►
From YouTube: Senate Standing Committee on Health & Welfare (3-28-22)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
Well,
we
have
enough
to
start
to
get
a
quorum
to
get
some
testimony
rolling
and
get
some
of
these
bills
heard.
We've
got
a
pretty
aggressive
agenda
today.
We've
got
a
lot
of
people
that
are
here
so,
and
a
lot
of
people
that
have
signed
up
to
speak.
We're
not
going
to
have
an
opportunity
to
hear
from
everyone
who
signed
up
so
I'm
going
to
have
a
few
folks
on
both
sides
of
some
of
these
bills
be
able
to
provide
some
testimony.
We're
also
going
to
have
some
time
limits
on
some
of
that
testimony.
A
So
folks
are
here.
I
know
how
sometimes
what
happens
in
our
committees.
People
want
to
carry
on
and
speak
for
a
long
period
of
time,
I'm
going
to
have
my
timer
on
and
when
you
hear
that
we'll
probably
cut
you
off
at
that
point.
So
please
choose
your
words
wisely
and
have
your
testimony
be
efficient
and
tidy
when
you
come
and
present,
either
in
favor
or
against
a
bill.
The
first
item,
we're
going
to
take
up
on
the
agenda,
is
going
to
be
House,
Bill
213
enact
relating
to
occupational
therapists.
A
C
C
And
additionally,
on
Zoom
we
have
two
individuals,
Chuck
Wilmarth
and
nahali
kafas,
who
are
available
for
questions
only
if,
if
you
should
have
any
technical
questions
with
that,
Mr
chairman
I'll
begin
so
we're
here
today
to
present
House
Bill
213,
which
creates
a
new
section
of
KRS
chapter
319a.
That
will
include
Kentucky
in
an
interstate
compact
for
licensure,
as
an
occupational
therapist
house
bill,
213.
A
You
have
a
motion
on
the
bill
in
a
second,
it's
very
convincing
testimony
representative
Johnson,
any
other
comments,
questions
for
the
for
the
representative,
if
not
Madam
clerk,
please
call
the
roll.
A
Motion
percent
and
second,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye.
Anyone
opposed
all
right.
Congratulations,
representative,
Mr,
chairman
and
members
it'll
be
reported
favorably
to
the
senate
floor
on
the
consent
calendar
next,
we'll
take
up
House,
Bill,
730
and
act
relating
to
Medical
transports
and
admissions.
The
sponsors
representative,
Josh
Bray
representative
Brave
I'd
like
to
come
to
the
table,
introduce
yourself
and
any
guests
that
you
have
and
the
floor
is
yours.
F
F
Thank
you,
I'm
Jeremy
round
the
Rockcastle
County
attorney.
Thank
you
all
for
having
me
so
what's
before
you
is
House
Bill
730.
It
was
at
one
point
in
time
a
part
of
a
much
larger
Bill
dealing
with
202a
mental
health
transports
with
the
passage
of
House,
Bill
777
and
the
task
force
that
will
be
formed
this
summer.
We
thought
it
was
a
good
idea
to
study
a
lot
of
those
issues.
F
We
have
a
major
problem
in
Rockcastle
County
with
a
patient
transports
for
202as
and
we've
had
this
problem
for
several
years.
They're,
threefold,
I!
Think
and
this
bill
will
solve
solve
those
issues
for
us
going
forward.
First
of
all,
there's
a
great
deal
of
hardship
on
the
taxpayer
as
currently
we're
having
to
transport
patients
from
Rockcastle
County
to
either
Hazard
Harlan
or
Prestonsburg,
which
is
approximately
either
three
four
or
five
hour
drive.
F
F
Most
of
these
transports
happen
after
hours
that
creates
a
great
deal
of
overtime
for
the
sheriff's
department,
plus
takes
time
away
from
the
deputies
time
with
their
families
and
then
finally,
it's
a
it's,
a
very
big
hardship
on
the
individuals
that
we're
trying
to
get
help
for
as
County
attorney.
My
office
handles
basically
every
202a
that
comes
through
Rockcastle
County
and
then
the
sheriff's
department
is
required
to
do
transports.
F
Currently,
those
individuals
who
need
treatment
who
are
possibly
going
through
maybe
the
worst
day
of
their
lives
or,
if
not
the
worst
day,
very
close
to
it,
they're
forced
to
sit
in
a
police
vehicle
for
several
hours,
while
they're
having
to
go
possibly
to
Prestonsburg
for
Mount
Vernon
when
we're
just
a
45-minute
drive
up
the
interstate
from
Lexington
and
I.
Think
this
bill
takes
care
of
that.
We.
A
Have
a
motion
in
a
second
and
we
understand
a
lot
of
these
issues,
it's
permissive
for
the
secretary
to
be
able
to
make
those
determinations,
which
we
appreciate
that
as
well.
We
have
a
motion
in
a
second
in
the
ability
of
the
discussion
from
members,
not
Madame
clerk.
Please
call
the
roll.
B
A
Aye,
the
matter
passes
with
a
count
of
seven
to
zero,
entertain
a
motion
for
consent
Motion
in
a
second
all
those
Senator
Carroll
Senator
Carol
Caston
I
vote
Senator,
Harper
Angel.
This
is
house
bill,
730.
A
I
I
vote
from
Senator
Harper
angel
all
right,
so
the
count
is
nine
to
zero.
We
have
a
motion
for
consent
in
a
second,
that's
already
been
made
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye.
Anyone
opposed
right.
The
matter
is
reported
favorably
to
the
senate
floor,
appreciate
you
all
coming
and
providing
testimony
today
and
it'll
be
on
the
consent
calendar.
Thank.
A
A
A
Next
on
the
agenda,
we're
going
to
hear
House,
Bill
318
inacculating
to
Juvenile
Justice,
the
sponsors
representative,
Kevin
bratcher
representative
bratcher,
if
you'd
like
to
come
forward,
if
you
have
any
guests,
if
you
could
have
them,
introduce
yourselves
introduce
yourself
for
the
record
and
please
begin
your
testimony
and
again
we're
kind
of
on
a
time
crunch
with
our
committee
today.
So,
okay
try
to
be
as
brief
as
you
can.
We.
A
D
G
Very
good
please
proceed.
Thank
you,
sir
there's
an
unfortunate
rise
in
crime,
Across
America,
and
that
includes
juvenile
crime.
House
Bill
318
here
addresses
some
of
those
problems.
G
D
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
committee
members.
We
do
have
an
unacceptable
level
of
gun
violence
in
Louisville
and
we
are
seeing
an
increasing
rise
net
gun,
balance
being
perpetrated
and
the
victims
being
juveniles.
D
One
of
the
issues
that
we've
one
of
the
ways
that
we
combat
that
is
trying
to
get
out
in
front
of
those
juveniles,
and
so
we
have
a
program
group
balance
intervention
where
we
had
an
opportunity
to
go
out
and
get
in
front
of
these
individuals
and
talk
to
them,
those
that
are
most
violent
on
the
street,
those
that
lmpd
Intel
tells
us
we
need
to
get
in
front
of.
D
We
also
have
a
program
called
cprvvs,
which
Community
Police
response
to
victims
of
balance,
and
in
those
cases
and
in
case
of
a
gun
violence
we
will
show
up
at
the
hospital
at
the
time
those
folks
are
being
treated,
so
we
can
get
in
front
of
them
in
front
of
family
and
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
get
in
to
stop
any
retaliation
and
to
de-escalate
that
situation
as
soon
as
possible.
D
One
of
the
situations
we
have
when
we
have
juveniles
picked
up
up
for
serious
offenses
is
when
they
are
cited
and
released,
or
we
don't
have
a
chance
to
get
to
them,
and
what
this
bill
does
is
gives
us
that
48
hour
period
to
get
in
front
of
these
individuals
to
do
two
things.
If
they're
at
risk
of
being
a
victim,
we
get
a
chance
to
de-escalate
find
out.
D
If
we
need
to
move
them
see
what
services
we
can
provide
them
and
if
there's
an
opportunity
that
they
may
retaliate,
we
have
a
chance
to
get
in
and
de-escalate
that
situation.
Putting
them
back
out
on
the
street
within
three
to
six
hours
of
them
being
picked
up
is
putting
those
individuals
right
back
in
that
environment
that
we're
trying
to
protect
them
from,
and
so
that
is
the
the
the
overriding
asks
that
we
have.
The
other
thing
that
it
does
ancillary
to
that
is
it.
It
keeps
our
police
officers.
D
Louisville
is
currently
in
the
neighborhood
of
200
to
300
police
officers
short
and
so
a
lot
of
vacancies
staff
is
stretched,
and
so,
when
police
officers
are
with
these
kids
and
they
have
to
spend
three
four
five
six
hours
with
them-
that's
three
four:
five:
six
hours
that
they
are
not
on
the
street,
doing
their
job
and
so
trying
to
alleviate
some
of
some
of
that
problem.
We
think
the
the
court
designated
worker
process
is
a
good
process.
D
I
My
name
is
Steve
gold
I'm,
the
Henderson
County
attorney
Health
Bill
318
makes
some
changes
that
will
have
a
positive
impact
on
our
youth
and
the
Juvenile
Justice
process.
We're
going
to
focus
my
testimony
on
what
it
does
in
that
middle
part
of
the
spectrum
of
Juvenile
Justice.
I
It
closes
some
loopholes
and
provides
specific
rights
to
two
categories
of
juveniles.
First,
it
provides
a
time
limit
for
truancy.
Cases
says
how
long
they
can
sit
without
coming
before
a
court.
Prudency
cases
are
often
referred
to
a
pre-court
entity
called
a
fair
team
which
stands
for
family
accountability,
intervention
and
response.
Some
truancy
cases
have
languished
at
the
fair
Team
level
to
the
detriment
of
the
student,
because
the
process
is
not
particularly
well
defined
in
the
statute
as
to
what
exactly
they
can
do
and
how
long
they
can
attempt
their
interventions.
I
House
Bill
318
is
designed
to
give
the
fair
team
an
opportunity
for
intensive
interventions,
but
to
put
some
time
limits
on
just
how
long
it
can
keep
a
case
before
allowing
to
use
the
right
to
have
a
family
court
judge
hear
the
case
over
the
last
several
years.
I've
observed
that
this
loophole
has
contributed
to
kids
missing
so
many
days
of
school,
but
the
case
by
the
time.
The
case
goes
to
court
that
the
kid
has
lost
an
entire
Academic
Year
second
house
bill.
