Committee Summary for House Commerce and Consumer Affairs (04/01/2026)

Member	Member	Member
Hunt, John(Chairman)(R)[B+]2025	Post, Lisa(Clerk)(R)[A]2025	Potucek, John(V Chairman)(R)[A-]2025
Butler, Billie(D)	Salvi, Santosh(D)[CT]2025	Chourasia, Manoj(D)[F]2025
Ammon, Keith(R)[A]2025	Herbert, Christopher(D)[D-]2025	Osborne, Jason(R)[A+]2025
Thackston, Dick(R)[B+]2025	Walsh, Lilli(R)[B]2025	Porcelli, Susan(R)[B]2025
Spier, Carry(D)[D-]2025	Burroughs, Anita(D)[F]2025	McAleer, Chris(D)[D-]2025
Sullivan, Jared(D)[D]2025	Miles, Julie(R)[A-]2025	Presa, Adam(R)[B]2025

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB528	Public Hearing	prohibiting receiving compensation for lobbying on behalf of a foreign adversary.	Birdsell, Regina(R)[B-]2025
SB573	Public Hearing	establishing certification standards for facility comfort dogs.	Birdsell, Regina(R)[B-]2025
SB606	Public Hearing	relative to insurance coverage for biomarker testing.	Birdsell, Regina(R)[B-]2025
SB408 Senate amendment	Public Hearing	relative to health insurance coverage for prosthetics.	Gannon, Bill(R)[B-]2025
SB610	Public Hearing	requiring an opportunity for public comment prior to proposed long-term care rate increases under certain circumstances.	Ricciardi, Denise(R)[B]2025
SB548	Public Hearing	relative to health carrier provider contract standards.	Rosenwald, Cindy(D)[F]2025
SB610	Public Hearing	requiring an opportunity for public comment prior to proposed long-term care rate increases under certain circumstances.	Ricciardi, Denise(R)[B]2025

SB528: Support 00:00:00.000 - 9:58:46 AM; Senator Birdsell, the prime sponsor, introduced SB 528, explaining it prohibits lobbying on behalf of foreign adversaries, mirroring federal FARA and trends in other states like Arkansas, Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Florida. She highlighted concerns over CCP-aligned businesses purchasing facilities in New Hampshire, such as Nungfu and Daniel Webster College, and Alibaba's lobbying attempts. She emphasized protecting New Hampshire from foreign influence in elections and policy, noting no guardrails for local races unlike federal ones. During questioning, she addressed carve-outs for companies like Motorola, clarified no conflict with federal law, and explained the static list of adversaries with potential references to federal lists.
SB528: Support 00:15:17.176 - 10:14:03 AM; Kendig supported SB 528 as critical to prohibit foreign adversaries, especially China, from influencing state policies through compensated lobbying. He stressed defending New Hampshire's political integrity against CCP interests, ensuring the legislature serves Granite Staters. He addressed questions on the list of adversaries, noting flexibility via state maintenance or federal reference, and affirmed state-level regulation is appropriate despite federal FARA. He explained the bill aligns with Heritage's model legislation, with minor differences, and clarified paid lobbying is not protected speech, reducing lawsuit risks.
SB528: Support 00:30:17.176 - 10:29:03 AM; Rawlings, policy director for State Shield, affirmed the bill's constitutionality, citing Supreme Court precedents excluding foreigners from U.S. democratic influence. He warned of CCP using companies to steal intellectual property and insert security risks like kill switches in products. He advocated for transparency in dealings with Chinese entities, emphasizing they are not free market actors due to security laws requiring data sharing with the CCP.
SB573: Support 00:45:17.176 - 10:44:03 AM; Senator Birdsell reintroduced SB 573, originating from the PTSD commission she chairs, to standardize certification for comfort dogs providing emotional support in trauma situations like the New Hampshire hospital shooting. The bill defines training (AKC titles, monthly sessions), handler requirements (CIT and psychological first aid), licensing, care standards (no raw diet, vehicle restraints, retirement provisions), and grandfathering existing dogs. She addressed access issues in facilities without certification and enforcement concerns.
