►
From YouTube: Interim Joint Committee on State Government (6-21-22)
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
I'm
here
and
we
do
have
a
quorum
and
we're
duly
constituted
here
during
the
interim,
to
have
this
meeting
up
just
a
couple
things
for
since
it's
our
first
meeting
just
want
to
remind
everybody
to
during
the
interim.
Ask
your
question:
if
you
have
questions
of
the
folks
testifying
just
ask
a
direct
question:
we
are:
we
need
to
be
respectful
of
everybody's
time.
People
have
schedules
and
travel
time
and
things
of
that
nature.
So
please
ask
direct
questions.
A
If
you
can,
we
have
a
couple
items
on
the
agenda
today,
the
first,
if
we'd
like
to
have
the
folks
from
the
attorney
general's
office,
come
forward.
We
all
know
that
there's
a
substantial
amount
of
money
heading
to
our
state
from
opioid
settlements
that
have
been
handled
by
the
attorney
general's
office,
and
we
have
three
gentlemen
here
today
to
speak
to
this
issue.
D
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
If
you
will
I'd
like
to,
we
lost
our
former
colleagues
of
ours,
wilson
stone
this
past
week
and
for
those
of
us
who
served
with
him.
He
was
a
man
who
was
a
compassionate
man.
He
strongly
believed
in
public
education.
He
had
served
on
the
board
of
education
in
simpson
county.
He
represented
simpson
and
warren,
and
if
we
could
mr
chair,
if
we
can
have
a
moment
of
silence,
absolutely.
A
D
A
F
E
Mr
chairman,
we
we
understand
that
the
committee
wanted
to
hear
from
our
office
concerning
the
status
of
the
litigation
and
the
settlement
of
the
cases
that
we
had
brought
against
what
were
called
the
big
three
distributors
and
johnson
and
johnson's
jansen
subsidiary,
and
I
think
we
have
a
few
slides.
The
first
slide.
I
think
it's
slide.
Number
three
actually
settled
litigation
outlines
those
three
cases
there.
There
were
cases
brought
in
various
circuit
courts
around
the
state,
one
each
against
the
three.
E
E
E
That's
roughly
2.09
of
the
26
billion
dollar
total
global
settlement
that
2.
or
26
billion,
includes
about
1.6
billion
for
attorney's
fees.
The
remainder
is
abatement
funds
that
are
distributed
to
the
states
according
to
a
formula
that
was
agreed
upon
by
the
multi-state
plaintiffs.
The
attorney
generals
around
the
country
and
that
formula
is
a
function
of
state
population
as
well
as
the
severity
of
the
opioid
crisis
in
a
particular
state,
and
so
that's
that's.
E
E
So
we
believe
that
I
think
the
legislature
believed,
because
the
statute
passed
unanimously,
that
that
was
the
appropriate
course
of
action
for
the
commonwealth
and
that's
how
we
ended
up
with
the
483,
which
again
is
the
maximum
amount
available.
Could
we
have
the
next
slide?
Please
and,
as
you
can
see
there,
the
the
distributor
payments
are
made
over
a
number
of
years
and
that's
18
years.
E
E
So
when
the
consent
judgments
are
actually
filed
and
the
checks
are
delivered
by,
what's
called
the
settlement
fund
administrator,
which
is
an
organization
maybe
in
delaware,
I
know
the
wilmington
trust
is
the
trustee
of
these
funds.
Then
those
checks
will
will
come
into
the
commonwealth.
The
50
percent
is
what
the
commonwealth
will
get
to
the
treasury.
E
That
is
still
a
function
of
some
calculation.
I
guess
because
if
you,
if
a
city
or
county
gets
less
than
thirty
thousand
dollars
over
the
lifetime
of
the
settlement,
then
that
their
money
then
rolls
up
to
the
county
that
they're
located
in
and
that's
a
calculation
that
has
to
be
finalized
before
the
final
percentages
for
those
numbers
can
be
agreed
to.
E
I
attended
that
conference
in
late
february
of
2020
and
largely
as
a
result
of
that,
I
think
the
distributors
and
johnson
johnson
ended
up
adding
about
a
billion
and
a
half
more
dollars
to
what
they
had
previously
proposed
and
effectively
at
that
conference.
I
think
the
broad
terms
of
this
settlement
were
completed.
E
It
took
another
year
almost
for
the
the
actual
settlement
to
be
finalized.
In
large
part,
I
believe,
because
there
were
questions
about
attorneys
fees
and
how
large
the
attorney
fee
pool
would
be.
Let
me
just
point
out
in
this
settlement
kentucky
the
commonwealth
of
kentucky.
We
had
outside
counsel.
E
One
of
the
things
that
chris
and
I
did
with
barry
and
general
cameron's
help
was
to
sort
of
renegotiate
the
the
contract
with
our
outside
counsel,
which
had
lapsed.
We
reinitiated
it
in
july
of
2020
and
that
contract
provided
that
our
lawyers
would
not
take
anything
from
the
funds
that
came
to
the
commonwealth
of
kentucky.
E
They
are
getting
all
of
their
funds
from
either
the
settlement
fund.