I
318
ensures
that
young
people
are
not
failed
out
of
the
Court
designated
workers
diversionary
program
merely
due
to
lack
of
cooperation
from
a
parent
or
a
guardian.
As
part
of
the
diversion
process.
A
youth
may
be
required
to
attend
some
sort
of
counseling
or
other
appointments,
particularly
those
who
cannot
drive
or
dependent
upon
a
parent
or
Guardians
cooperation
in
order
to
meaning
meaningfully
participate
in
these
therapeutic
programs.
In
some
cases
they
end
up
failing
out
of
the
diversion
and
the
case
is
sent
to
court
through
no
fault
of
their
own
House.
I
Bill
318
allows
a
court
designated
worker
who
identifies
lack
of
cooperation
from
a
parent
or
Guardian,
as
the
sole
reason
of
Youth
has
failed
diversion
and
send
that
case
to
the
court
with
that
notation.
At
that
point,
the
court
has
the
option
to
place
the
parent
under
court
orders
and
to
cooperate,
and
then
refer
the
case
back
to
the
CDW
to
complete
the
diversion.
I
Juvenile
probationary
periods
are
relatively
short,
usually
six
months
or
less,
and
they
keep
running
even
if
there
are
further
violations
of
the
law.
So
a
youth
who
has
continued
to
violate
the
law
often
uses
legal
maneuvering
to
run
out
the
clock
on
the
probation
and
avoid
any
consequences.
In
fact,
we
often
see
defense
counsel,
file,
motions
to
get
cases
continued,
and
then
they
advise
their
client
to
admit
to
the
allegations
and
the
petition
as
soon
as
the
probation
period
is
expired.
This
type
of
loophole
generally
does
not
exist
for
adults
and
should
not
for
juveniles.
I
It
ends
up
eroding
accountability
for
our
young
people
and
in
Yen
does
them
a
disservice.
House
Bill
318
merely
totals
the
running
of
the
probationary
period
for
the
Youth.
If
there's
a
pending
probation
violation
which
allows
the
court
to
impose
some
actual
accountability
for
bad
Acts,
the
Kentucky
county,
attorney's
Association
urges
passes
of
House
Bill
318..
Thank
you
for
your
time.
H
Unfortunately,
2021
was
the
deadliest
year
in
Louisville's
history,
with
188
homicides
up
from
173
in
2020
and
116
in
2016.,
641
louisvillians
were
non-fatally
shot
that
year,
that
included
123
children,
24
of
them
fatally
eleven
percent
of
murder
cases
resulting
in
arrest
in
Louisville
in
2021
had
a
juvenile
defendant.
The
national
number
is
eight
percent.
H
H
House
Bill
318
deals
with
the
most
violent
offenders
and
holds
them
accountable
for
their
actions
by
imposing
an
up
to
48-hour
time
period
by
which
they
could
see
a
judge
and
they're
detained
during
that
time
period
to
keep
them
out
of
the
kind
of
trouble
the
chief
tally
talked
about.
The
question
has
been
raised.
What
does
any
of
this
have
to
do
with
truancy.
H
H
Well,
why
care
about
such
a
small
minority
of
cases?
Well,
unfortunately,
juvenile
delinquency
like
adult
criminality,
concentrates
among
a
very
small
number
of
individuals
about
four
to
eight
percent
of
juvenile
offenders
are
responsible
for
more
than
50
percent
of
juvenile
offending.
These
are
our
highest
risk.
Kids,
these
are
our
toughest
cases.
H
G
And
if
I
could
say
one
thing
chairman,
you
know
this
is
the
across
the
Commonwealth.
This
isn't
just
Louisville,
but
everyone
knows
what
some
of
the
issues
Louisville's
going
through
and
it's
quite
easy
to
bash
the
mayor
these
days.
Well,
here's
the
mayor
coming
to
us
asking
us
to
help
him
and
so
I,
don't
know
how
we
could
turn
that
down.
So
I
hope
we
could
pass
this.
Thank
you.
A
A
L
Mr
Gold
I
believe
it
is.
Can
you
hear
me,
sir?
Yes,
sir?
Okay,
thank
you
was
was
I,
think
you're
Henderson
County.
Is
that
correct,
yes
and
you're
I
think
you're,
testifying
in
favor
of
the
legislation?
Is
that
correct?
Yes,
okay!
It
just
strikes
me
as
a
little
odd
I
was
reading
online.
A
quote
from
you
saying:
Henderson
County's
efforts
to
address
and
prevent
juvenile
crime
have
been
praised
as
a
model
for
the
rest
of
the
state.
I
What
we
found
in
Henderson
is
that
too
many
of
them
were
coming
to
court
and
being
involved
in
that
process,
and
that
can
actually
be
detrimental
to
a
youth
when
they
should
not
be
involved
in
that
process.
So,
what's
what
we
were
able
to
do?
A
little
bit
before
Senate
Bill
200
came
into
place.
We
were
able
to
put
some
some
additional
diversions
in
that
would
keep
those
those
non-violent
you
from
coming
to
court
that
that
probably
should
not
have
been.
I
What
we
do
see,
though,
is
you
know
now
that
that
all
the
all
the
small
trees
and
and
brush
have
been
taken
out
of
the
forest.
I
Now
we
still
see
some
of
these
big
trees
that
that
make
up
the
forest,
and
so
there
is
still
violent
crime
and
there's
still
youth
doing
some
very
serious
anti-social
acts
and
I
believe
other
parts
of
House
Bill
318
deal
with
that,
particularly
the
ones
that
I'm
that
I'm
focused
on
are
having
some
meaningful
probation
of
the
fact
that
it's
not
told
for
a
youth
while
they
continue
to
commit
violations,
is
a
problem
having
a
case
where
it
does
not
languish
at
the
fair
Team
level
for
too
long,
and
where
that
youth
can
have
a
right
to
get
in
front
of
the
judge
and
have
that
case
come
to
court
is
important
and
then
the
issue
where
we
have
parents
who
are
not
participating
a
youth
should
not
be
held
responsible
for
their
parent
or
Guardians
inability
to
or
or
not,
inability.
I
That
would
be
up
to
a
judge
to
determine
whether
they
had
the
ability.
But
a
youth
should
not
be
held
responsible
if
their
parent
just
doesn't
care
enough
to
participate
in
those
diversions.
They
they
have
a
right
to
those
diversions
and,
if
they're
being
failed
out
of
those
diversions
merely
because
they
will
not
do
transport
or
get
them
to
appointments
that
they
need
to
be
at.
This
allows
a
judge
to
say
parent
Guardian.
I
You
need
to
get
this
youth
to
these
meaningful
interventions
to
wear
some
actual
therapy
and
some
therapeutic
things
can
be
put
into
place
and
I
think
that's
really
important.
So
we
can
head
off
some
of
these
more
violent
things
that
occur
that
we're
hearing
about
from
the
folks.
L
B
Mr
chairman
I,
do
has
a
fiscal
impact
statement
been
prepared
for
this
bill?
I
know
it
will
be
a
local
mandate.
G
A
K
Judge
Micah
Pence
and
I'm,
a
family
court
judge
in
Barron
and
Metcalf
County,
so
I'm
in
the
South
Central
rural
part
of
the
state
and
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you,
first
of
all
for
allowing
us
to
testify
today
and
for
bringing
bringing
up
this
bill.
These
are
issues
that
we
are
all
dealing
with,
but
we're
all
dealing
with
them
in
very
different
ways.
The
reality
is
whether
we
want
to
talk
about
it.
The
pandemic
anymore
or
not.
The
pandemic
has
affected
detention
and
School
attendance
more
than
any
other
areas.
K
K
We've
got
issues
with
quarantines
that
the
child
was
quarantined
for
10
days,
because
their
sister
at
the
elementary
school
was
quarantined.
Yet
that
was
counted
against
the
high
school
student
that
also
had
to
be
quarantined
for
10
days
and
I.
Think
we
need
the
opportunity
to
let
some
of
those
things
shake
out
and
to
have
a
meeting
and
regroup
after
they
have
after
this
school
year,
but
the
other
issue
with
truancy
and
specifically
with
them
coming
before
the
court
I,
could
not
agree
with
the
county
attorney
of
Henderson
more.
K
It
can
be
detrimental
for
our
youth
to
come
before
the
court.
I'm
scary,
as
long
as
you've
not
been
before
me
when
you
can
threaten
a
youth
with
the
judge,
and
that
can
be
the
bad
cop
that
is,
that
is
advantageous,
but
if
we
bring
them
to
the
court
and
to
the
judge
too
early,
you
no
longer
have
that
threat
hanging
over
their
head.
K
I
need
to
know
when,
when
a
child
comes
before
me,
it's
because
we've
tried
absolutely
everything
else
first
and
that
you're
ready
for
me
to
either
send
them
to
detention
or
take
some
greater
step.
We
need
to
try
everything
else,
such
as
therapy,
first,
so
moving
these
children
automatically
after
30
days
of
of
no
improvement,
which
is
just
not
clearly
defined,
is
that
one
absence
is
that
30
absences.
K
These
are
decisions
that
need
to
be
made
on
a
child
to
child
basis.
The
other
issue
that
I
have
with
this
language
again.
These
are
unintended
consequences
that
I
can
that
I
can
see
coming
before
us,
but
concerning
the
parents
who
aren't
willing
to
participate,
there
is
a
very
there's
a
separate
statute.
K
Our
cdws
are
not
built
to
deal
with
parents
issues,
they're
Simply
Built,
to
help
the
juveniles.
The
Cabinet
for
Health
and
Family
Services,
on
the
other
hand,
is
built
to
deal
with
those
problems
that
arise
from
the
family
setting
and
from
the
home,
and
that's
what
we
need
to
be
triggered.
My
dpps
and
I
have
worked
very
closely
through
this
pandemic,
and
one
of
the
big
things
that
I
have
urged
them
to
do
is
instead
of
going
through
truancy
if
the
parent
won't
respond
or
won't
cooperate.
K
That
is
a
dependency
neglect
and
abuse
case
and,
if
you'll
file
that,
because
they
don't
have
to
wait
to
file
educational
neglect,
any
DPP
or
any
person
can
file
that
at
any
time.
But
that
brings
in
some
very
important
resources,
including
a
guardian
advice,
to
represent
the
best
interests
of
the
child
instead
of
bringing
in
DPA
who's
ready
to
deal
with
a
criminal
case
you
bring
in
a
gal
and
a
social
worker
from
the
cabinet
who
can
better
deal
with
the
issues
of
what
what
else
is
going
on
in
that
home.
