should um legislative council and representative Whitman be in touch with you so that um you're so that you are involved regarding today's discussion or regarding the corrections discussion or both today's and today's discussion that was going to um be be a new a new amendment not what you saw but okay yes thank you um I'm happy to my email I think representative Whitman uh both representative Whitman and small have my email um okay so that's a good way I can offer my cell phone offline if you'd like yeah okay and we'll keep it moving here I'm understanding and there's a deadline of 9 a.m. tomorrow for your submission right and so we would have to try to get back with you by the end of today if possible if I if we have it by the end of the today if possible and yeah that that would be the best but okay thanks madam chair I think the only question that I have related to the the last point which was how do we satisfy the diversity of opinion requirement I don't know that we so if we put that in this this amendment how do we Diva satisfy that requirement in a report style um so that would be my only question whether it's for you know board recruitment um outside test you know outside presentations from people folks not on the board you know I don't know what that looks like so I would just want a little more context okay um I would ask you to think about the context of what feels um within how you would be getting information to present to the um to review boards as well right right yeah I think these are important okay um so committee I think that we are at a good place to stop and so what um I have a general um a sense that at least at least six people on the committee support them no um we won't be taking any kind of vote until um 9 a.m. tomorrow morning and this will be um rather than even though this was a committee bill the amendment will be just from dame and then we will vote on it on 9 a.m. tomorrow morning oh oh you're she's looking at me witness tomorrow okay then we're going to do it not at 9 a.m. we're going to do it um at um we can do it at 9 a.m. can we do it just before we're done or just before the break either way I guess um folks can we come in at 8 45 um I'm seeing the commuters raise um roll their eyes we'll make that work you know it's only 15 minutes okay it's only 15 minutes it should be very after maybe a nine o'clock floor yes I know that will be well and in the meantime um hopefully uh representative Whitman will be able to have shared this with us and if we have questions and this will be the vote one process question um and thinking about last week I don't know if we ever did a straw full on the appropriations amendment to this bill I think we were waiting for we did we did we did no I thought that uh representative copper was sort of like we don't know what we're working with yet so should oh okay oh yeah we started talking about it yes 728 so um okay okay no okay I'm sorry what we're going to do is we're not going to come in at 8 45 um we are going to come up here before lunch after the after the all important judicial retention there is lunch and the their assumption according to um the emails that we've got judicial retention will take an hour so immediately upon that will come up here and we will have our um two votes on that tomorrow nine o'clock tomorrow nine o'clock tomorrow we're sticking to nine o'clock tomorrow we are going to get this thing in writing right before we come up there we're absolutely going to have it in writing probably probably probably at some time we'll have it at some time tonight so that if we will have time to um ask questions through email and stuff like that cool and um we will take the straw poll on the um appropriations committee um amendment and then on our amendment okay sounds good