That
is
part
of
this
agreement
that
is
administered
by
the
cleveland,
multi-state
litigation
or
now
they'll
get
funds
if
they
represent
cities
and
counties
from
the
backstop
agreement
that
was
enacted
in
the
most
recent
session
of
the
legislature.
So
we
feel
like
that
that
that
change
in
the
contract
saved
the
commonwealth.
E
I
think
it
was
six
or
eight
million
dollars
was.
If
you
applied
the
the
model
procurement
act
formula
to
what
the
lawyers
would
have
received,
then
the
contract
that
they
now
have
that
they're
acting
under
for
these
settlements
ended
up
sending
about
six
or
eight
million
dollars
less
to
them.
We
we
have
the
exact
number.
I
don't
have
it
at
my
fingertips
so
that
we
feel
like
that
is
again.
You
know,
saving
the
commonwealth
as
much
money
as
we
possibly
can.
E
F
Go
back
one
brian
sorry,
one
thing
to
point
out
on
this:
you'll
notice
that
the
numbers
slowly
increase
and
then
decrease
at
the
end.
That's
a
function
of
those
different
tiers
that
vic
was
referring
to
that
we
would
have
been
faced
with
if
we
hadn't
had
the
complete
statutory
bar.
Other
states
will
look
different
than
this,
because
they're
not
getting
incentive
a
or
they're,
not
getting
incentive
b,
because
kentucky
is
getting
the
entire
payment
as
a
result
of
the
statutory
bar.
F
These
numbers
reflect
the
full
payment
available
in
any
given
year
and
on
this
one
you
can
see
it'll
be
paid
out
over
18
years.
The
first
payments
will
probably
be
together
at
this
point.
We
thought
we
might
have
a
payment
in
june,
it's
more
likely
going
to
be
sometime
in
july
that
you'll
see
payments
one
and
two
come
in
together
or
very
close
together
and
that'll
pay
out
over
time
through
the
18
years
under
the
distributor
agreement.
F
F
E
You
can
see
that
we
have
cases
in
fayette
circuit,
franklin,
boone
and
madison
county.
I'm
sorry,
that's
in
the
delaware
bankruptcy
court
that
was
in
madison
county.
We
also
have
a
claim
pending
in
the
purdue
bankruptcy
proceeding
in
the
southern
district
of
new
york
and
I'll,
give
you
a
little
bit
about
each
of
these
cases.
E
Teva
allergan
is
a
case
that
we
recently
added
allergan
as
a
defendant.
Allergan
acquired
some
of
the
product
lines
that
teva
manufactured,
and
so
they
have
liability.
In
our
view,
for
those
products,
cvs
is
a
new
case
that
we
filed
in
2021,
cvs
and
walgreens
obviously
are
pharmacies.
They
are
responsible
in
many
respects,
for
a
lot
of
the
abuses
in
the
distribution
of
opiates
opioids
over
the
course
of
the
years.
E
F
The
states
formed
an
ad
hoc
committee
to
represent
the
state's
interest
our
office
served
as
one
of
the
lead
states
on
that
ad
hoc
committee
and
were
involved
all
the
way
through
in
getting
the
plan
confirmed,
and
you
know
dealing
with
various
motions
and
challenges
to
the
plan
that
was
finalized
last
friday.
I
believe,
and
we
expect
payment
from
that
to
start
coming
in
sometime
in
the
next
80
to
90
days.
F
F
E
When
you
say
emergence
chris,
you
mean
emergence
from
back
emergency
from
bankruptcy
right
and
finally,
the
purdue
bankruptcy.
That's
a
case
that
has
been
in
the
southern
district
of
new
york.
You
all
probably
recall
that
the
commonwealth
settled
a
a
some
litigation
against
purdue
pharma
in
december
of
2015,
and
that
resulted
in
a
24
million
dollar
settlement
for
the
for
the
state.
E
I
think
there
was
three
and
a
half
million
dollars
paid
to
outside
council
and
the
remainder
was
paid
in
a
12
million
dollar
lump
sum
and
there's
1.2
million.
That
is
paid
every
january
and
I
believe,
there's
two
remaining
payments
on
that
settlement.
This
settlement
represents
a
settlement
that
we
pursued
in
the
bankruptcy
of
the
purdue
pharma
company
and
their
family.
E
E
We
expect
the
second
circuit
to
decide
that
case
in
the
next
three
to
four
months.
Our
hope
would
certainly
be
by
the
end
of
the
calendar
year,
and
if
that
plan
is
is
approved
and
the
district
court's
decision
effectively
is
affirmed,
then
that
that
that
settlement
would
be
put
into
place
in
pretty
short
order.
I
think
with
that.
I
think
I
will
turn
it
over
to
you're
going
to
take
this
one
right.
H
We
have
a
plan
for
for
using
those
dollars
and
that
plan
is
in
house
bill,
427
from
regular
session
21
and
then,
as
amended
by
house
bill
92
in
regular
session
22
and,
as
I'm
sure
most
of
you
all
know.
That
plan
has
a
50-50
split
where
50
of
the
settlement
dollars
will
go
directly
to
the
local
governments
with
the
other
50
percent
coming
to
the
commonwealth.
H
The
commonwealth's
portion,
as
we've
discussed,
will
go
to
the
opioid
abatement
advisory
commission
to
administer.