K
A
J
We
are
losing
valuable
time
to
help
those
children
first
is
allowing
the
peop,
the
the
dpps
or
the
fear
team
themselves
to
to
refer
this
matter
to
dcbs,
so
that
dcbs
can
do
its
job
and
start
looking
to
see
why
this
is
happening
to
the
parents
and
the
child
and
see
if
we
can
get
assistance
and
resources
for
the
child.
My
other
point
to
make
very
quickly
is
on
the
detention
piece.
J
What
we
are
talking
about
in
the
data
that
I've
looked
at
Courtesy
of
AOC
seems
to
indicate
that
there's
a
large
portion
of
these
violent
offenders
that
were
actually
never
arrested.
So
there
wasn't
a
detention
issue,
because
the
police
officer
or
the
County
attorneys
in
these
various
jurisdictions-
maybe
maybe
not
Louisville's,
but
in
the
various
jurisdictions
other
jurisdictions,
made
the
decision
not
to
charge
the
child
in
such
a
way.
The
child
was
arrested
just
like
with
any
other
charge.
A
B
Sharon
this
is
this
is
a
difficult
one
for
me,
because
I
really
respect
representative,
bratcher
I
think
he's
done
an
outstanding
job
and
we
have
you
know
people
that
I
respect
on
both
sides
of
this
issue,
trying
to
make
a
determination
about
how
we
stop
this
very
real
problem
of
juvenile
violence
that
we
are
experiencing,
particularly
in
my
my
city
of
Louisville,
but
there's
still
a
few
things
that
I
think
I
need
to
figure
out
before
I
can
cast
a
vote.
I'm
a
pest
right
now.
I
mean
I.
I
worry
about
that.
B
We
don't
have
a
fiscal
note
on
this,
yet
you
know
the
Juvenile
Detention
Center
in
Jefferson
County
has
been
closed.
Where
are
we
going
to
put
these
kids?
How
many
of
these
kids
is
actually
going
to
impact,
and
so
I
look
forward
after
this
committee
meeting
kind
of
getting
with
both
sides
and
seeing
if
I
can't
put
some
put
some
meat
on
the
bones
and
feel
more
comfortable
once
we
tackle
it
on
the
floor?
M
Explain
my
no
vote
please
proceed.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman
I
have
I
have
a
couple
of
real
concerns
about
this
bill
right
now.
One
is
the
discussion
of
truancy,
which
I
don't
think
at
this
point
as
we're
coming
God
willing
out
of
this
pandemic.
I,
don't
think
the
last
two
years
is
is
an
adequate
reflection
of
of
what
we
should
expect
to
have
so
I,
just
not
sure
that
that
we
need
to
fix
something
right
now.
M
That
was
in
large
part,
I
think
I'm
affected
by
the
pandemic,
and
we
need
to
get
over
it
to
find
out
where,
where
we
are
I
really
appreciate,
I
appreciate
the
desire
to
have
these
children
in
a
place
where
they
can
be
evaluated
and
they
can
start
getting
the
wraparound
Services.
They
need
and
I
think
from
from
what
I'm
understanding
that
was.
That
was
part
of
the
background
of
this
bill
was
to
to
be
able
to
offer
a
situation
that
would
have
a
positive
therapeutic
impact,
but
again
I,
don't
think
we're
there.
M
Yet
we
don't
even
have
a
building
to
house
these
children
they're
being
sent
two
hours
away
frequently
just
for
now.
I
am
a
no,
and
this
is
something
I
really
would
like
to
address
more
over
the
interim
and
see
if
I
could
you
know
we
could
come
up
with
something
that
would
be
agreeable
to
all.
So
thank
you.
C
Explain
my
eye
vote.
Mr
chairman,
please
proceed
coming
into
the
meeting,
really
had
no
doubts
about
being
an
eye
vote.
It's
it's
kind
of
ironic,
because
some
of
the
points
are
the
same
on
both
sides
of
this
issue
as
far
as
getting
help
to
the
child,
and
there
are
parts
of
this
bill
that
I,
like
Parts,
I,
don't
like
and
so
I
look
forward
to
further
discussion
within
the
caucus
and
and
I
reserve
the
ride
as
as
always
to
change
my
mind
on
this.
C
But
I
do
appreciate
all
the
efforts
I'm
a
little
bit
troubled
that
all
the
testimony
in
favor
of
the
bill
has
been
all
about.
Louisville,
Jefferson,
County
and
I've
talked
to
Fair
a
fair
member
Fair
team.
Member
from
my
district.
We
have
a
very
successful
Fair
team
in
in
my
district
and
I
think
this
is
really
two
separate
issues
with
what's
going
on
in
Louisville,
Jefferson,
County
and
I'm
really
concerned
about
how
this
might
affect
the
rest
of
the
state,
especially
those
of
us
in
rural
areas.
C
So
those
are
the
things
that
I
look
to
discuss
between
now
and
if
it
comes
to
a
vote
on
the
floor
that
time.
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman.
B
B
O
D
D
We
have
a
lot
of
problems
with
truancy
in
our
areas
and
sometimes
the
kid
is
only
as
troubled
as
the
parents
allow
them
to
be
I
really
like
the
accountability,
setup
that
directs
more
toward
the
parents
in
this
bill
and
I
like
the
fact
that
the
violent
offenders
can
be
held
for
48
hours
right
after
commission,
not
just
to
protect
others
around
them,
but
to
protect
themselves
too
A
lot
of
times.
D
We
have
some
mental
health
issues
and
that
sort
of
things
that
are
the
underlying
causes
of
the
child's
action
oftentimes
those
go
untreated
and
uncovered,
and
I
like
being
able
to
secure
that
child
for
a
period
of
time.
So
we
could,
we
can
address
the
issues
I'm
vote
on.
Thank
you
again
for
bringing
this.
F
My
vote
for
chairman
please
proceed.
Thank
you.
Vote
I
also
want
to
say
that
if
you
talk
to
school
administrators
and
school
Personnel
I
know
I
have
over
the
last
few
years,
they
will
say
that
truancy,
issues
and
a
lot
of
things
that
happen
out
of
Senate
Bill
200
may
have
been
unattended
consequences,
but
I
think
we
have
to
give
this
serious
consideration
of
things
that
are
happening
across
the
Commonwealth.
This
happened
long
before
covid
of
some
things
that
need
to
be
tightened
up
and
loosened,
and
so
representative
Bradshaw.
Thank
you
for
this
Bill.
A
I'm
going
to
explain
why
I
vote
so
representative,
bratcher
I,
have
tremendous
respect
for
you.
So
I'd
like
to
see
this
bill
at
least
come
to
the
committee
process.
I'm
casting
a
vote
for
that
purpose.
I
know
back
home
a
lot
of
my
judges.
Don't
like
this
bill,
they've
reached
out
in
opposition.
My
County
attorneys
are
supportive,
so
I'm
not
an
expert.
This
is
not
a
Judiciary
Committee,
as
you
know,
it's
Health
and
Welfare.
A
A
But
out
of
courtesy
for
you,
representative,
bratcher
and
and
for
your
work
on
this
bill,
I'm
going
to
question
I
vote
to
get
it
through
committee,
I
reserve
the
right
to
be
able
to
change
that
vote
on
the
floor
and
I
know.
There's
going
to
be
some
other
discussions.
It
sounds
like
on
this
bill
from
people
unsupport
and
people
against
it.
A
So
with
that
being
said,
the
final
tally
is
six.
Yes,
votes.
Three,
no
votes,
one
pass
vote.
The
the
bill
will
pass
favorably
with
favorable
expression
to
the
senate
floor.
We
appreciate
you
all
coming
today.
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman.
Thank
you
all
right.
Next
on
the
agenda
is
House
Bill,
7
and
act
relating
to
public
assistance.
F
Thank
you,
Mr,
chairman,
sorry
of
my
absence
being
in
the
education
committee,
I'd
like
to
Guess
that
I
vote
on
House,
Bill,
213
and
I
vote
on
House
Bill,
730
I.
Don't
think
it
changes
the
record.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
You
anyone
else
all
right
so
on
the
agenda.
We
have
House
Bill,
7
and
activating
to
public
assistance.
The
sponsor
is
Speaker
meet.
We
have
on
this
bill
before
us
a
committee
substitute
and
will
entertain
a
motion
on
that
sub.
At
this
point
in
time.
There's
a
motion:
is
there
a
second?
You
have
a
second
all,
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye.
Anyone
opposed
all
right.
The
sub
is
before
us.
Also
I
want
to
point
out
to
members.
A
There
was
a
technicality
that
was
found
and
so
there's
an
amendment
for
this
sub
on
page
57
line,
four
we're
deleting
the
word
public
assistance
and
inserting
Medicaid.
That
change
was
made
throughout
the
sub,
but
it
was
missed
in
as
we
were
reading
it.
So
this
is
an
amendment
to
clean
that
up,
I'll
entertain
a
motion
on
that
Amendment.
There's
a
motion
in
the
second
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
all
right,
so
we
have
the
sub
as
amended
before
us
percent
of
me.
Please.
P
Proceed,
thank
you
Mr
chairman
I'm,
not
sure.
If
the
speakers
abandoned
me
or
what's
going
on
here
now,
I'm
just
joking,
he
had
a
phone
call.
He
had
to
take
so
he's
outside
we'll
be
back
in
just
a
few
minutes,
but
I'll
start
going
through
the
bill
and
I'll
try
to
move
as
quickly
as
possible.
I
know
we
have
probably
a
pretty
lengthy
discussion
on
this
I'll
go
Section
by
section,
starting
with
section
one,
and
this
creates
a
new
section
of
Statute
to
clarify
the
terms.
P
Section
two
require
the
Cabinet
for
Health
and
Family
Services
to
establish
and
maintain
policies
and
practice
next
necessary
to
ensure
compliance
with
federal
law,
which
prohibits
the
use
of
cash
assistance
benefits
to
purchase
certain
types
of
products,
including
Alcohol
Tobacco
Etc
require
that
if
cash
is
withdrawn
from
electronic
benefit
transfer
cards,
those
funds
must
be
used
to
purchase
items
and
services
necessary
for
the
welfare
of
the
family
and
establish
penalty
penalties
for
violations
of
this
section.
