►
Description
House Health Subcommittee - April 6, 2021 - House Hearing Room 2
A
C
D
D
D
A
E
D
E
Maybe
I'm
too
far
away
from
it.
Can
you
all
hear
me
hello?
My
name
is
logan
grant
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
health
services
and
development
agency.
The
legislation
before
you
is
the
product
of
the
con
working
group
that
began
meeting
several
years
ago,
and
there
was
some
legislation
last
year
that
ultimately
was
no.
E
This
allows
us
to
reduce
the
average
time
of
a
con
application
review
from
about
120
to
160
days,
to
45,
to
61.
so
reducing
it
by
over
50,
which
is
very
wonderful
from
our
standpoint.
So
there's
going
to
be
a
few
services
and
facilities
that
are
going
to
not
no
longer
going
to
be
regulated
by
a
certificate
of
need.
For
example,
hospitals
will
be
able
to
increase
the
number
of
beds
that
they
are
that
they
are
licensed
for
without
obtaining
a
con.
E
E
Additionally,
the
under
current
law,
based
on
the
2016
certificate
of
need
reform
act.
The
non-pediatric
mri
services
were
carved
out
for
hospital
for
and
counties
with
a
population
above
250
000.
This
would
reduce
that
population
threshold
to
175,
000
and
add
pet
services.
So
a
couple
of
now
two
imaging
services
would
be
carved
out
in
counties
with
a
population
above
175
thousand.
D
B
E
Thank
you.
The
in
2016,
the
certificate
of
need
legislation
will
establish
the
population-based
threshold
and
the
theory
behind
it
was
that
the
eliminating
a
certificate
of
need
for
certain
types
of
imaging
services
would
maybe
not
be
as
deleterious
to
the
healthcare
marketplace
in
urban
areas.
That
could
maybe
bear
more
competition
because
they're,
more
densely
populated.
E
So
the
plan
at
that
time
was
to
set
it
for
just
the
largest
markets
and
as
a
see
when
working
group
met,
they
discovered
that
there
were
really
weren't
any
negative
consequences
from
that
carve
out.
So
they
wanted
to
see
if
they
could
continue
to
kind
of
move,
move
the
needle
down,
expand
it
into
more
counties
and
test.
The
theory
further.
F
E
F
E
Sorry,
the
board,
the
agency
board,
will
have
to
promulgate
rules
to
clarify
some
of
the
details
of
that
process,
but
an
option
that
I'm
will
probably
suggest
to
them
is
to
make
it
the
date
of
the.
If
they.
If
this
county
is
economically
distressed,
then
they
can
bypass
the
con
board
and
apply
straight
to
the
board
for
licensing
health
care
facilities
for
licensure
and
so
perhaps
setting
out
at
the
date
that
they
filed
that
application
might
be
a
good
date.
F
Last
last
comment
that
that's
really
where
my
concern
is,
is
that
that
the
the
the
number
of
economically
distressed
counties
changes
pretty
regularly
and
that
moving
in
and
out
is
is
seems
like
a
a
complicated
policy
to
remove
and
have
that
kind
of
be
a
moving
piece.
So
anyway,
that's
that's
my
comment.
Thank
you.
B
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
just
for
because
this
is
such
a
regulatory
heavy
bill.
If
would
it
be
your
testimony,
mr
grant,
that
the
purpose
for
reforming
certificate
of
need
over
the
window
of
time
is
to
drive
down
barriers
to
allow
more
health
care
services
to
enter
into
markets
that
are
currently
controlled
by
monopolistic
forces,
thereby
increasing
access?
Would
that
be
a
fair
assessment.
E
I
would
I
would
say
that
this
is
this
is
about
making
sure
that,
if
we're
gonna,
to
the
extent
that
we
have
regulations
in
place
to
protect
patients
and
markets
where
they
should
only
be,
they
should
only
exist
to
the
point
that
they
are
directly
improving.
The
competition,
improving
the
quality
of
those
services
and
approving
access.
So.
G
E
There
are
cases
where
we've
had
applications
for
small
outpatient
treatment
centers
in
certain
regions,
particularly
some
and
one
comes
to
mind
in
west
tennessee,
where
there
is
also
only
a
single
large
provider
of
uncompensated
care.