Now
we
have
a
sub-bullet
there
that
just
talks
about
how
these
dollars
actually
get
to
kentucky,
and
so,
generally
speaking,
when
you
saw
those
charts
before
when
those
payments
come
in.
According
to
those
schedules,
they
will
go
to
the
national
administrator.
H
The
national
administrator
will
then
send
50
percent
of
the
payment
to
the
commonwealth's
opioid
abatement
trust
fund.
The
other
50
percent
will
be
split,
how
many
ever
hundreds
of
ways
right
with
checks,
immediately
going
out
to
the
cities
and
counties
according
to
their
percentage,
and
so
that
will
be
at
relatively
no
cost
right,
that
entire
facilitation
will
be
at
relatively
no
cost
to
the
commonwealth,
and
all
those
checks
will
get
sent
out
pretty
automatically.
H
As
you
all
know,
thanks
to
house
bill,
427
all
funds,
whether
they
go
to
the
local
governments
or
to
the
commission,
must
be
spent
for
opioid
abatement.
There
is,
you
know
the
one
exception
for
the
feasing
costs
that
were
associated
with
with
the
lawsuits,
but
we
have
to
spend
these
dollars
on
opioid
abatement
or
we
risk
the
settlement
itself
and
then,
finally,
on
this
side,
local
governments
and
recipients
of
commission
funds
must
submit
regular
certifications
of
compliance.
H
427
provides
for
annual
certification
so
that
we
just
generally
can
keep
up
with.
This
is
what
the
money's
being
spent
on,
and
it's
definitely
going
toward
opioid
abatement,
and
just
for
just
for
you
all
quick
reference.
That
is,
these
are
the
statutory
references
I
mentioned
before
that
the
commission
will
oversee
the
commonwealth's
50
of
settlement
proceeds
before
I
turn
it
over
to
brian
and
talk
about
the
commission.
G
G
G
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
also
want
to
thank
you
for
bringing
this
issue
before
the
general
assembly.
It's
something
we
must
continue
to
bird
dog
during
the
conversation.
This
is
a
very
clinical
and
legal
conversation.
I
think
it's
important
a
lot
of
money
going
on
we're
talking
about
a
lot
a
lot
of
dollars.
I
I
want
to
thank
the
attorneys
general
throughout
the
country,
but
especially
our
own,
daniel
cameron,
for
getting
this
done,
but
I
want
to
remind
everybody
here
why
we're
here
and
what
has
what
this
has
wrought
with
those
companies
and
those
families
have
wrought
on
the
state
of
kentucky.
They
have
blood
on
their
hands.
Some
from
my
own
family.
I
We
have
communities
that
have
been
absolutely
devastated
and
destroyed
businesses
that
can't
find
workers,
children
who
can't
find
fathers
and
mothers
grandchildren
who
are
raising
their
kids.
We've
got
methamphetamine.
We've
got
heroin
as
a
direct
consequence
to
this
over
prescribing
of
opioids
that
our
physicians
were
told
were
not
addictive.
I
We
have
squalor
in
kentucky
in
many
places,
especially
in
the
midwest
because
of
these
companies
and
because
of
these
families.
So
I
want
to
thank
you
for
going
after
them.
I
see
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
cases
pending
cases,
keep
the
pedal
to
the
metal,
guys
the
pedal
to
the
metal,
but
I
want
to
know
why
there
are
no
physicians
on
that
board.
I
A
number
of
physicians
had
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
in
speaking
fees,
kentucky
physicians
as
well
as
positions
throughout
the
country
have
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
in
speaking
fees
and
other
incentives
to
to
push
these
pills
on
our
people.
Why
are
doctors
not
being
held
more
accountable?
Kentucky
board
of
medical
licensure
tries
to
do
a
good
job,
but
they're
hamstrung
in
a
lot
of
ways.
I
I
want
to
see
kentucky
physicians
and
national
physicians
on
that
list
so
also
and
here's
my
question:
why
are
they
not
on
there,
but
also,
I
want
to
know
I
want
to
know
what
are
we
doing
and
what
can
we
do
to
help
the
attendant
consequences?
We
have
obviously
a
flood
of
this
junk
coming
in
from
the
border.
What
can
kentucky
do
to
help
our
people
heal
and
to
stop
this?
What
you've
done
is
good.
What
more
can
we
do.
E
Well,
thank
you,
representative
nemes.
I
I
I
think
you
know
there
are
a
couple
of
questions
in
in
there
as
far
as
why
there
are
no
physicians,
I
mean
first
of
all,
the
theories
of
these
lawsuits
are
effectively
in
public
nuisance
by
and
large,
and
I
think
it
would
take
a
different
legal
theory
to
to
bring
a
case
against
physicians,
especially
given
you
know
their
licensure
and
their
oversight
by
by
the
government.
E
It's
certainly
something
that
we
can
look
into,
and
you
know
I
will
take
your
suggestion
back
to
general
cameron
and
recommend
that
we
do
that.
We
do
work
with
you
know,
allied
attorneys
general
across
the
country
and
it's
sort
of
a
multi-state
effort
and
I'll.
Take
that
to
the
larger
group
as
well.
E
E
E
But
I
I
agree
with
you
that
it's
been
a
devastating.