The
penalties
that
are
established
are
changed
some
from
the
original
House
version.
P
They
are
one
month
for
the
first
violation,
three
months
for
the
second
violation
in
one
year
for
every
violation.
Afterwards,
section
three
affirms
the
mission
of
the
snap
program
and
encourage
snap
beneficiaries
to
use
their
benefits
to
purchase
healthy
foods
and
require
the
cabinet
to
coordinate
with
the
Department
of
Agriculture
to
expand
access
to
Farmer
markets
by
snap
beneficiaries.
P
Section
four
established
snap
transitional
benefit
Alternatives.
Those
are
developed
for
families,
transitioning
off
of
TANF
and
ktap,
and
those
benefits
will
continue
to
receive
food
assistance
for
up
to
additional
five
months
when
they
transfer
from
those
programs
also
requests
a
snap
elderly
simplification,
application
project
waiver
from
the
U.S
department
of
Agriculture.
This
is
limited
to
seniors,
with
no
earned
income
and
also
can
include
disabled
households
with
no
earned
income.
This.
P
This
is
a
simplified
application
form
that
will
be
used
and
certification
of
these
benefits
will
be
extended
from
one
year
to
36
months,
and
the
requirement
for
recertification
interview
has
been
waived.
Request
a
snap
standard,
medical
deduction
waiver
from
the
U.S
department
of
Agriculture
right
now.
Those
beneficiaries
on
their
taxes,
they
have
a
35
dollar
per
month.
If
the
expense
is
more
than
35
dollars
per
month,
then
they
can
take
that
deduction.
P
But
what
we're
saying
here
is
we're
going
to
establish
a
hundred
and
fifty
dollar
standard
deduction
and
they
would
have
the
choice
between
those
two
section.
Five
requires
the
Cabinet
for
Health
and
Family
Services
to
implement
a
community
engagement
program
for
able-bodied
adults
with
without
dependents,
who
have
been
enrolled
in
Medicaid
for
more
than
12
months.
Require
implementation
of
this
act
no
later
than
April.
P
The
15th
of
2023.,
section
6,
creates
a
new
section
of
Statute
to
prohibit
the
Cabinet
for
Health
and
Family
Services
from
establishing
a
basic
health
program
without
first
obtaining
specific
authorization
from
the
general
assembly.
To
do
so
section.
Seven,
the
cabinet
is
to
conduct
continue
to
conduct
eligibility
redeterminations,
as
in
the
normal
course
of
business
and
act
on
those
redeterminations
to
the
fullest
extent
permitted
under
federal
law
and
after
the
expiration
of
federal
restrictions.
P
Currently,
right
now
under
federal
guidelines,
anyone
who
has
been
placed
on
Medicaid,
whether
that
they
are
ineligible
or
not,
they
cannot
be
removed
from
the
Rose
due
to
maintenance
of
effort.
So
this
just
simply
says
that
they
will
keep
track
of
those
and
immediately
upon
the
listing
of
those
restrictions,
they
will
start
to
remove
Those
Who
are
ineligible
and
we'll
have
that
completed
within
12
months.
P
Section
8
prohibit
the
cabinet
and
Department
of
Medicaid
services
from
being
designated
as
qualified
Health
entities
for
the
purpose
of
making
presumptive
eligibility,
determinations
section
9
to
establish
the
responsibilities
of
hospitals
when
making
presumptive
eligibility
determinations.
This
is
a
language
that
we
worked
on
with
the
hospital
Association.
They
came
back
and
gave
us
language
that
they
felt
could
add
some
regulations
to
them
and
also
hold
them
accountable
when
that
is
not
being
used
properly.
P
Section
10
requires
Medicaid
coverage
for
substance,
use,
disorder,
treatment
for
incarcerated
individuals,
section
11
permits
a
custodial
parent
who
is
disqualified
from
receiving
cash
assistance,
benefits
to
designate
a
protective
payee
to
receive
cash
assistance
benefits
on
behalf
of
that
dependent
child.
Therefore,
no
child
will
ever
lose
the
benefits.
P
Section
12.
require
the
cabinet
to
update
lrc
on
implementation
of
the
ACT
section,
13
authorizes
the
Attorney
General
to
enforce
the
chapter
and
bring
action
against
the
cabinet
if
Provisions
this
acts
are
not
appropriately
implemented.
Section
14
direct
the
education
of
Workforce
Development
cabinet
to
establish
a
job
placement
assistance
program
for
individuals
enrolled
in
Medicaid.
The
cabinet
will
give
the
the
economic
development
cabinet
the
names
of
those
who
are
able-bodied
individuals
that
are
without
dependents.
They
will
then
have
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
this
job
placement
assistance
program
which
will
be
one-on-one
assistance.
P
P
Section
18
requires
a
Cabinet
for
Health
and
Family
Services
to
notify
the
general
general
assembly
of
the
reason
for
a
denial
of
a
waiver
and
directs
the
cabinet
to
reapply
only
if
directed
by
the
general
assembly.
To
do
so
section
19
requires
the
cabinet
to
take
appropriate
action,
including
enforcement
of
relevant
federal
regulations,
to
assure
that
responsible,
parent
or
parents
of
a
needy
dependent
child
Provide
support
for
that
child.
P
Permit
the
cabinet
to
waive
such
requirements
in
the
case
of
child
abuse,
domestic
abuse
or
if
the
cabinet
determines
such
actions
would
not
be
in
the
best
interest
of
the
child
sections
20
to
32.
This
amends
various
sections
of
krs-s
to
delete
references
to
child
welfare
and
Medicaid
oversight,
advisory
committees
and
these
sections
are
incorporated
into
Senate
Bill
43,
which
has
been
rolled
into
another
bill
that
was
passed
out
of
the
house
last
week
and
over
to
the
Senate's
prepared
for
concurrence.
So
we're
adjusting
that
language
to
match
that
section.
P
33
the
child
care
assistance
program.
The
cabinet
is
going
to
do
a
study
or
give
us
numbers
on
the
child
care
assistance
program,
an
assessment
of
additional
costs.
The
state
incurred
by
increasing
the
eligibility
of
200
percent
of
the
poverty
level
and
an
assessment
of
what
the
fiscal
impact
of
discontinuing
multiple
co-payments
for
families
with
more
than
one
child
in
CCAP
no
later
than
September
1st
of
2022..
P
Force
provide
the
interim
joint
committee
on
Health
and
Welfare
with
a
report,
the
physical
impact
and
cost
of
utilizing
a
single
benefit,
transfer
card
for
public
assistance,
recipients
and
contracts,
with
an
independent
third
party
to
review
all
presumptive
eligibility
determinations
made
since
January
1st
of
2020
for
compliance
with
all
applicable
state
and
federal
laws
related
to
presumptive
eligibility
and
require
the
third
party
entity
to
submit
a
report
to
lrc
no
later
than
June
30th
2023.
This
is
a
recommendation
that
came
from
Senator
Givens.
P
P
Section
34
requires
the
cabinet
to
seek
a
federal
waiver
for
any
authorization
that
it
needs
for
this
act,
section
35
directs
all
our
legislative
oversight,
investigations
committee
to
conduct
an
in-depth
analysis
of
TANF
and
ktap
spending
and
identify
alternative
sources
for
child
welfare
funding
in
sections
36
to
40
Drake's
lrc,
to
establish
the
benefits,
Cliff
task
force
to
review
the
impact
of
Public
Assistance
benefits
cliff
and
make
policy
recommendations
and
support.
Working,
Families
and
transitioning
off
of
Public
Assistance
into
gainful
employment
and
self-sufficiency.
P
Section
41
is
a
severability
clause,
section
42
repeals
the
sections
that
created
the
Child
Welfare
Medicaid
and
oversight
advisory
committees
again
to
match
Senate
Bill,
43
and
section
43
delays
the
effective
dates
of
section
20-32
and
section
42
to
January
1
again
to
match
Senate
Bill
43.
Mr
chairman.
That
is
what
the
bill
does
and
I'm
glad
I
answered
any
questions.
A
A
You've
I
know
you've
taken
a
lot
of
the
input
from
several
different
groups,
and
this
bill
obviously
looks
a
lot
more
additions
and
a
lot
of
changes
into
this
I
was
hoping
to
have
some
of
the
folks
who
want
to
speak
in
opposition,
come
next
and
then
entertain
questions,
and
that
might
be
the
easiest
way
to
do
this.
A
A
He
is,
and
also
we've
got
Emily
Beauregard
with
Kentucky
voices
for
health
and
I'm,
going
to
ask
for
Katrina
Thompson
with
feeding
Kentucky
I,
don't
know
if
she's
here
at
Cassidy
wheeler,
if
they're
here,
if
you'd
like
to
come
forward
and
gonna,
give
each
of
you
three
four
minutes
to
express
concerns
that
you
have
with
the
bill.
A
Mr
secretary,
if
you
like,
come
to
the
table
now
and
introduce
yourselves
we'd
appreciate
that
and
secretary.
If
you'd
like
to
begin.
Q
Yes,
secretary
Eric
friedlander,
the
Cabinet
for
Health
and
Family
Services.
First
I
would
like
to
acknowledge
the
changes
that
have
occurred
in
this
bill
throughout
this
process
and
also
particularly
in
the
Senate
I,
do
want
to
say
that
certainly
many
of
the
snap
Provisions
are
improved
and
I
I
want
to
acknowledge
that
I
greatly
appreciate
the
work.
That's
been
done
on
this
bill,
however.
Q
I
I
need
to
also
then
want
to
read
into
the
record
a
letter
that
I
sent
to
you
all
and
so
I.
If
that's
all
right,
I'd
like
to
begin
I
write
today
with
great
concern
about
House
Bill,
seven
last
Thursday
chfs
joined
many
Community
Advocates
and
voicing
their
concerns
about
this
bill.
Chfs
and
The
Advocates
were
clear
that
the
language
of
this
bill
would
increase
barriers
and
red
tape
for
Kentucky's
most
in
need
of
health
coverage,
treatment
for
substance
use
disorder,
treatment
for
Behavioral,
Health,
child
care
and
food
assistance.
Q
This
would
eliminate
critical
benefits
for
thousands
of
kentuckians
and
threaten
to
increase
existing
Health,
Care,
Child,
Care
and
food
deserts.
Our
concerns
about
these
impacts
on
our
vulnerable
citizens
and
on
the
significant
administrative
burden,
House
Bill
7,
would
create
have
not
abated.