So
you
have.
You
would
have
in
that.
In
that
particular
case,
the
the
major
hospital
that's
serving
a
multi-county
region
opposed
the
creation
of
that
outpatient
or
excuse
me,
the
ambulatory,
surgical
treatment
center
and
due
to
its
opposition,
the
application
was
denied.
E
They
just
have
to
state
the
to
the
applicant
that
they
plan
on
opposing,
but
they
don't
have
to
state
the
reasons
why
that
would
be
a
major
improvement
with
this
bill
would
also
restrict
opposition
to
the
providers
that
serve
patients
within
a
35-mile
radius
and
now
under
current
law.
The
board
has
to
when
making
a
motion
to
approve
a
certificate
of
need
application.
They
have
to
state
all
the
reasons
why
the
application
meets
the
standard
criteria
under
this
legislation.
G
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
B
B
C
About
that
this
bill
here
is
just
a
continuation
of
the
elder
abuse
task
force
that
I
have
set
on
before
and
still
a
part
of
over
the
past
few
years,
the
tennessee
general
assembly
has
tried
to
strengthen
the
laws
for
the
elder
abuse
and
due
to
the
covet
19,
the
comptroller's
office
report
on
financial
elder
abuse
did
not
give
it
have
fully
enough
time
to
bring
the
report
back
to
us,
so
we're
just
basically
asking
for
the
task
force
to
continue
until
its
work
is
done.
Until
january.
The
15th
2022.
B
Do
we
have
comments
or
questions
on
the
bill?
Any
any
discussion
questions
been
called
no
objections
to
the
question
we'll
be
voting
to
send
this
bill
to
full
committee,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye,
any
opposition
so
approved.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
committee.
Sir.
Thank
you.
We
have
item
two
house
bill.
1355.
B
B
B
B
B
B
K
You,
chairman
members,
this
bill
was
brought
to
me
by
my
local
community
there's
a
big
challenge,
as
it
relates
to
mental
health
services
in
rural
tennessee.
Today,
matter
of
fact,
if
you
present
and
are
in
need
of
mental
health
services
in
putnam
county,
if
it's
not
a
24-hour
hold
at
plateau
mental
health,
you
have
to
wait
in
line
sometimes
as
many
as
46
48
hours.
Sometimes
as
long
as
five
days
before
your
pay
for
your
citizens
can
be
sent
to
moccasin
bin,
which
would
be
the
closest
in
the
chattanooga
area.
K
K
The
difference
between
this
bill
and
that
bill
is
that
my
fear
is
if
we
remove
con
entirely
from
the
state,
as
it
relates
to
mental
health,
that
we'll
just
have
larger
mental
health
facilities
in
the
metro
areas,
and
there
won't
be
as
much
service
in
the
rural
areas
where
it's
equally
in
by
population.
Probably
most
needed
that's
what
this
bill.
Does
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
question
that
you
might
have.
B
K
B
B
K
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
because
we're
a
health
committee
about
to
enter
into
some
discussions
about
litigation,
and
things
like
that.
Could
you
summarize
just
to
give
us
an
idea
of
what
the
kentucky
plan
is
and
and
how
that
might
vary
from
another
proposal
that
I
think
we're
soon
to
hear.
Thank
you,
sir.
K
You're
recognized,
thank
you.
The
there's
lots
of
discussion
regarding
the
subject
matter,
obviously,
because
it's
new
and
settlements
are
currently
underway
in
discussions
in
regards
to
the
subject
matter,
this
drafting
language
is
arguably
more
along
the
kentucky
lines
which
would
send
more
monies
back
to
the
states
or
back
to
the
locals.
Where
some
of
these
originated.
K
I
think
there's
another
bill
in
which
you
reference
that
will
be
later
on.
That
is
a
little
more
monies
to
the
state.
I
think
we
have
good
stakeholders
involved
in
communication,
as
it
relates
to
this,
and
hopefully,
in
the
coming
weeks,
we'd
be
able
to
come
to
a
solution
that
works
for
all
tennesseans.
B
For
the
comments
or
questions
and-
and
that's
my
understanding
is
that
that
house
bill
11
32
chairman
farmer,
is
in
close
relationship
with
this
bill.