SB573: Support 01:00:17.176 - 10:59:03 AM; Breton, a comfort dog handler, detailed the dogs' roles in de-escalating mental health crises, supporting survivors, and aiding first responders. He explained the need for minimum standards, certification via AKC titles, and public access only during work to build credibility and avoid confusion with service dogs. He emphasized comprehensive involvement from PTSD committee stakeholders and the bill's proactive approach to regulation.
SB573: Support 01:15:17.176 - 11:14:03 AM; The speaker described extensive testing for their comfort dog Liberty, including AKC and therapy dog certifications, to ensure liability coverage under police insurance (Primex). They highlighted differences from therapy dogs, immediate response capabilities in crises like shootings and murders, and the need for standards to cover work-related activities, including restraints and temperature controls to prevent accidents.
SB573: Information Only 01:23:53.515 - 11:22:39 AM; Madden supported establishing training standards but raised concerns over terminology (facility vs. comfort dogs), public access for agency-owned dogs, and enforcement of prohibited acts like misrepresentation. He advocated for spaying/neutering and chipping working dogs.
SB573: Support 01:23:53.515 - 11:22:39 AM; Barker urged retaining safety measures for comfort dogs in unpredictable environments, emphasizing welfare (no deployment if sick/injured/pregnant) and application to all public safety agencies for consistency and public trust.
SB573: Support 01:23:53.515 - 11:22:39 AM; Goldstein shared success stories of comfort dogs aiding trauma victims and first responders, including a catatonic girl and an Alzheimer's patient. He advocated for broad inclusion of first responders and noted programs are often funded through volunteers, not budgets, countering unfunded mandate concerns.
SB573: Support 01:38:53.515 - 11:37:39 AM; Stevens highlighted comfort dogs' role in easing trauma, building trust, and improving mental health for first responders (30% with conditions vs. 20% general population) and communities in crises, schools, and hospitals.
SB573: Support 01:38:53.515 - 11:37:39 AM; Barker stressed spaying/neutering, annual health certificates, and health impacts on behavior for safety with vulnerable populations. She clarified liability differences from therapy dogs, requiring standards for public safety work coverage.
SB606: Support 01:45:00.370 - 11:43:46 AM; Senator Birdsell introduced SB 606, limiting biomarker testing coverage to Medicaid recipients to gather data on cost impacts, excluding commercial insurance due to prior cost concerns. Biomarkers guide treatments, e.g., avoiding incompatible therapies for diabetics with cancer. She noted collaboration with DHHS and addressed questions on funding, medical necessity, and scope.
SB606: Information Only 01:45:00.370 - 11:43:46 AM; Ballard and Lippman provided details on the bill's definition of biomarkers (e.g., gene tests for breast cancer treatment), medical necessity per state rules mirroring CMS for federal matching (50-90%). They referenced Florida's review identifying 942 medically necessary tests, many already covered, to guide implementation without broad mandates.
SB606: Information Only 02:00:00.370 - 11:58:46 AM; Lippman explains the cost estimates for biomarker testing under Medicaid, emphasizing the importance of medical necessity to avoid full state funding liability. He discusses differences between Medicaid and commercial populations, noting higher sickness levels in Medicaid. He addresses questions on determining medical necessity, which is regulated by CMS and decided by him as medical director, with appeal processes and provider input via prior authorizations. He confirms the inclusion of 'medically necessary' language in NH statutes to prevent misinterpretation and full state costs, and agrees that biomarker testing enables precision medicine, potentially reducing overall costs by speeding up diagnosis and treatment.
SB606: Support 02:10:00.000 - 12:08:46 PM; Rolo supports SB 606, highlighting how timely biomarker testing enables precision medicine, improving cancer outcomes, quality of life, and reducing costs. He explains biomarker testing's role in identifying mutations for targeted therapies. He notes potential changes to the bill and willingness to work in subcommittee. He views biomarker testing as a game changer, allowing earlier decisions on therapies and avoiding wasted resources. He addresses questions on the waiver process, suggesting DHHS submit amendments to CMS if needed, and references 23 states with similar laws.