You
know
impact.
We
we
saw
just
this
week
that
overdose
deaths
have
increased
15
year-over-year
from
last
year
and
last
year
was
50
over
two
thousand
twenty,
so
this
has
been
a
devastating
problem.
You
also
alluded
representative
nemes
to
the
the
border.
E
So
I
I
would,
you
know,
certainly
recommend
that
the
legislature
look
to
whatever
ways
it
can
to
enhance
law,
enforcement's
ability
to
bring
resources
to
bear
against.
You
know
these
operations
we
just
in
conjunction
with
our
federal
partners.
Last
month.
I
believe
it
was
had
a
a
raid
that
busted
some
of
these
drug
dealers.
This
was
a
cuban
gang
believe
it
or
not
in
in
london
in
in
laurel
county,
and
they
seized
over
two
million
dollars
in
cash
from
the
shed
on
this
property,
and
that
was
all
drug
money.
E
So
it's
a
huge
business.
It
is
a
growing
business
and
you
know
my
own
personal
view
again
and
I
I
haven't
consulted
with
general
cameron
on
this,
but
my
personal
view,
based
on
my
involvement
in
the
litigation
and
what
I've
read
over
the
last
several
years
suggests
that
the
problem
now
is
being
fueled,
at
least
as
much
by
illicit
drugs
coming
across
the
border,
which
is
effectively
wide
open
to
the
cartels
as
it
is
by
the
the
companies
themselves.
E
These
settlements
that
have
been
put
in
place
will
impose
some
serious
abatement
and
injunctive
measures
on
on
those
companies,
so
they
will
no
longer
be
able
to
continue
the
sorts
of
business
practices
that
they
did.
Unfettered.
Throughout
the
you
know,
the
latter
half
of
the
90s
and
throughout
the
2010s,
and
before
these
this
litigation
came
about.
So
we
are
hopeful
that
the
litigation
will
actually
be
effective
in
in
stopping
the
the
abuses
on
the
company
level
and
then
the
rest
of
it
is.
You
know
a
much
larger
problem.
J
I
think,
mr
chairman,
I
have
two
one
very
micro
and
one
more
macro,
which
is
probably
a
statement.
First
of
all,
vic,
you
didn't
touch
it
all
on
senable90
the
pilot
project,
10.5
million
dollars
a
year
from
the
opioid
settlement
fund.
Do
you
guys
have
any
involvement
with
that
or
do
any
of
you
have
any
thoughts
on
the
progress
of
that.
H
H
I
do
suspect,
however,
and
I'm
not
on
the
commission-
and
maybe
brian
can
speak
to
this
in
more
detail,
but
I
do
suspect
that
the
commission
will
take
a
look
at
programs
or
entities
that
operate
in
the
same
kind
of
space
and
certainly
to
the
extent
that
senate
bill
90
is
funding
programs
that
prove
effective.
The
commission
will
be
you
know,
and
every
reason
to
piggyback
off
of
that.
G
I'm
going
to
try
to
get
two
birds
with
one
stone
in
response
to
what
representative
nemes
raised,
as
well
as
the
question
that
you
have
asked
specifically
about
senate
bill
90.
and,
as
we
think
about
the
way
in
which
this
commission
is
going
to
prioritize
its
work.
Please
bear
in
mind
that
I
am
just
one
of
nine
and
therefore
cannot
speak
for
everybody
on
the
panel
currently,
but,
as
previously
observed,
this
problem
has
rent
the
fabric
of
this
state.
Every
level
of
its
social
fabric
has
been
rent
by
this
problem.
G
If
we're
going
to
prioritize
our
work,
we
we
got
to
recognize
that
as
big
as
the
figure
of
500
million
500
million
dollars
sounds
to
the
everyday
ear.
It
is
a
drop
in
the
bucket
compared
to
the
catastrophe
that
has
been
unleashed
here.
So
what
is
it
that
we
need
to
focus
on
number
one
is
to
prevent
the
next
generation
of
addiction
by
bringing
as
much
normalcy
and
stability
and
love
to
the
children
of
this
state,
as
we
can
deliver,
insofar
as
those
children
have
lived
in
these
homes
that
have
been
destroyed
by
this
problem.
G
G
We
are
going
to
be
having
open
eyes
minds
and
ears
to
whatever
model
demonstrates
the
greatest
promise
of
delivering
the
greatest
percentage
of
durable
recovery
going
forward.
There
are
models
that
are
out
there
that
are
in
existence
that
do
fairly
well.
There
could
very
well
be
others
that
deliver
deliver
superior
results,
whatever
those
may
be
will
be
considered
and
and
in
so
far
as
there
are
innovators
out
there
who
have
things
that
have
not
been
seen
but
demonstrate
measurable
results.
J
J
J
But
as
long
as
there
is
a
tremendous
financial
motivation
that
exists
inside
of
the
drug
distribution
industry,
which
is
now
clearly
shifted
to
the
black
market,
they're
going
to
come
they're
going
to
try
to
do
it,
someone
is
they
might
not
be.
You
know
in
corporate
offices,
in
new
york
city
or
wherever
anymore,
but
they'll
come
and
they'll
do
it
because
they
value
that
money
over
those
people's
lives.