We
are
in
negotiations
and
were
we
to
have
another
meeting
for
the
subcommittee.
We
would
be
rolling
these
till
next
week,
but
we're
not
going
to
do
that.
We're
going
to
try
to
finish
today,
chair
lady
smith,.
G
G
We
want
to
make
sure
that
that
this
legislative
body
is
involved
in
deciding
the
directions
of
monies
and
the
appropriations,
whether
it's
the
kentucky
plan
that
we're
going
to
model
or
some
other,
could
you
speak
into
for
the
record
and
testimony
the
intent
that
would
represent
the
112th
general
assembly
about
appropriations
and
and
oversight,
so
that,
because
we're
all
hoping
that
we
go
home
pretty
soon
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we've
kind
of
got
a
some
guideposts
out
there.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
chairman
williams,.
K
Thank
you,
chairman
smith,
the
the
premise
behind
this
bill
and
I
think
the
counterpart
of
the
bill
really
was
an
opportunity
in
case
the
discussions
regarding
how
the
monies
were
allocated
were
not
done.
It
was
a
court
case.
Like
many
court
cases,
the
legislatures,
sometimes
their
willing
wheel
is
overturned.
K
We
we
see
that
a
lot
from
the
federal
level
in
tennessee
today,
but
ultimately
this
would
give
us
an
opportunity
to
remain
as
a
body
in
the
discussion
while
those
negotiations
are
going
on.
But
ultimately,
if
the,
if
the
agreements
weren't
decided
upon
before
the
legislature
or
this
committee
subcommittee
or
full
committee
closes,
then
we
could
open
on
that
and
hope
that
the
the
stakeholders
can
make
a
decision
which
is
best
for
tennesseans.
D
D
There
is
something
out
there.
I
believe
it's
called
the
parkinson
principle
and
people
will
delay
the
work,
whatever
time
frame
that
you
give
them.
That's
why
we
have
so
many
people
on
last
calendar,
but
by
moving
this
bill
forward
and
moving
the
other
bill
forward,
we're
on
the
clock,
and
so
I
think
that
puts
everybody
in
a
position
to
where
you
got
to
come
to
the
table,
and
I
think
people
are
trying
to
come
to
the
table
and
get
that,
but
it's
going
to
put
it
on
the
clock,
and
so
that's
my
intent.
K
B
Oh,
was
that
right?
Well,
I'd
we
we're
still
still
looking
into
that.
Yes,
we
have.
I
think
the
question
has
been
called.
No
objection
would
be
moving
this
to
full
committee
as
amended,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye,
any
opposition
so
approved.
You
are
recognized,
sir,
on
let's
see
item
seven,
which
is
house
bill.
158.
K
B
B
K
Thank
you
chairman
members,
this
bill
may
be
is
not
new
to
some
of
you.
Last
year
I
was
able
to
carry
this
bill,
worked
hand-in-hand
with
commission
on
aging
and
disability,
as
it
relates
to
alzheimer's.
As
many
of
you
know,
I
lost
my
grandmother
three
years
ago
to
alzheimer's
after
a
long
battle.
Alzheimer's
is
a
plague
if
you
will
for
for
not
just
those
who
have
alzheimer's,
but
it's
also
for
the
families
who
seek
to
care
for
them.
K
This
amendment,
which
makes
the
bill
that
I
wish
to
attach,
is
known
as
the
colonel
thomas
g
bowden
act,
which
establishes
a
pilot
program
to
bring
respite
care
to
families
struggling
to
care
for
their
loved
ones
with
alzheimer's.
As
you
know,
we
have
a
choices
program
here
in
the
state
which
allows
family
members
to
care
for
their
loved
ones
with
sub,
with
some
support
from
the
state.
What
this
would
do
is
mirror
for
alzheimer's
care,
the
same
thing
that
we
do
for
choices
for
those
families
who
are
are
taking
care
of
those
family
members.
K
Our
hope
is
that
this
respite
program
can
provide
some
aid
to
families
and
may
also
reduce
the
costs
currently
covered
by
the
state.