Last
time
in
front
of
Health
and
Welfare,
we
talked
about
the
state
of
Arkansas,
and
so
we
looked
at
the
state
of
Arkansas
and
if
Kentucky
were
to
model
only
the
additional
paperwork
requirements
in
House
Bill
7.
Q
We
estimate
that
an
additional
180
000
residents
could
could
lose
their
health
care
coverage
now
normally
would
vulnerable
people
residing
in
primarily
rural
areas
be
negatively
impacted,
but
loss
of
benefits
would
mean
over
1.3
billion
would
not
go
to
Health
Care
Providers
across
the
Commonwealth.
In
addition,
the
food
assistance
waiver
is
impacting
single.
Q
Adults
were
last
in
place
in
2019
for
the
following
counties:
Henderson
Davies,
Callaway,
Logan,
Simpson,
Warren,
Hardin,
bullet
Jefferson,
Spencer,
Shelby,
Oldham,
Henry,
Owen,
Franklin,
Woodford,
Fayette,
Jessamine,
Anderson
and
Campbell
The
Proposal
brought
forward
to
cut
benefits,
would
impact
beneficiaries
in
many
of
these
same
counties
today
and
with
the
10
percent.
Actually,
no
counties
would
qualify.
I
hope
we
can
unite
in
support
for
our
most
vulnerable
residents,
including
those
with
disabilities,
the
elderly
and
children.
Q
A
R
Trina
Thompson
I'm,
the
executive
director
of
feeding
Kentucky,
so
many
of
kentuckians,
as
we
saw
during
covid,
are
just
one
medical
bill,
one
layoff
away
from
really
needing
help,
and
these
are
our
friends
and
neighbors.
I
had
some
some
statistics,
but
I
want
to
tell
you
a
story
very
quickly.
Early
in
my
20s
I
had
two
children
that
I
was
Raising
alone.
I
was
a
diabetic.
I
could
not
afford
to
have
to
pay.
R
Although
I
had
a
job,
I
couldn't
afford
to
have
the
money
for
health
insurance
taken
out
of
my
check,
I
made
too
much
money
because
I
did
work
to
get
any
Services
again.
This
was
you
know,
30
something
years
ago,
40
years
ago,
so
I
often
chose
not
to
get
the
little
test
strips
to
test.
My
blood
sugar
couldn't
afford
insulin,
because
I
couldn't
get
Medicaid
because
I
made
too
much
money
because
I
worked
and
then
at
age
40
I
had
kidney
failure
and
had
to
have
a
transplant.
R
Thank
goodness
things
have
improved
today,
but
this
really
exists.
So
I
just
wanted
to
share
that
with
you
and
I'm
going
to
let
our
advocacy
person
speak
very.
Very
quickly
also.
E
Thank
you
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee,
so
my
name
is
Cassidy
wheeler,
like
Katrina,
said
I'm
the
advocacy
coordinator
here
with
feeding
Kentucky,
but
before
this
I
was
a
public
school
teacher,
and
so
I
want
to
speak
to
you
today
about
how
this
bill
is
going
to
impact
children
in
schools.
So
snap
is
a
program
that
disproportionately
benefits
kids.
Seventy
percent
of
households
that
receive
snap
have
children.
If
this
bill
passes,
families
and
kids
will
lose
food
assistance
and
schools
will
be
the
ones
expected
to
fill
the
Gap.
E
We
know
that
schools
are
underfunded
and
understaffed
only
exacerbated
by
the
pandemic.
As
a
former
Kentucky
teacher
I
can
say,
definitively
many
students
are
already
going
hungry
in
spite
of
even
having
school
feeding
programs.
So
my
former
School
District
in
Warren
County
has
a
high
population
of
low-income
students,
many
of
whom
are
refugees
or
immigrants.
This
District
was
also
hit
really
hard
by
the
December
tornadoes.
Three
students
lost
their
lives
and
so
many
other
students
suffered
significant
losses
as
well.
E
If
it
wasn't,
for
you
know
their
families
receiving
snap,
many
of
these
students
would
go
hungry
over
weekends
and
evenings
between
their
last
school
lunch
and
their
next
School.
Breakfast,
though
this
is
one
example,
schools
across
the
Commonwealth
are
already
struggling
to
meet
their
students
needs
and
this
bill
would
make
it
even
harder.
Kids
can't
learn
let
alone
Thrive,
if
they're
hungry,
so
I'd
like
to
give
you
an
example
of
how
this
bill
will
hurt.
Kentucky
families.
From
my
own
teaching
experience,
many
of
my
students
didn't
speak
English.
E
They
came
here
as
refugees
fleeing
War
genocide,
their
families
didn't
speak
English
either.
So
when
my
colleagues
and
I
would
call
home
to
speak
to
their
parents,
we
had
to
use
an
interpreter
service
and
it
wasn't
unusual
for
no
interpreter
to
be
available
so
oftentimes.
We
would
have
to
call
multiple
times
until
we
finally
were
able
to
speak
with
them.
It
was
a
challenge
to
make
sure
those
kids
got
the
help
they
needed
and,
and
sometimes
the
system
in
place
to
help
them
failed.
E
These
are
the
families
who
will
fall
through
the
cracks
that
this
bill
passes.
Those
who
already
face
significant
challenges
either
because
of
language
barriers,
work,
demands,
accessibility
or
any
number
of
other
reasons.
The
systems
we
have
now
are
imperfect
and
often
ineffective,
and
the
last
thing
struggling
families
need
is
for
an
already
difficult
process
to
become
nearly
impossible,
but
that's
exactly
what
this
bill
will
do.
Kids
shouldn't
worry
about
where
their
next
bill
meal
is
coming
from.
E
B
No,
it
isn't,
but
it
is
the
dcbs
manual
and
we
wanted
you
all
to
see
just.
K
How
long
and
complicated
that
it
is?
But
I
want
to
start
by
introducing
myself
I'm
Emily
Beauregard
I'm,
the
director
of
Kentucky
voices
for
health
and
I'm
here
with.
N
My
colleague
hi
I'm,
Kara,
Stewart
and
I.
B
N
What
I
want
to
think
about
is
also
I
deeply
appreciate
the
time
of
so
many
people
on
this
committee
who
I
know
have
invested
time
in
this
bill
and
thinking
about
this,
but
where
I
still
keep
coming
to
is.
Why
do
we
want
this
bill?
We
want.
We
want
this
bill.
I
know
that
representative
Mead
wants
to
make
sure
that
eligible
kentuckians
can
get
their
benefits
and,
if
you're
not
eligible,
you
don't
and
I,
don't
think
that's
what
this
bill
will
do.
N
I
know
that
representative
Mead
said
that
he
wants
to
make
sure
that
kids
do
not
lose
benefits.
I
am
confident
that
kids
will
lose
benefits
under
this
bill
because
of
self
attestation.
In
section
16,
paragraph
10,
where
the
bill
says
that
we
shall
not
accept
self-escitation
of
household
composition.
N
Well,
I'm,
a
former
legal
aid
lawyer
and
I've
had
a
whole
bunch
of
cases
where
that
exact
thing
has
happened,
and
so,
if
what
if
your
household
composition,
does
change,
how
do
you
prove
it?
Are
you
going
to
go?
Ask
your
neighbor:
what,
if
you're
a
chip,
family
and
you're
you're,
you
don't
want
them
to
know.
You
know
you're
working
hard,
maybe
you're
their
colleague.
N
So
we're
going
to
make
it
impossible
for
someone
to
prove
that
they
don't
have
a
home,
because
how
do
you
prove
that
that
will
cause
families
with
children
in
their
homes
to
lose
benefits?
And
that
is
unacceptable
to
me
and
I
hope.
It's
unacceptable
to
you,
another
section
that
I
think
actually
creates
opportunity
for
fraud,
which
I
think
is
the
exact
opposite
of
the
purpose
of
this
bill
is
in
section
16,
paragraph
10,
which
yeah
paragraph
11
on
page
17.
N
If
you
want
to
follow
along
and
the
word
May
in
paragraph
B,
which
says
you
may
consider
fluctuating
income
data,
that
is
fundamentally
less
accurate.
If
you
have,
you
know
a
a
a
farmer,
that's
a
real
easy
one.
How
what
does
their
income
come
in
when
they
sell
their
crops
when
they
sell
what
they're
selling?
Well
that
isn't
happening
every
two
weeks,
so
you're,
fundamentally
getting
less
accurate
income
information?
N
If
you
are
relying
on
the
most
recent,
only
you're
creating
an
opportunity
for
people
to
re
to
file
and
to
offer
documentation
when
they
know
that,
maybe
it
will
be
eligible-
and
you
know
I,
don't
know
the
kentuckians
rather
trying
to
do
that,
but
I
would
like
to
make
sure
we're
not
creating
a
system
where
we're
creating
that
pathway
and
incentivizing
that
the
other
piece
is
that
section,
five
Community
engagement
program,
which
is
modeled
after
the
snap
work
requirements,
they're
solving
the
wrong
problem.
N
I
know
that
most
people
in
here
know
that
the
majority
of
kentuckians
with
Medicaid
are
working.
In
fact,
nearly
all
kentuckians,
with
Medicaid
who
are
able
to
work,
are
working.
The
Kaiser
Family
Foundation
has
found
that
at
most
two
percent
and
others
as
low
as
1.2
percent,
two
percent
of
people
who
are
able
to
work-
and
we
don't
aren't.
We
don't
know
why,
who
are
the
other
folks,
they're,
kids,
they're
in
nursing
homes
and
they're
disabled,
the
rest
of
the
other
folks
are
working,
but
where
are
they
working?
You
see
them
every
day
anytime.
N
You
exchange
money
that
person's
probably
eligible
for
Medicaid
at
the
fast
food
restaurant
at
the
grocery
store.
You
know
one
in
four
people
that
make
your
food
are
on
Medicaid,
that's
just
a
reality:
they're
not
getting
paid
enough,
so
I,
don't
think
it's
solving
the
right
problem
and
I
know
that
you
all
are
critical.
Thinkers
and
I
want
you
to
think
critically
about
this
and
make
sure
that
this
bill
solves
a
problem
that
you're
looking
to
solve.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
ladies
appreciate
your
testimony
and
coming
today.
I
think
we've
got
some
questions.
We're
going
to
entertain
some
from
the
committee
now
Senator,
Givens
I,
don't
know
if
you
have
questions
for
the
speaker
and
speaker,
Pro
Tem.