J
So
until
we
make
it
so
painful
in
that
distribution
process,
so
financially
painful
right,
because
that's
what
the
folks
care
about
until
it
makes
it
financially
painful
to
distribute
we're
not
going
to
get
a
handle
on
it
we'll
help
some
folks
along
the
way.
We
really
really
will,
but
they'll
still
be
a
steady
supply
of
those
upon
whom
they
can
pray.
So
I
just
want
you
to
think
about.
As
you
develop
this
plan,
what
can
we
do
to
make
it
so
financially
painful
for
those
who
exist
outside
of
the
current
legal
construct?
J
E
K
This
question
would
kind
of
follow,
along
with
the
comments
by
senator
representative,
anemis
and
also
senator
mcdaniel.
I
mean
why
aren't
we
seeing
physicians
on
this
list?
I
mean
I
can
think
of
many
physicians
long
after
the
problems
of
opioids
became
apparent
to
continue
to
push
this
stuff.
I
mean
in
my
region
alone,
there
was
a
doctor,
robert
windsor,
that
agreed
to
a
20
million
dollar
consent
judgment
based
upon
pain,
medications
and
unnecessary
treatment
and
opioids
he
dumped
all
over
eastern
kentucky.
K
He
was
flying
in
on
a
private
jet
out
of
georgia
to
like
four
different
clinics
in
kentucky
having
them
lined
up
out
the
door.
I
can
remember
this
was
going
on.
They
were
lined
up
out
the
door,
just
dumping
this
crap
on
the
street.
If
you
can
agree
to
pay,
20
million
you've
probably
made
a
hell
of
a
lot
more
than
that,
and
you
know
to
say
these
people
are
these.
Doctors,
don't
have,
you
know,
have
empty
pockets,
you
know
very
few
of
them
have
ever
been
criminally
prosecuted.
K
I
mean
there
have
been
some
no
doubt,
but
those
are
the
exceptions
rather
than
the
rule.
There
was.
I
think
at
some
point
a
widespread
collaboration
amongst
you
know
a
minor,
a
very
small
minority,
but
a
significant
minority
of
the
medical
community
that
collaborated
with
these
drug
dealers,
drug
companies
to
push
this
stuff
out
onto
the
street,
because
the
great
rewards
that
they
were
receiving
for
doing
this
and
yet
so
very
few
of
them
have
been
made
accountable
criminally.
Sometimes
that's
tough,
but
you
know
in
civil
court.
K
You
only
need
half
plus
one,
and
you
know
it's
a
much
lower
standard
of
proof,
and
you
know
this
goes
along
with
what
senator
mcdaniel
said.
As
long
as
the
reward
is
there,
people
will
continue
to
do
it
and
I
think
you're
starting
to
see
this
sometime
with
medicaid
medicaid
medication,
assisted
treatment.
Now
the
these
suboxone
clinics
that
are
springing
up
all
over
the
place
dumping
you
know
the
next
generation
of
it.
You
know.
Supposedly
it's
gonna
help.
You
know
it's
basically
become
a
street
jug
drug,
that's
being
sold
on
the
corner.
K
Just
like
everything
else-
and
you
know
I
know
in
our
community,
we
had
a
one
clinic
where
you
know
these
doctors
were
getting
paid
in
to
come
in.
For
you
know,
two
weeks
a
month,
five
thousand
a
week
or
no,
I
think
it
was
five
thousand
a
day
to
write
prescriptions
and
they
were
being
counseled
along
with
their
prescription
by
a
guy
that
had
previously
been
convicted
of
child
molestation.
And
yet
all
this
was
paid
for
with
medicaid
funds,
and
these
people
were
raking
in
millions
and
millions
of
dollars
and
yet
very
little.
K
I
have
seen
out
of
the
prosecutorial
systems
to
to
really
step
in
and
stop
this
type
of
abuse,
which
is
creating
a
whole
other
generation
of
zombies
walking
around
on
suboxone-
and
you
know
I
I
I
commend
you
for
the
work
you've
done.
This
is
tremendous
work
and
I
don't
want
to
diminish
it
in
any
way
these
companies
needed
to
be
held
to
account,
but
there's
other
people
out
there
that
are
are
making.
K
But
you
know
we
also
have
to
look
at
a
local
level
as
to
who
was
putting
this
stuff
out
on
the
street
in
the
communities
and
go
after
these
folks,
and
I
challenge
you
to
do
that.
But
I
want
to
thank
you
for
the
work
that
you've
done
and
I
hope
that
in
the
future,
you'll
look
to
some
of
these
other
issues
that
are
that
are
arising
out
of
this
pandemic.
E
E
G
G
I
wish
to
assure
everybody
in
this
room
that
there
is
a
list
of
physicians
within
the
medicaid
fraud
office
who
are
the
subject
of
criminal
investigation
due
to
the
way
in
which
prescription
behavior
is
parlayed
into
medicaid
fraud.
We
also
have
a
list
of
cases
that
we
work
jointly
with
our
federal
partners
and
the
department
of
justice
u.s
attorney's
office
in
both
the
eastern
and
western
district.
G
The
reality
is
that
there
are
a
number
of
bad
actors
out
there
engaged
in
ostensibly
rehabilitation
medicine
when
in
fact
they
are
glorified
drug
dealers
who
do
their
drug
dealing
through
the
respectability
of
a
prescription
pad.