This
this
discussion
today
was
really
to
to
bring
light
to
this
act
and
to
all
those
families
who
are
suffering
and
caring
for
those
with
alzheimer's
across
the
state.
I'd
like
to
thank
rachel
black
hersh
for
for
alzheimer's
tennessee
for
her
work
and
advocacy
on
behalf
of
these
families,
and
with
that
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
regarding
the
subject
matter
or
the
amendment.
B
D
Thank
you
chairman.
I
want
to
appreciate
you
for
bringing
this
up.
This
is
something
that
families
are
dealing
with
across
the
state
across
the
nation
and
finding
a
solution
and
finding
help.
That's
something
we
have
to
take
a
serious
look
at
and
and
get
this
done.
I
applaud
you
for
for
bringing
this
forward.
Thank
you.
K
Thank
you
chairman,
thank
you,
chairman
for
chairman
members,
for
the
opportunity
to
discuss
this
important
legislation,
but,
as
you
know,
we
have
policies
here
as
it
relates
to
how
bills
travel
in
order
to
save
this
for
another
day
to
fight.
I
would
ask
that
the
that
the
committee
would
consider
allowing
me
to
take
it
off
notice.
B
B
If
there
are
no
objections,
we'll
go
to
the
heel
of
the
calendar,
we
have
had
a
great
presence
enter
enter
our
our
domicile
here
with
the
attorney
general,
hubert
slatery
and
we'll
welcome
sir.
I
think
that's
you
behind
that
mask!
Isn't
it
okay
and
and
then
we
will
go
to
item
four
house
bill,
11
32.
We
have
proper
motion
and
second
on
the
bill,
and
I
think
we
had
an
amendment
on
there.
Yes,.
B
C
B
Any
comments
or
questions,
if
not
we'll,
be
voting
to
send
this
bill
with
the
understanding
that,
as
we
had
with
the
last
bill,
that
there
will
be
continuing
discussions
and
that
the
legislators
will
be
involved,
the
general
assembly
will
be
involved
in
decisions
that
are
made
on
behalf
of
our
citizens.
So
no
further
questions
we'll
be
voting
on
sending
this
bill
to
the
full
committee.
All
those
in
favor
say
aye.
Any
opposition
so
approved.
L
L
A
L
Is
that
that
is
correct?
Yes,
so,
like
I
said
as
long
as
it
as
long
as
they're,
not
taking
solely
that
disability
into
account,
if
the
disa,
you
know
again,
as
long
as
that,
disability
isn't
affecting
the
viability
of
the
organ,
and
certainly
they
can
look
at
any
other
factor
that
they
would
typically
look
at.
That
does
not
prohibit
them
in
any
way.
H
L
And-
and
I
think
kind
of
what
we
we
talked
about
earlier,
I
think
obviously
we're
always
in
general.
You
know
we're
promoting
that
that
culture
of
life
and
that
that
every
life
is
equal
regardless,
if
you
have
a
disability
or
not,
and
you
know,
I
don't
believe
that
this
is
a
widespread
problem.
I
truly
don't,
but
I
think
I
think
we
want
to
make
it
very
clear
that
just
because
someone
in
tennessee
has
a
disability
that
you're
not
going
to
be
overlooked.
H
B
B
B
C
C
H
B
C
C
D
C
C
That
would
continue
the
current
rules
that
are
governing
that
relationship
between
pas
and
positions
so
that
into
next
year,
when
the
new
board
is
created
and
the
new
board
and
the
bme
adopt
joint
rules,
those
will
go
into
effect,
but
until
that,
until
any
new
rules
are
jointly
adopted
by
the
two
of
them.
The
current
rules
that
are
governing
that
relationship
as
of
today
will
continue.
G
B
Chairman
terry,
thank
you.
We
have
further
comments
or
questions
from
the
committee
if
none
ms
moffatt,
thank
you
for
your
testimony
and
we
appreciate
you
being
here
and
no
objections,
we'll
go
back
into
session
and
we
are
recognized
for
comments
or
questions
on
the
bill
as
described
by
the
sponsor.
B
B
C
All
right
well,
this
bill
will
help
dentists
be
able
to
administer
shots
to
administer
inoculations
for
covert
shots
or
vaccinations,
so
what
they
will
do
with
that
exasperation
of
the
covet
is
going
on
and
we've
had
trying
to
get
as
many
shots
and
as
many
arms
as
we
can
as
possible.