L
I
do,
but
let
me
start
if
I
could
first
with
secretary
friedlander,
Mr
chairman
I'll,
be
brief,
sure.
L
So
secretary
friedlander
in
in
the
work,
the
cabinet
does
there's
lots
of
latitude
for
promulgating
regulations.
You
not
have
lots
of
conversations
over
those
and-
and
thanks
for
being
here
today
to
testify
on
this
legislation
in
a
situation
where
these
processes
of
attestation
and
self-attestation
and
the
application
for
vitally
needed
services
at
the
times
that
citizens,
air
Commonwealth,
are
seeing
difficulties.
L
We
need
to
get
this
right.
We
so
do
so
briefly
share
with
the
committee.
What
are
the
processes
for
the
cabinet
to
regulate
individuals
as
they
apply
for
these
services
and
or
for
entities
like
hospitals
that
assist
people
in
imply
in
applying
for
these
these
benefits?
What's
the
process
the
cabinet
uses
to
police
that
the
right
people
are
getting
the
right
services.
Q
Thank
you
for
that
question,
and
yes,
we,
there
are
many
different
processes
to
do
that.
We
do
when
we
people
report
that
someone
is
getting
services
that
are
not
appropriate.
We
will
investigate.
We
have
what
are
called
predictive,
predictive.
Q
Sorry,
what's
that
called
Predictive
Analytics
information
systems
that
will
look
at,
for
instance,
snap
purchases
we
use
those
when
there's
a
flag
we
need
to
investigate.
We
actually
lost
a
court
case
within
the
past
year
about
only
using
the
Predictive
Analytics.
We
really
do
have
to
do
an
investigation,
so
all
of
those
those
are
the
kinds
of
things
that
we
do
when
people
sign
up
for
snap
now,
Medicaid,
we
have
longer
terms
when
folks
sign
up.
Q
We
do
use
some
presumptive
eligibility
and
have
since
the
90s,
and
the
reason
that
is
so
concerning
to
me
and
to
the
cabinet
I
can
tell
you,
as
we
have
moved
to
a
more
virtual
environment.
I
can
give
you
and
the
reason
I
have
a
better
way
to
quantify
it
now
than
I
did
before
is
I
can
point
to
our
call
volumes,
beginning
in
January
of
20
and
to
where
we
are
in
2022,
and
it's
why
I'm
very
concerned
with
the
additional
paperwork
requirements
I
believe
it
will
overwhelm
our
systems.
L
So
as
we
have
entities
that
are
are
assisting
and
I
I
think
in
the
case
of
a
hospital
or
long-term
care
facility,
assisting
is
the
right
term.
It
is
these
individuals
to
enroll,
there's
a
shared
benefit
there,
and
and
let's
not
kid
ourselves,
we
need
to
get
this
right.
These
are
taxpayer
dollars.
Q
So
within
the
hospitals
and
also
then
I'll
do
hospitals
in
the
nursing
facilities.
That
is
that
all
right,
please,
hospitals.
First,
someone
comes
into
a
hospital
and
and
does
not
have
insurance,
and
they
are
in
an
emergency
room
and
the
hospitals
have
a
very
expensive
ER
stay
acute
stay.
They
will
begin
the
process
for
Medicaid
eligibility
that
helps
the
hospitals
stay
afloat.
It
helps
with
the
costs
and
then
that
individual
can
get
taken
through
the
process
to
become
Medicaid
eligible.
It
is
something.
Q
L
Q
Q
They
are
particularly
difficult
when
you
have
a
person
who
is
elderly
and-
and
this
is
new-
this
is
this-
is,
since
the
pandemic
sure
we
allowed
for
some
of
this
within
nursing
facilities,
what
it
does
when
you're
looking
for
assets,
cars,
stocks
or
homes,
those
kinds
of
things
that
can
take
a
long
time,
particularly
if
someone
perhaps
has
a
memory
issue
and
not
a
lot
of
family
that
can
take
it
can
take
up
to
a
year,
and
so
this
helps
with
the
nursing
facilities
as
they
go
through
the
process
of
finding
all
the
assets.
Q
What
happens
in
that
case
is
if
assets
are
found,
Medicaid,
then
issues
essentially
a
bill
for
those
assets
like
when
somebody
sells
a
home.
You
have
to
get
down
to
under
2
about
two
thousand
dollars
worth
of
of
incoming.
Q
L
Quick
follow-up,
so
in
a
situation-
and
this
may
be
more
on
the
SNAP
benefit
side,
where
we
have
a
question
of
eligibility
and
it's
being
investigated
by
the
cabinet,
is
there
a
time
frame
and
if,
if
we
run
out
of
too
much
time,
help
me
to
understand
a
family,
that's
truly
in
need
and
an
investigation
ensues
and
it
takes.
Does
it
take
two
weeks?
Does
it
take
three
months?
What
happens
along
the
way?
Does
the
family
lose
benefits
until
they're?
How
does
that
work.
Q
Person
for
just
30
seconds
I
will
try
but
know
that
that
my
detailed
knowledge
here
so
yes,
if
somebody
finds
that
like
they
need
more
information,
which
is
often
what
happens
in
order
to
become
to
maintain
eligibility
for
SNAP.
They
have
a
certain
number
of
days
to
get
that
back
to
us.
If
they
don't,
they
lose
coverage.
If
there's
an
investigation-
and
we
say
we
send
the
letter-
there
is
a
whole
hearings
process,
13B
hearings,
process
that
they
can
go
through.
L
A
L
Gentlemen,
thanks
for
your
work
on
the
legislation,
I
think
we
share
a
lot
of
the
same
concerns
and
you
heard
my
my
line
of
questioning
with
the
secretary
speak
globally.
If
you
would
for
just
a
minute
leader,
Mead
and
and
leader
Osborne,
about
the
goal
here
and
I,
think
we
share
that
same
goal.
P
Yes,
you're
exactly
right
and,
and
the
goal
is
to
make
sure
that
the
folks
who
are
truly
need
these
benefits
are
receiving
yeah
and
that
they're
that
we
are
cutting
down
on
fraud
and
cutting
down
on
those
who
are
ineligible
so
that
we
make
sure
that
those
Assistance
programs
are
are
Ensure
are
secured
for
those
who
truly
truly
need.
It.
I
Just
follow
up
on
that
Senator,
Gibbons,
I
I
think
that
we
can
all
acknowledge
that
these
these
programs
are
incredibly
important
to
those
that
rely
on
them.
I
think
we
can
probably
also
agree
that
there's
never
going
to
be
enough
money
to
truly
provide
that
that
that
very
necessary
safety
net,
underneath
the
most
vulnerable
and
I
think
to
to
acknowledge
that
there's
never
going
to
be
enough.
I
L
Last
quick
question
specifically
to
the
page,
13
and-
and
this
is
one
I
started
to
place
the
two
of
you
start
at
but
I'm
looking
at
the
stricken
language
at
the
bottom
of
13
as
it
relates
to
as
it
relates
to
the
unemployment
rate.
L
The
previous
language
gave
the
cabinet
some
flexibility
with
regard
to
severe
declines,
in
particular
counties
and
I.
Think
from
conversations
we've
had
about
policy
in
the
past,
we
don't
have
a
good,
solid,
Regional
unemployment
rate.
That's
that's
hard
to
nail
down
as
a
regional
rate,
I'd
love
to
talk
with
you
afterwards,
maybe
about
some
possibilities
that
we
can
find
some
way
to
give
some
leniency
to
the
cabinet
at
certain
times,
because,
as
the
as
the
two
of
you
know
and
and
others,
we
can't
call
ourselves
back
to
address
individual
things.
L
P
Yeah
I
mean,
if
you
look
at
that
language,
Senator
Gibbons.
It
says
that
they
shall
not
res
accept
or
seek
a
renewal
of
a
waiver
unless
there's
an
economic
downturn
resulting
in
unemployment
rate
of
10
or
more
and
the
cabinet
determines
an
increase
in
employment
rate
in
a
particular
County
to
be
severe
enough
for
necessity
of
a
waiver
We've
pretty
much
just
said
the
same
thing
only
using
the
10
percent
in
both
places
in
the
above
to
subsection
one
and
subsection
two.
L
We'll
talk
offline
about
some
other
thoughts
and
and
see
where
you
stand.
Let
me
conclude
by
saying,
thanks
to
both
of
you,
for
your
leadership
leader
meet
especially
the
work
that
you've
sat
with
me
and
you
and
I
have
done
in
this
legislation
over
the
course.
The
last
two
weeks,
thanks
for
being
open
to
my
to
my
input.
Thank
you
chairman.
Thank.
D
Yes,
gentlemen,
I
can
direct
my
question
at
you,
too.
Secretary
Freelander
discussed
the
Staffing
problems
and
I
know
from
just
prior
discussions,
they're
having
difficulty
Staffing
everything
now,
with
an
implementation
to
have
y'all
looked
at
whether
we
need
to
graduate
implementation
in
in
some
way.
We
always
talk
about
gaps
in
funding
when
we're
talking
about
businesses,
I'm
concerned
that
we
might
create
some
sort
of
employee
Gap
in
here
where
we
have
all
these
require
additional
requirements
in
putting
those
on
on
a
staffing
situation.
P
P
The
other
part
would
be
for
the
for
the
community
engagement
program
that
would
be
developed
that
Community
engagement
program
for
SNAP
was
already
in
effect
prior
to
covet,
so
that
would
just
go
back
into
effect.
They
were
already
running.
They
already
knew
how
to
run
it,
so
that
shouldn't
be
a
big
surprise
to
them.
The
next
thing
is
on
the
community
engagement
program.
Is
we
actually
changed
the
language
we?
There
are
no
work
requirements.
P
It's
a
community
engagement
program
that
the
cabinet
can
develop
in
any
way
they
want
to
matter
of
fact,
secretary
friedlander
has
said
I
think
to
the
chairman
a
couple
of
times
that
he
was
he's
in
favor
of
a
community
engagement
program
within
that
program,
so
they
can
develop
it.
However,
they
see,
and
the
language
has
just
been
changed
to
say
that
they
will
do
it
within
federal
law.
D
B
It's
already
been
answered.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman,
you
know,
I
was
kind
of
confused
when
I
saw
the
first
fiscal
note
and
it
was
high
and
then
you
all
removed
several
sections
that
you
felt
as
if
would
have
a
big
fiscal
impact,
and
then
the
fiscal
impact
statement
grew
and
I
know
you
just
went
through
some
of
those
with
Senator
Howe,
but
it
it
just
seems
counterintuitive
that
the
fiscal
impact
statement
from
the
cabinet
would
grow
instead
of
decline.