We
have
data
that
shows
the
proliferation
of
suboxone
pill
prescriptions
over
the
past
five
years,
and
it
is
an
arresting
figure.
K
Mr
chairman,
a
brief
follow-up.
If
I
might
briefly
brian,
you
know
I've
known
each
other
for
a
long
time
have
you
all
looked
at
even
maybe
talking
with
the
department
for
health
and
family
services
to
maybe
work
on
ratcheting
down
the
reimbursement
rates
for
these
types
of
therapies
so
that
they
are
not
profitable
for
bad
actors
to
be
involved
in.
L
I
dare
say:
there's
not
a
single
one
in
this
room
who
either
knows
someone
or
knows
a
family
who's
been
impacted
by
a
drug
overdose
issue,
drug
overdose,
death
and
it's
something
we
have
to
get
a
handle
on
time
is
of
the
essence.
Brian.
You
mentioned
that
483
million
dollars
sounds
like
a
lot
of
money,
but
compared
to
the
problem,
we
have
it's
minimum.
L
L
Think
about
that
this
issue
is
not
going
away,
it's
gonna,
it's
I'm
afraid.
Unfortunately,
it's
gonna
get
worse
before
it
gets
better.
My
question
really
goes
to
the
way
these
settlement
funds
are
gonna,
be
used,
half
to
the
state
half
to
the
cities
and
counties,
and
I
think
it's
good
to
have
that
local
import.
L
My
question
is,
and
maybe
a
concern
is:
what
can
we
do
to
prevent
repetitive
type
programs
or
overlapping
programs
where
maybe
a
city
and
county
is
doing
something
that
also
a
state
fund
is
doing?
Will
you
do
you
foresee
the
ability
to
work
cooperatively
with
the
city
and
counties
and
partner
with
them
on
how
these
funds
are
distributed,
because
these
are
limited
funds
and
we're
making
a
huge
investment?
G
Making
sure
that
we
are
not
engaged
in
wasteful
repetition
will
be
an
absolute
priority.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
there
is
as
much
communication
and
coordination
between
the
work
of
the
commission
and
the
work
of
the
counties
and
cities
so
that
we
are
delivering
focused
and
linear
services.
However,
those
are
defined
now,
as
you
might
imagine,
there's
going
to
be
a
good
amount
of
cat
hurting
involved
in
this
in
terms
of
trying
to
keep
everybody
focused
on
what
the
priorities
are
and
showing
that
the
money
is
used
for
its
purposes.
G
I
believe
that
over
time,
we're
going
to
be
able
to
demonstrate
that
pills
that
are
prescribed
for
folks
out
in
east
kentucky
to
help
them
with
their
addiction,
not
only
are
being
diverted
within
east
kentucky,
but
there
is
a
cash
conversion
process
that
is
making
its
way
to
the
west
end
of
louisville
and
the
prescription.
Drug
problem
that
is
in
the
east
is
very
much
tied
and
linked
to
the
drug
problems
in
louisville
itself,
in
particular
the
west
end.
H
Representative
tipton
real
briefly,
I
I
want
to
comment
on
the
redundancy
issue.
I
think
there
are
probably
two
ways
that
we
can
address
this.
One
of
them
is
a
government-related
approach
and
one
of
them
is
a
non-government-related
approach.
Representative
nemes
before
asked
what
what
can
we
be
doing
in
the
interim
right
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
tell
folks
is,
you
know,
don't
wait
for
the
application
process
to
go
live
before
we
start
thinking
about
what
those
applications
are
going
to
look
like.
H
So
we
encourage
people
right
now
to
start
having
conversations
that
go
beyond
county
borders.
They
go
beyond
city
borders
that
go
beyond
different
kinds
of
silos
in
the
treatment
community
right,
but
to
have
everybody
start
talking
to
figure
out
what
is
the
biggest
best
most
comprehensive
way
possible
that
we
can
attack
this
problem
and
rather
than
doling
out
a
little
bit
here
and
a
little
bit
there?
Let's
do
big
things,
and
so
I
think
that's
a
non-government
approach
of
looking
at
it
and
then
from
a
government
perspective.
H
I
think
and
again
I
don't
sit
on
the
commission,
but
I
think
the
commission
itself
will
have
an
opportunity
through
its
application
process
and
the
regulations
that
it
promulgates
to
to
address
this
issue
and
ask
folks
right
in
the
application
process.
Where
else
are
you
getting
money
from
in
what
amounts
is
there
any
repetition
right
to
to
the
other
places
where
you're,
where
you're
getting
money
and
be
able
to
see
that
and
review
it
and
consider
it
before
deciding
whether
or
not
to
fund
that
application?
So.
A
Well,
gentlemen,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
testimony
for
the
work
that
you're
doing
for
the
folks
of
the
commonwealth,
very
important
work
and
we're
we'll
look
forward
to
continuing
this
conversation
in
the
future,
see
what
this
money's
able
to
do
in
our
communities
on
a
micro
level
in
a
statewide
level,
very
important
work,
and
I
thank
you
for
the
data
that
you
brought
today
and
the
comments
that
you
made.