This
will
allow
dentists
to
provide
that
service.
They
already
give
shots
in
the
most
probably
vulnerable
map
parts
of
the
body
which
is
the
mouth,
so
I
think
that
they
should
be
able
to
do
this
in
the
arm.
C
B
However,
I
think
one
of
the
rules
passed
by
the
federal
government
was
that
dentists
could
be
allowed
to
give
the
covid,
and
I
think
that's
what
this
specific
bill
does
is
just
specifically
for
the
coveted
vaccine,
just
just
only
for
the
coffin,
so
there
may
be
efforts
in
the
future
to
include
other
vaccines
but
yeah
I
signed
on
your
bill,
I'm
glad
to
be
on
it.
I'm
glad
to
see
it
pass
forward.
B
J
Patrick
powell,
with
the
department
of
health
chairman
ramsey,
brought
up
kind
of,
I
think
the
department's
point
is
that
dennis
have
already
been
kind
of,
I
guess,
addressed
by
the
federal
prep
act,
which
has
allowed
them
to
administer
the
cova
vaccine.
So
we
don't
know
that
this
is
a
needed
bill.
The
only
other
concern
is
the
drafting
as
any
licensed
person
that
draws
blood
at
a
blood
bank.
We
don't
know
of
any.
I
guess,
professions
that
that
would
cover
that
aren't
already
authorized
to
to
give
the
code
vaccine.
J
J
D
D
J
That
would
be
kind
of
the
only
concern
chairman
is
that
if
it
was
if
someone
outside
of
again
their
typical
practice,
so
a
hearing
instrument
specialist
who
somehow
was
a
phlebotomist
at
a
blood
bank,
they
are
licensed
under
the
title.
However,
they
would
be
drawing
blood
as
a
phlebotomist
and,
despite
being
licensed
under
the
title,
in
a
different
provision
in
theory
that
language
is
wide
enough
to
catch
them
on
this.
That
would
be
our
only
continuing
concern
and
again
with
dennis
being,
I
guess,
the
primary
goal.
B
B
B
B
C
You,
mr
chairman,
and
certainly
I
do
appreciate
the
department
working
with
us
on
this
particular
piece
of
legislation.
We
were
trying
to
increase
payment
amounts
for
persons
on
some
support
systems
from
the
state,
but
much
of
what's
been
done
in
the
administration
bill
is
going
to
take
care
of
this,
and
even
more
so
with
that.
Mr
chairman,
we'll
take
this
bill
off
notice.
D
I
think
you
know
no
objection
to
that.
I
just
want
to
recognize
your
work
on
the
working
group
and
thank
you
for
your
participation
on
that
piece
of
legislation
and
let
the
members
know
that
your
input
has
been
well
received
and
and
that
bill
is
going
through
and
hopefully
we'll
get
it
through
finance
today.
But
thank
you
for
bringing
thank
you.
Thank
you.
B
C
C
B
C
B
B
B
B
C
Chairman
and
this
particular
piece
of
legislation
simply
would
ask
the
department
to
report
on
the
efforts
to
have
an
enrollment-based
child
care
subsidy
versus
an
attendance-based
child
subsidy.
As
we've
all
experienced
child
care
in
the
state
is
good,
but
when
we
have
situations
where
day
care
centers
don't
get
their
subs,
it
can
become
very
difficult
for
them
to
operate
them,
and
so
we
work
with
the
department
on
this
and
they're
here
to
testify.
A
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
member
suzanne
carr,
director
of
legislation
for
the
department
of
human
services.
We
did
work
with
leader,
love
and
leader
yarborough
on
the
senate
side
on
this
amendment.
What
it
will
do
is
just
require
the
department
to
keep
you
guys
and
and
the
public
abreast
of
any
time
we
change
our
reimbursement
methodology.
A
A
So
previously
we
used
to
reimburse,
for
only
the
days
a
child
was
present
for
subsidy
children.
That
is
not
how
private
pay
works.
If
you
have
a
private
pay
child,
you
pay
for
the
entire
week
that
they
are
whether
they
come
or
not.