I
didn't
know
if
you
wanted
to
comment
on
that.
Well,.
P
I'm
glad
you
asked
that
Senator
Rocky
Adams,
we
I,
have
two
physical
impact
statements
here
there
one
is
from
two
years
ago.
One
is
the
current
one
that
is
with
this
committee
sub
and
I
found
I
actually
found
out
about
this
one
with
the
committee
sub
from
the
Press
I.
Had
two
members
of
the
media
call
us
on
Thursday
evening
to
tell
us
what
the
numbers
were
now
it
may
have
been
given
to
lrc
and
they
just
hadn't
gone
through
and
compiled
it
yet
to
give
it
to
us,
but
I
thought.
P
It
was
interesting
that
the
Press
contacted
me
to
tell
me
what
the
fiscal
impact
statement
was,
but
there's
there's
some
major
differences
in
what
was
given
two
years
ago
and
what's
given
today
and
I'm,
just
going
to
point
out
one
section,
because
it's
in
section
two
of
or
it's
in
the
first
part
of
the
fiscal
impact
statement
of
this
current
one,
and
it
says
the
department
of
human
Based
Services
need
to
hire
an
additional
300
field,
support,
Specialists
and
60
case
managers
for
increased
snap
compliance
and
oversight
with
the
added
restrictions
applied
to
snap
and
EBT
cards,
especially
with
monitoring
snap
trafficking
activity.
P
In
this
legislation,
costs
are
estimated
to
be
a
minimum
of
25
million
dollars
annually.
Section
two
of
two
years
ago,
almost
The,
Identical
language.
It's
estimated
that
the
provisions
of
section
2
will
cost
1
million
dollars
for
additional
staff
to
monitor
EBT
cards
for
cash
withdrawals
investigate
cases
when
cash
benefits
are
being
used
to
violation
of
Section
3
of
this
legislation.
Applying
a
blended
match
rate
of
30
general
fund
is
70
Public
Assistance
programs.
P
There
will
be
a
physical
impact
of
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
general
fund
and
seven
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
federal
funds
that
one
section
identical
language,
almost
a
difference
of
24
million
dollars
per
year,
so
right
there
in
the
in
the
fiscal
impact
statement,
if
it's
actual
million
dollars
over
the
three
years
that
they
gave
us
that
72
million
dollars
in
savings
I
will
also
say
that
another
section
of
this
fiscal
impact
statement.
It
says
the
office
of
the
Ombudsman
administrative
review
will
need
to
hire
an
additional
50
hearing.
P
Officers
and
attorneys
costs
are
estimated
to
be
4
million
dollars
annually.
In
their
original
fiscal
impact
statement,
there
was
no
cost
for
that.
They
felt
that
they
could
do
it
with
the
staff
that
they
had
there's
another
over
the
course
of
three
years,
another
12
million
dollars,
and
if
these
numbers
are
true,
the
four
million
dollars
here
they're
saying
that
there
is
an
abundance
of
fraud
in
this
system
that
they're
going
to
have
to
deal
with
by
hiring
50
new
hearing
officers
and
attorneys.
P
Mo
many
times
you
can
say
you
can
figure
that,
if
someone's
on
Snap
they're
probably
going
to
receive
additional
benefits
like
Medicaid,
so
those
people
would
already
be
covered
under
those
Community
engagement
programs,
but
there's
another
population
of
people.
That
would
only
be
on
Medicaid
again
if
the
cabinet's
numbers
are
right.
In
that
fiscal
impact
statement,
they
are
saying
that
there
isn't
a
a
significant
number
of
able-bodied
adults
with
no
dependents
at
home
who
are
able
to
work
but
are
simply
not
working.
M
I,
thank
you
Mr
chairman
I
am
my
question
goes
more
to
the
presumptive
eligibility,
because
this
is
an
area
that
is
very
near
and
dear
to
my
heart.
My
understanding
with
presumptive
eligibility,
which
was
expanded
during
the
pandemic,
is
that
it
has
basically
allowed
most
of
our
Royal
hospitals
to
keep
their
doors
open,
because
this
you
know
when
a
patient
shows
up
in
the
emergency
room.
You
know
with
mtala
regulations.
You
cannot
turn
that
patient
away.
M
You
have
a
legal
obligation
to
take
care
of
that
patient
I'm
in
the
in
the
emergency
rooms
do
that
they
have
to
do
it
and
they
do
that.
But
without
this
presumptive
eligibility,
those
patients
once
they
are
discharged
either
from
the
emergency
room
or
the
hospital,
have
absolutely
no
way
to
get
follow-up.
And
what
that
does?
You
know-
and
we
heard
from
one
of
the
women
who
testified
this
morning,
announced
that
prevention
is
worth
a
pound
of
cure.
These.
M
P
Please
actually
I
can
give
you
some
estimates,
but
first
let
me
answer
your
question.
Presumptive
eligibility
is
not
in
this
bill
anymore,
because
the
hospital
Association
gave
us
numbers,
or
it
gave
us
a
language
that
held
themselves
accountable
by
doing
some
additional
requirements,
also
self-attestation,
if
you
as
was
said
in
section
someone
mentioned
in
section
16
while
ago,
that
self
attestation
was
taken
out
of
here
and
that
children
were
going
to
lose
benefits.
It's
it's
easy.
P
If
you
only
read
the
first
part
of
that
section
and
don't
continue
on
down
where
it
says
that
we
are
exempting
nursing
homes,
long-term
care
facilities
and
hospitals
licensed
under
this
license
under
the
chapter
KRS
chapter,
which
means
that
surface
station's
really
gone
out
the
window
in
this.
The
only
difference
in
this
is
that
the
cabinets
now
must
do
the
self-attestation
study
prior
to
the
approval,
as
opposed
to
after.
M
So,
but
basically
that
between
and
betwixt
is
what
will
keep
these
people
from
having
follow-up
appointments
in
a
timely
manner,
because
if
they
get
eligibility
for
the
hospital,
so
the
hospital
is
covered.
But
then
they
lose
their
presumptive
eligibility
until
the
cabinet
has
the
time
to
confirm
it.
M
M
And
then
you
have
somebody
come
in
three
weeks
later,
with
massive
hemorrhagic,
pancreatitis
and
you're,
talking
about
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
worth
of
bills
that
we're
going
to
cover,
because
that's
what
we
do
as
a
state.
I
just
think.
This
is
very,
very
short-sighted
thinking
so
I'm
bringing
that
up.
As
my
main
concern
and.
C
P
The
cabinet
would
need
to
keep
track
of
of
the
data
on
that,
and
I
will
give
you
some
go
back
to
giving
you
some
numbers,
as
Senator
Berg
asked
a
while
ago
for
some.
How
will
we
know?
How
do
we
know
that
there
is
misuse
in
this
system
a
presumptive
eligibility?
P
First
and
foremost,
several
states
have
kept
track
presumptive
eligibility
throughout
coven
and
what
we
have
seen
if
I
can
find
my
sheet
here
of
those
states
that
kept
track
Indiana
had
only
25
percent
of
those
who
were
determined
eligible
who
actually
were
eligible.
P
If,
if
Kentucky
is
even
anywhere
close
in
that
that
range,
there
will
be
significant
amount
of
money
that
the
taxpayers
will
save
due
to
those
who
are
are
not
currently
eligible.
I
received
I've
been
working
on
this
bill
with
UK
Gatton
College
of
Business
and
economics,
and
in
their
study
in
2016
they
showed
73
000,
who
would
be
ineligible
right
now
on
the
roads
for
Medicaid.
Since
that
time
they
have
been
continuing
to
update
and
try
to
try
to
do
estimates
to
keep
track.
Today.
P
He
emailed
me
last
week
and
said
of
those
on
that
are
on
Medicaid
and
properly.
There
will
be
a
cost
of
the
federal
government
of
1.86
billion
dollars
and
the
taxpayers
of
the
state
of
Kentucky
186
million
dollars
per
year.
That
is
their
estimate
right
now
with
Kentucky
ranking
third
in
the
nation,
the
biggest
increase
in
improper
Medicaid
enrollment
since
the
passage
of
the
Affordable
Care
Act.
If
again,
if
we
just
make
a
minor
Improvement
in
this
area,
you
we're
going
to
see
significant
changes
in
significant
savings.
A
Q
Yes,
we
they
keep
receiving
benefits
through
the
hearings
process
and
it
is
a
federal
requirement
and
according
to
Jason
Don
who
sent
this
to
me,
we
already
are
very,
very
high
state
in
terms
of
disqualification
from
snap,
maybe
one
of
the
highest
in
the
southeast.
A
M
A
Aye
the
matter
passes
by
account
of
nine
yes
votes
and
two
no
votes.
Congratulations.
Gentlemen
will
be
reported
favorably
to
the
floor
of
the
Senate.
At
this
time,
I'll
entertain
a
motion
to
roll
the
sub
and
the
amendment
into
a
new
substitute.
We
have
a
motion.
Is
there
a
second
all?
Those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
any
opposed
all
right
so
that
it
has
been
rolled
into
a
new
sub
I
also
have
a
title:
Amendment
we'll
entertain
a
motion
on
the
title.
Amendment
a
motion
in
the
second
have
been
made
anybody.
A
A
O
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee
I'm
grateful
for
the
opportunity
to
present
to
you
today.
I
am
Savannah
Maddox
and
I
represent
Kentucky's
61st
house
districts
I
have
before
you
today,
House
Bill
28,
which
would
provide
statutory
protections
against
mandatory
vaccination
as
I've
traveled
across
the
Commonwealth
over
the
course
of
the
past
two
years.
O
There
has
been
no
issue
that
has
come
to
the
Forefront,
like
this
particular
issue,
and
so
much
as
kentuckians
want
the
freedom
to
be
able
to
decide
for
themselves
whether
or
not
to
receive
a
vaccine
without
being
forced
or
coerced
by
the
government
or
any
instrumentality
of
government.
This
piece
of
legislation
passed
71
to
22
out
of
the
house
and
it's
a
short
Bill.
A
mere
five
pages
and
I
would
like
to
just
briefly
go
over
each
section
for
what
it
would
do
in
section
one.
O
Third
section
is
that
the
governments
cannot
require
a
vaccine
or
a
vaccine
passport
or
any
other
type
of
document.