So
thank
you
so
much
on
our
agenda.
A
M
Co-Chair
mills
co-chair
miller
and
co-chair
brancher.
Thank
you
for
the
chance
to
be
here
and
share
with
all
of
you
something
that
you've
heard
before
you
voted
on,
but
I
need
to
bring
it
back
onto
your
radar
because,
what's
going
to
happen
in
november,
as
this
constitutional
amendment
proceeds
onto
the
ballot
and
I've
said
in
committees,
both
in
the
senate
and
the
house
of
my
years
in
general
assembly,
this
is
likely
the
most
significant
piece
of
legislation.
I'll
ever
have
had
the
chance
to
work
on.
M
So
my
overarching
goal,
and
a
brief
conversation
with
you
today,
is
to
place
the
constitutional
amendment
regarding
our
ability.
Our
limited
ability
to
come
back
into
session
place
that
back
in
your
minds
on
your
radar
as
you
get
ready
to
travel
through
the
summer
interact
with
colleagues
and
voters
and
you're
going
to
be
encountering
questions
my
charge.
My
hopeful
charge
is
that
all
of
us
will
be
advocates
for
this
legislation,
and
in
support
of
that,
I
want
to
bring
back
in
front
of
you
conversations.
M
We've
had
for
the
last
two
sessions
about
the
statutory
enabling
legislation
to
provide
some
framework
around
that
because,
hopefully,
if
the
voters
ratify
this
constitutional
amendment,
we'll
be
back
in
january,
passing
legislation
that
provides
a
a
statutory
framework
for
us
to
move
forward.
So
I'm
going
to
start
with
a
brief
history.
M
I'm
going
to
move
through
it
not
rapidly,
but
at
a
good
pace
and
I'd
love
to
have
some
conversation
and
dialogue
about
questions
you
have
and
if
any
of
you
here
have
reservations
about
being
an
advocate
for
the
power
of
the
legislative
branch
as
a
result
of
this
constitutional
amendment.
Let's
have
that
dialogue.
Now,
let's
try
to
work
through
it
now,
so
that
you
can
wholeheartedly
support
this.
As
you
talk
to
voters.
M
So
the
journey
of
legislation
actually
started
with
house
bill
4,
and
this
was,
as
many
of
you
know,
sponsored
by
the
speaker.
It
had
32
co-chair
co-sponsors
in
the
house
came
to
us
in
the
senate
that
constitutional
amendment
back
in
2021.,
we
made
some
minor
changes.
It
passed
the
house
in
significant
numbers.
I
think
that
vote
was
77
to
16..
It
passed.
The
senate.
31-4
came
back
to
the
house
after
some
amending
on
our
side
and
passed
78
to
16..
M
That's
the
language
that
will
be
in
front
of
the
voters.
This
fall
as
that
legislation
moved
through
the
process.
We
realize
that
the
constitution
shouldn't
and
doesn't
address
all
of
the
concerns
that
may
be
around
our
ability
to
come
back
for
time,
limited
special
sessions,
as
called
by
the
speaker
and
in
conjunction
with
the
president.
Those
two
concurrently
would
call
this
session.
M
It
would
be
limited
up
to
12
days.
If
you
remember
the
conversations
and
we
could
come
back
and
break
that
into
pieces,
those
pieces
would
would
not
adjourn
us
signee
die.
We
would
simply
continue
the
session
through
december
31
of
that
year.
Companion,
legislation
that
we
had
in
2021
was
senate
bill
181.
M
M
M
As
we
prepare
to
have
a
conversation
about
this-
and
I
hope
you
do
have
some
questions
the
thing
I've
said
before
so
much
of
the
legislation
that
we
did,
especially
in
light
of
covid
and
concerns
about
the
executive
authority
and
executive
power,
were
prospective
pieces
of
legislation.
Saying,
let's
put
this
safeguard
in
place,
we
don't
know
if
it
needs
to
be
there
or
not.
Oh
suddenly,
this
this
emergency
authority
of
the
governor
that
we
know
we
need
in
times
of
weather
emergencies,
we
don't
want
overused.
M
In
other
cases,
we
had
to
do
so
many
things:
prospectively,
with
senate
bill,
1
senate
bill,
2
house,
bill
1
and
house
bill
2
that
if
we
had
the
ability
to
come
back
for
limited
purposes,
I
don't
think
we
would
have
to
do
and
therefore
I
believe
we
could
do
better
legislation
in
the
end
with
that
again,
my
plea
to
each
of
you
is
to
be
ambassadors
for
this
legislation
and
the
constitutional
amendment,
and
with
that,
mr
chairman,
I'm
going
to
pause
and
would
welcome
any
questions
or
concern
concerns.
Members
may
have
any.
M
M
But
if
we
were
to
come
back
around
an
issue
that
a
member
had
filed
a
piece
of
legislation
on
that
legislation
would
already
be
in
the
hopper,
be
ready
for
readings
and
or
action,
and
I
think,
that's
very
appropriate.
The
other
interesting
discussion
we
had
multiple
times
as
the
legislation
was
moving
through
both
the
constitutional
amendment
and
the
statutory
language
was
senator
gibbons.