So
that
was
causing
providers
to
not
want
to
accept
subsidy
children
certificate
funds,
so
we
just
switched
to
what
is
the
market
practice
and
that's
what's
encouraged.
G
A
B
B
B
B
C
So
this
bill
would
would
still
study
the
market
rate,
but
but
provide
alternative
methodologies
for
creating
day
care,
reimbursement
and
reimbursement
rates,
they're
shared
services,
alliances
that
provide
just
the
more
streamlined
and
efficient
processes
to
to
to
to
to
help
our
daycare
providers
and
bottom
line.
This
bill
simply
allows
the
dhs
to
to
take
the
necessary
action
to
to
perform
these
studies
and
and
and
help
develop.
B
B
B
K
B
B
B
The
fiscal
note,
of
course,
is
is
substantial,
but-
and
I
think
we've
had
a
mention
of
the
possibility
of
an
amendment
that
might
require
a
certain
number
of
hours
spent
in
the
defense
of
the
public
during
that
emergency,
but
that
amendment's
not
on
it
yet.
So,
with
that
explanation
and
pending
any
questions,
I
will
ask
that
this
be
moved
forward.
B
D
Thank
you,
chairman
and
committee
currently
well
what
this
bill
does.
It
creates
a
rebuttable
presumption
that
it
is
not
abuse
or
neglect
of
a
child
or
for
a
parent
or
guardian
to
administer
hemp
to
the
child
by
means
other
than
smoking,
and
it
prohibits
revocation
of
parole,
probation
or
bail
based
on
a
urine
drug
screen
that
is
positive
for
thc
below
a
certain
anagram
level.
D
D
D
Thank
you,
chairman
kumar,
you
know
the
issue
on
this
would
be
some
of
those
patie
providers
may
either
whether
it's
for
seizure
disorders
or
you
know
anything
that
they've
had
with
their
with
their
discussions
with
their
pediatricians
or
whoever,
but
that
was
this
was
to
basically
differentiate
between
who's,
taking
hemp
and
who's
got
who's
been
smoking.
Marijuana.
B
B
D
D
I'll
motion
that
and
I'll
second
all
right,
thank
you
as
chairman.
We
are
afforded
five
additional
bills
that
are
germaine
to
our
committee.
This
bill
is
relative
to
controlled
substances
and
it's
my
intent
since
it's
our
last
committee
to
keep
this
bill
alive
in
the
event
that
there's
a
need
before
we
close
the
full
committee.
The
amendment
on
the
bill
would
require
the
department
of
health
to
include
the
impact
of
cobit
19
on
the
10
together
legislation
in
their
report.
That
is
due
at
the
end
of
this
year.
B
B
B
B
B
B
I
F
Thank
you
chairman,
and
thank
you
for
bringing
the
bill
I'm
very
much
in
favor
of
transparency,
but
my
understanding
is
that
that
we,
what
what
is
different,
because
I
feel
like
we
do
this,
can
you
not
find
the
information
on
a
daily
basis?
I
mean
our
mayor
at
least
here
in
nashville.
We
had
daily
updates
of
number
of
tests,
how
many
positive-
and
I
don't
believe
there
was
any
intent
to
to
hide
it
and
I'm
struggling
to
understand
what
we're
trying
to
do
here.
What.
I
H
H
I
F
I
I
D
I
think
the
the
way
the
amendment
is
drafted
section
two
refers
to
the
quarantine
power
powers
of
the
commissioner.
In
section
three
refers
to
the
quarantine
powers.
It
just
deletes
those
sections
of
this
code
and
yes-
and
I
think
that
what
we're
discussing
is,
we
probably
need
section
two
and
three
not
in
the
bill.
I
A
Matt
king
from
the
office
of
legal
services-
yes,
chairman,
terry,
that's
correct,
section
two
speaks
to
the
commissioner
of
health's
ability
to
quarantine.
Section
three
speaks
to
the
county
health
officers
power
to
quarantine
and
removes
both
of
those.
If
I
believe
the
the
amendment
that's
being
discussed
in
order
to
remove
those
two
sections,
it
would
just
be
to
remove
sections
two
and
three
and
to
redesignate
section
four.