So
essentially,
this
component
would
disallow
any
type
of
vaccine
mandate
and,
lastly,
section
4
would
allow
for
parents
to
decide
for
their
own
school-aged
children,
whether
or
not
to
receive
a
vaccine,
given
that
they
can
opt
out
on
the
basis
of
conscientious
objection
and
again,
I've
told
you
what
this
bill
does
and
I
would
also
like
to
emphasize
what
this
bill
does
not
do.
O
This
bill
is
not
intended
to
debate
the
Merit
or
non-merits
of
receiving
a
vaccine
or
in
any
way
shape
or
form,
discourage
or
encourage
anyone
to
do
anything.
It
comes
down
to
the
fact
that
kentuckians
are
capable
of
making
good
decisions
for
themselves
and
their
families
when
it
comes
to
their
health
care
without
any
undue
influence,
force
or
coercion
from
the
government.
Thank
you.
A
A
T
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee
I
apologize
for
the
attire
today,
I
thought
I
would
be
over
into
Lexington
office,
but
saw
your
agenda
chairman
and
thought
it
would
be
best
to
head
over
here.
T
Those
of
you
that
worked
with
the
Kentucky
League
of
cities
and
most
of
you
on
this
committee
have
for
a
long
a
long
time,
especially
if
you
sit
on
Senate
state
and
local
government
committee
like
Senator
nemus,
Senator,
Harper,
Angel
and
Senator
Alvarado
and
others
on
the
committee
know
the
one
thing
about
our
organization:
we're
we're
consistent
and
we've
been
consistent
on
the
line
of
home
rule
or
the
fact
that
local
decisions
are
best
made
at
the
local
level.
House
Bill
28
started
out
over
in
the
house
as
a
as
an
employer,
preemption
measure.
T
As
it
was
amended,
it
became
much
more
targeted
for
government
in
their
roles,
employers,
and
so
my
organization
obviously
feels
strongly
that
any
piece
of
of
legislation
that's
introduced
ought
to
favor
the
idea
of
local
control.
T
Local
officials
are
setting
in
the
best
best
situation,
to
make
decisions
for
their
for
their
employees
and
for
their
constituents,
and
this
this
prevents
that,
even
though
it's
related
to
a
very
isolated
issue
there
are-
and
the
sponsor
has
been
so
gracious
to
acknowledge
this
argument,
because
because
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
philosophical
agreement
with
the
idea,
among
my
membership
that
employers
city
government
employers
probably
wouldn't
be
making
this
decision.
In
fact,
our
organization
opposed
the
proposed
mandate
from
the
Biden
Administration
that
impacted
our
cities.
T
We
participated
with
the
attorney
general
by
filing
affidavits
in
that
case,
so
we've
been
consistent
with
regard
to
our
opposition
of
a
mandate
and
filling
this.
This
is
a
decision
best
made
at
the
local
level
and
the
way
this
bill
is
drafted,
it
targets
that
ability
of
local
officials
to
govern
the
running
of
their
their
communities,
their
city,
which
are
places
of
employment.
As
a
result,
we
would
ask
you
to
vote
in
opposition
of
House
Bill
House
Bill
28,
as
it
was
amended.
A
S
Good
afternoon,
thank
you,
Mr
chairman,
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
regarding
House
Bill
28..
My
name
is
Dr
Brittany
Welch
I'm,
the
director
of
edu
clinical
education
for
nurses
throughout
Kentucky
and
I'm
responsible
for
clinical
placement
of
thousands
of
students,
I'm
also
the
chair
of
the
governmental
Affairs
cabinet
for
the
Kentucky
Nurses
Association
I'm
here
today,
speaking
for
and
representing
89
000
nurses,
including
42
nursing
schools
and
97
nursing
programs
and
their
Deans
and
directors
throughout
Kentucky.
S
As
you
well
know,
it
is
critical
to
address
the
nursing
shortage
now.
Currently,
Kentucky
has
a
12
to
20
percent
nursing
shortage,
and
it's
protect
projected
that
we'll
continue
to
experience
a
shortage
of
over
16
000
nurses
by
2024.,
House
Bill
28,
prohibits
employers
and
post-secondary
schools
from
inquiring
about
vaccination
status.
This
would
severely
alter
the
ability
of
nursing
schools
to
facilitate
clinical
placement.
S
If
nursing
students
cannot
be
placed
at
a
clinical
site,
they
cannot
receive
the
required
clinical
education
to
be
proficient
nurses,
they
cannot
graduate
from
nursing
school,
they
cannot
take
the
NCLEX
and
they
cannot
be
registered
nurses
or
licensed
professional
nurses.
This
bill
exags
surveys
the
nursing
shortage
and
puts
patients
and
families
in
danger,
the
Kentucky
Nurses
Association,
its
affiliates,
the
Kentucky,
nursing
schools,
Deans
and
directors.
R
Yeah,
oh
there.
It
is
sorry
about
that.
My
name
is
Marcy
Timmerman
I'm
speaking
as
a
citizen,
not
for
my
employer,
so
I
did
take
off
my
badge
and
I
am
off
the
clock.
Vaccine
status
information
feels
personal,
but
it
does
very
public
implications.
R
The
people
who
have
contacted
me
and
begged
me
to
stand
up
for
them
today
do
not
want
you
to
pass
house
bill.
28.
I,
hope
they
took
in
my
advice
and
actually
contacted
you
themselves.
That's
always
best
right,
but
I'm
here
trying
to
explain
a
little
bit
very
briefly
why
we
are
concerned
about
it.
They're
scared
that
they're
no
longer
going
to
be
able
to
trust
their
doctors,
their
nurse
practitioners,
their
Cancer
Care
Unit,
their
teachers
or
their
dorm
mates
to
keep
them
and
their
families
safe.
R
Those
who
cannot
do
so
are
already
talking
about
taking
their
health
care
across
the
border
into
other
states.
What
do
I
have
to
do?
Where
can
I
go
that
doesn't
have
this
law
Mercy?
What
can
I
do
I'm
worried
about
our
border
hospitals
and
our
rural
hospitals
that
are
on
the
borders
or
near
those
that
they're
going
to
lose
that
very
expensive
care
that
helps
feed
their
coffers?
R
Cancer
Care
heart
surgeries
that
are
elective
care,
like
my
own
I,
am
a
person
with
an
indivisible,
invisible
disability
and
I,
take
very
expensive
medication
and
sometimes
receive
very
expensive
treatments.
What
will
I
have
to
do
if
I
have
to
leave
the
state?
People
who
are
against
vaccines
can
make
their
choice.
There
are
personal
protective
measures
that
can
be
in
place
when
they
care
for
someone
like
me,
but
those
can
only
be
enforced
when
the
provider
knows
that
they
are
unvaccinated.
R
I
want
to
be
very
clear
about
that.
Not
requiring
that
information
jeopardizes
not
only
my
trust
but
also
my
life
and
the
life
of
so
many
people.
I've
heard
from
this
bill
is
unnecessary.
It
reinforces
the
message
that
these
people
with
disabilities
hear
over
and
over
again
that
we
are
not
valued.
We
are
not
included
and
that
our
rights
do
not
matter.
I
would
argue
the
opposite.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
I
have
quite
a
few
questions
representative
Maddox
like
to
come
forward
in
I'm,
just
going
to
ask
you
how
many
yes
votes!
Do
we
have
in
this
committee
for
this
bill
here
today.
J
O
O
Yes,
no
aspect
of
this
bill
precludes
hospitals
from
abiding
by
the
federal
mandate
and
so
much
as
public
universities
are
not
tasked
with
enforcing
that
the
health
care
facilities
are
so.
If
you
have
students
that
are
being
placed,
they
would
have
to
abide
by
the
requirements
that
are
in
place,
the
Medicare
and
Medicaid
requirements.
You
know
unless
they
had
a
religious
exemption,
medical
exemption
or
something
that
was
governed
at
the
federal
level.
But
you
know
no
aspect
of
this
bill
precludes
hospitals
from
doing
that.
It's
public
universities.
A
A
I
know
that
you
haven't
spoken
to
all
of
them
at
least,
and
so
the
question
there
becomes.
Why
not
I
know
you
had
reached
out
asked
for
this
bill
to
be
heard
and
you're
right
brief
text
message.
Was
you
don't
have
the
votes
so
I'm
curious?
A
If
you
have
them
customarily,
if
a
sponsor
asks
for
a
bill
to
be
heard,
the
presumption
is
that
you
have
the
votes
for
it
to
pass,
and
so
typically,
if
it's
an
important
bill,
that
would
be
the
thing
that
I
would
hope
to
have
coming
forward
all
right,
very
good,
any
other
questions
from
members
of
the
committee.
A
B
C
Explain
my
no
vote.
Please
proceed.
Mr
chairman.
It's
it's
easy
to
make
policy
in
retrospect
and
looking
at
what
has
happened,
what
is
difficult
is
to
make
policy
and
foreseeing
the
future,
there's
no
way
we
can
know
what
kovid
will
bring.
What
the
next
variant
might
be,
how
important
it
is
that
people
know
someone's
vaccination
status.
That
could
mean
the
difference
between
life
and
death
depending
on
the
variant
and
how
deadly
it
is,
and
it's
for,
though,
that
reason,
and
the
reasons
mentioned
by
the
opposition
that
I
vote
no.
F
A
Casting
I
vote
for
the
sake
of
the
sponsor
today,
although
I,
obviously
I've
got
some
of
the
concerns
some
of
the
testimony
has
been
made,
but
by
account
of
only
four
yes
votes,
the
matter
fails
in
committee.
Very
sorry,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
testimony
for
all
who
came
and
testified
today.
Any
other
issues
coming
before
this
committee
I
do
want
to
take
a
moment,
I'm,
not
sure,
if
we'll
be
meeting
again
or
not
going
forward.
A
So
if
we
don't
I
want
to
take
an
opportunity
to
thank
our
wonderful
staff
in
this
committee,
a
lot
of
hard
work
goes
on
behind
the
scenes.
For
yes,
absolutely
Applause,
they
do
a
lot
of
work.
They'll
be
doing
a
lot
of
work
here
in
the
next
few
days.
Also
for
amendments
and
lots
of
the
things
that
come
forward
so
I
do
I,
do
appreciate
all
of
that,
and
thank
you
all
so
much
for
all
your
your
hard
work.
If
you
know
the
comments
we
stand.