Don't
you
think
that
the
speaker
and
the
president
should
be
able
to
limit
the
call,
because
we're
inherently
involved
in
this
mindset
of
the
executive
branch
can
limit
the
call?
M
D
Senator,
as
you
know,
as
you're
aware
generally,
our
long
session
is
a
60-day
session.
Generally
is
a
voting
year
and
and
then
it's
year
when
every
house
member
is
up
and
probably
half
of
the
senate,
I
think,
do
you
think
that
by
maybe
leaving
a
bill
that
may
happen
to
be
a
very
controversial
bill
or
whatever
open
until
the
very
end
of
the
session?
D
M
An
excellent
question
and
we
had
lots
of
these
fun
conversations
as
we
were
working
on
drafting
the
legislation
and
the
constraints
around
it.
Certainly
that
possibility
would
exist.
I
think
I
would
I
would
propose
to
you
representative
gooch,
that
it
would
not
be
used
and
if
it
were
to
be
used,
it
would
have
to
be
very
tactfully
and
artfully
done
in
a
way
because
understand
the
governor
is
still
going
to
sign
the
legislation
or
not
he
or
she.
M
The
governor
would
have
the
authority
to
veto
it
number
one
number
two,
the
voters
and
the
recall
of
the
voters
even
post-election.
I
would
think-
and
I
understand
the
idea
of
a
lame-duck
group
that
that
may
not
have
as
much
to
risk
suddenly
having
the
votes
and
desire,
but,
in
addition,
understand
the
risk
that
the
speaker
and
the
president
we
had
these
conversations.
The
speaker
and
the
president
have
to
agree
on
the
call
on
on
issuing
the
the
notice
to
come
back
into
session.
M
Not
only
do
they
have
to
do
that
if
they
do
it
in
a
way
that
that
ruffles,
the
feathers
of
enough
of
us
as
legislators,
we
typically
turn
around
and
would
be
electing
them
back
into
leadership
in
just
a
few
weeks.
Possibly
if
you
think
about
that
calendar
you've
laid
out
so
there's
a
lot
of
built-in
constraints
and
protections.
I
think
that
would
prevent
that
sort
of
abuse.
I
would
hope
that
sort
of
abuse.
C
More
of
a
comment
and
a
question:
thank
you
for
bringing
the
bill.
I
support
the
bill.
I
think
most
of
us
would
agree
that
in
2020
after
a
session
was
over
with
and
the
governor
was
still
in
in
charge,
you
know
he
still
had
the
power
to
emergency
orders
and
the
folks
back
home
were
saying.
Why
aren't
y'all
doing
something,
and
they
were
amazed
when
I
said
we
don't
go
back
into
sessions
of
january,
we
don't
have
the
power
to
call
ourselves
back
in
and
if
the
governor
calls
us
in,
he
sets
the
call.
C
I
think
everybody
was
thinking
a
flood,
a
hurricane,
some
kind
of
natural
disaster
that
would
hit
and
then
move
on,
and
you
know
the
emergency
powers
would
come
to
an
end.
So
I've
been
doing
my
part
to
promote
this
to
the
constituents
in
my
district
and
I
look
forward
to
continuing
that
conversation.
M
M
Covet
hits
we're
at
the
height
of
an
uncertainty.
If
you
can
recall
back
the
uncertainty
that
was
swirling
at
that
time.
It
was
the
absolute
height
of
uncertainty,
not
knowing
what
to
do
and
president
stivers
became
sick
and
we
didn't
know
if
it
was
coveted
or
not
and
as
president
pro
tem.
I'm
then
in
that
position
of
helping
make
decisions
to
lead
the
body
and
the
speaker,
and
I
had
multiple
conversations
and
we
drafted
a
letter
together
to
the
governor,
saying
governor.
M
M
Let
us
pause
the
session
for
a
period
of
time,
and
you
agree
to
call
us
back
for
the
purposes
of
finishing
our
business,
that
we
have
in
process
and
we'll
move
forward,
and
the
answer
was
no
and
he
has
the
authority
to
say
no,
but
I
didn't
like
the
no.
I
didn't
like
to
know,
because
it
put
us
in
a
place
of
having
to
make
decisions
without
information.
M
It
put
us
in
a
place
of
having
to
rush
decisions
that
were
impactful
on
people
and
lives,
and
we
would
have
had
the
chance
if
we
had
this
sort
of
legislation
in
place
to
have
paused
it
ourselves
effectively
and
moved
forward.
So
I
I
appreciate
your
support.
I
hope
everyone
will
support
it
and
if
you
have
reservations,
raise
them
now
or
talk
with
me
offline
I'll,
be
glad
to
try
and
listen
to
those.
A
Very
good,
any
other
questions,
I'm
looking
here,
senator
gibbons.
Thank
you
so
much
for
bringing
this
again.
I
once
again,
I
think
it's
a
very
important
issue.
That's
why
we
brought
it
here
today
to
get
it
on
everybody's
agendas
again
and
to
remind
them
about
the
constitutional
amendment
as
well.
So
that
concludes
our
meeting.
Our
next
meeting
will
be
july.
The
19th!
Oh,
let
me
let
me
make
one
comment
real
quick.
If,
because
we've
all
worked
with
him,
I
would
like
to
personally
thank
michael
cowan.