As
section
two.
I
B
B
I
And
I
apologize
again
to
the
committee
for
missing
that
now
that
you
pointed
it
out,
I
see
where
I'm
or
I
messed
up,
so
so
what
so?
On
section
one,
the
the
the
department
has
five
days
to
once
a
quarantine
or
a
state
of
emergency
is
declared
to
put
these
these
bits
of
information
on
their
website,
which
is
number
one.
I
Total
test
administered
number
two
total
positive
test:
number
three
types
of
testing
used
to
diagnose
number
four
number
of
cases
of
disease
outbreak,
be
it
epidemic
pandemic
and
number
five,
the
number
of
asymptomatic
cases
and,
lastly,
the
number
of
symptomatic
cases,
and
that
those
six
bits
of
information
would
help
the
state
of
tennessee
just
stay
abreast
on
how
the
pandemic
is
is
and
how
it's
progressing
and,
and
what
are
we
dealing
with?
That's
that's.
You
know.
B
B
Is
there
any
further
discussion
about
removing
that
portion
understanding
what
the
sponsor
actually
wanted
to
do
with
the
bill?
If
no
discussion,
all
those
number
one?
Okay,
this
is
amendment
number
one,
two
number
one,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
any
opposition,
okay,
we're
back
on
the
bill
as
with
amendment
one
two,
one
that
makes
the
bill
further
comments
or
questions
on
the
bill
as
amended
with
both
amendments
chairman
marsh
you're
recognized.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
Many
of
them
do,
and
so
this
doesn't
require
the
county
health
departments
to
come
up
with
it.
Just
ask
the
department
of
health
to
glean
what
is
given
to
it.
So
there's
no
directive
to
go
to
a
bedford
county
which
may
or
may
not
produce
those
numbers
it
only.
It
only
says
it
produces
and
publishes
what
they
have.
Okay,.
J
Chairman,
I
will
find
somebody
to
explain
it.
My
understanding
is
that
the
committee
has
adopted
amendment
6246
and
has
chosen
to
strike
sections
two
and
three.
Is
that
correct?
I
think
that's
correct.
The
department
was
flagged
on
the
bill
prior
to
that
sections.
Two
and
three
obviously
did
delete
the
commissioner's
quarantine
ability,
as
well
as
the
county
health
officers
quarantineability,
which
is
kind
of
derived
from
the
commissioners.
J
As
far
as
section
one
goes,
we
have
not
done
an
analysis
solely
on
section
one.
Every
amendment
we've
seen
has
included
a
removal
of
the
commissioner's
quarantine
abilities,
which
we
would
be
opposed
to
section.
One,
however,
does
largely
require
information
that
is
already
being
produced
on
the
state's
website.
J
J
The
only
concern
that
I
have
without
doing
a
further
deep
dive
with
our
epidemiologists
is
that,
depending
on
any
particular
outbreak,
this
may
or
may
not
be
able
to
be
accomplished
depending
on
the
obviously
everybody
has
coveted
at
the
forefront
of
their
minds
so
right
now,
obviously
we
are
able
to
produce
a
lot
of
this,
if
not
all
of
it.
However,
the
next
pandemic,
which
I
hope
never
comes,
we
may
or
may
not
be
able
to
accomplish
this,
and
so
that
is
my
concern
in
tying
us
to
these
specific
requirements.
J
Obviously,
we
have
tried
to
be
as
forthcoming
with
information
as
possible.
We
have
hipaa
concerns.
We
had
to
be.
You
know
very
careful
with
information
early
on
with
the
low
number
of
cases,
as
the
cases
grew,
we
were
able
to
share,
obviously
more
information,
so
I
appreciate
representative
cassidy's
intent
to
be
you
know,
open
and
transparent
government.
Please
realize
we
do
not
want
to
hide
anything.
We
are
trying
to
be
as
transparent
as
we
can,
but
without
doing
a
deeper
dive
with
our
epidemiologists.
G
There
were
some
significant
economic
decisions
as
well
as
closing
of
schools.
I
mean
there
are
people
in
my
district
who
lost
their
business
period.
It's
closed,
lost,
their
business
lost
their
income
because
of
numbers
that
were
derived
during
this
window
of
time,
and
so,
while
I
do
appreciate
the
fact
that
they're
onerous,
I
also
know
that
you
know
when
you
read
various
media
outlets
and
the
information
that's
coming
is
these
are
the
positive
cases,
and
these
are
the
the
the
number
of
tests
run.
G
J
I
don't
know
that
it's
the
and
please
let
don't
take
my
words
wrong
in
that.
We
think
it's
too
much
work
or
anything
of
that
sort.
It
is
more
about
the
concerns
about
patient
privacy
and
whether
or
not
again,
the
next
and
again,
I'm
a
lawyer,
I'm
not
one
of
our
epidemiologists,
but
whether
or
not
the
next
virus
or
the
next
situation
that
this
would
be
applicable
to
really
fits
where
we
would
be
able
to
reveal
all
of
these.
J
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
and
again
I
may
be
missing
it
because
I
did
have
to
step
out
a
few
minutes
ago,
but
I
don't
see
that
there's
any
identified
information,
that's
being
tracked
tracked
back
to
patients,
it's
it's
an
aggregate
of
the
number
of
tests,
the
number
of
tests
that
are
positive,
the
number
of
cases
that
are
positive
versus
the
number
of
cases.
So
with
that
you
know
happy
to
listen
to
another
ex.
J
And
you,
you
are
correct,
representative,
the
issue
becomes
on
small
numbers
of
cases.
Just
one
or
two
positive
tests
in
a
county
can
sometimes
be
identifying
due
to
other
extraneous
factors,
so
it
becomes
a
situation
if
we
have
this
emergency
declared
and
then
five
days
later,
the
counties
are
reporting.
J
So
those
are
kind
of
their
initial
knee
jerk
reactions
to
section
one
again,
I
would
need
to
do
a
deeper
dive
with
our
our
hipaa
kind
of
compliance
officers
and
our
epidemiologists
to
know
whether
or
not
we
could
reasonably
accomplish
this
again.
We
had
only
looked
at
amendments
and
the
original
language
that
always
had
quarantine
abilities
removed.
So
we
were
adamantly
opposed
on
all
of
those,
but
I'm
happy
to
do
a
further
review.
D
J
D
You're
trying
to
have
a
follow-up,
because
one
of
the
issues
that
I
had
early
on-
and
this
was
a
question
that
I
had
posed
and
not
necessarily
to
you
but
to
I
think
it
was
either
to
the
commissioner
or
to
dr
mcdonald-
was
the
type
of
test-
how
many
cycles
in
the
pcr
test,
because
just
because
this
is
saying
the
total
positive
test,
you
know
if
it's
40
cycles
and
it's
positive.
Is
that
a
false
positive.
D
J
F
Yes,
thanks
so
on
on
the
the
six
types:
how
how
would
we
do
an
asymptomatic
versus
symptomatic,
so
somebody
would
come
in
and
have
a
test
taken
and
then
would
we
would
we
be
required
to
follow
up
with
them
to
see
if
they
tested
positive
and
then
returned
symptomatic,
or
I
mean
I
understand
the
intent,
but
just
technically,
how
would
that
mean?
How
would
that
happen?
That's
a
good
question.
B
Okay,
let
me
do
this.
Let
me
impose
on
the
will
of
the
committee
we'll.
If
there
are
no
objections,
we
will
go
back
into
session
and-
and
my
suggestion
would
be
to
vote
on
this
bill
to
with
the
understanding
that
the
department
of
health
will
do
your
deep
dive
between
here
and
the
full
committee,
and
I
know
you're
full
of
flags.
So
so,
if
you
got
flags,
I
know
you'll
bring
them
back
to
us,
and
so
no
objections
will
go
back
into
session.
B
Thank
you
for
your
testimony
and
I
would
ask
the
committee
any
questions
or
comments
before
we
vote
on
sending
this
to
full
committee,
with
the
understanding
that
the
department
of
health
will
have
a
chance
to
look
at
it
before
the
full
committee
meeting
any
opposition
to
that.
If
not
all
those
in
favor
say
aye,
no
opposition
so
approved.
We
got.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Yes,
sir,
thank
you.