SB606: Support 02:20:00.000 - 12:18:46 PM; Horgan supports SB 606, noting over 26,500 NH residents with Alzheimer's or dementia, with numbers rising. She stresses biomarkers' role in early detection and diagnosis, crucial for FDA-approved disease-modifying treatments that work best early. Early diagnosis saves costs ($63,000 per person nationally) and reduces strain on systems. She highlights NH's $363 million annual cost for Alzheimer's care and the need for coverage of FDA-approved blood-based biomarkers when medically necessary per evidence. She shares concerns on funding and 'medically necessary' language but is open to collaboration. She clarifies testing is part of comprehensive assessments, not for asymptomatic individuals.
SB606: Support 02:25:00.000 - 12:23:46 PM; Harvard shares her late husband Andy's story of delayed Alzheimer's diagnosis at age 59, taking two years and expensive biomarker tests to confirm younger-onset Alzheimer's after job loss. Early diagnosis was challenging, involving multiple specialists over four and a half years, causing emotional highs and lows, family strain, and her retirement to help. Biomarker testing could shorten timelines, enabling earlier treatment and planning, reducing debilitating uncertainty.
SB606: Support 02:30:00.370 - 12:28:46 PM; The speaker recounts his wife's four-and-a-half-year journey to Alzheimer's diagnosis, involving multiple doctors and emotional rollercoaster. Despite advances, he supports biomarker testing to accelerate diagnosis, potentially enabling earlier treatment and reducing family stress, though unsure of exact impact 10 years ago.
SB408 Senate amendment: Support 03:46:16.037 - 1:45:02 PM; Gannon, an amputee, shares personal motivation from losing a leg and desiring to jog again. He notes prior law for children under 18 and seeks extension to all ages for sports-related prosthetics every five years, promoting health, reducing long-term costs like diabetes complications, and improving quality of life. He highlights benefits for workforce and references a young Hanover girl needing arms for activities post-18. He discloses personal interest in applying for a blade prosthetic costing $12,000-$14,000.
SB408 Senate amendment: Support 03:55:00.000 - 1:53:46 PM; Prentice, a paramedic and executive director of American Trauma Society, supports activity-specific prosthetics to promote active lifestyles over sedentary ones, reducing chronic diseases. She discusses limb loss causes (trauma, congenital, disease) and references 'So Everybody Can Move' initiative. She addresses costs ($8,000-$15,000 typically) and suggests amendments for cost-sharing if unused and caps on high-end devices.
SB408 Senate amendment: Support 04:01:16.037 - 2:00:02 PM; Betancourt supports SB 408 despite general opposition to mandates, citing narrow tailoring: one device every five years, applies to group plans (avoiding defrayal), and low utilization per prior child study. He notes safeguards like policy terms, medical necessity for no cost-sharing, and carrier adjustments to prevent abuse. He clarifies coverage for repairs/replacements if medically necessary, even before five years.
SB408 Senate amendment: Support 04:20:00.000 - 2:18:46 PM; Bomber, an amputee, demonstrates daily vs. activity-specific prostheses, emphasizing insurance covers only one basic device, limiting activities and increasing injury risk. She notes 12 states passed similar laws, timely for Limb Loss Awareness Month. Activity-specific devices promote health, save lifetime costs ($80,000-$150,000), and cost-sharing/deductibles remain. Higher-end motorized devices not typically for activities.
SB408 Senate amendment: Support 04:31:16.037 - 2:30:02 PM; Hudson, below-knee amputee from motorcycle accident, shares active lifestyle (hiking, biking, swimming, skiing). Without dedicated swim leg (gifted, now ill-fitting), water access was dangerous; new socket unaffordable. Swimming aids health, reduces chronic pain, prevents hospital visits; enabled charity swim and mermaid school. Supports bill for small group to maintain activity.
SB408 Senate amendment: Support 04:35:00.000 - 2:33:46 PM; Hammer, recent below-knee amputee from motorcycle accident, describes mental health spiral post-injury, finding hope in activity-specific prostheses videos. Current everyday prosthetic limits running/jumping; activity-specific restores full life, prevents complications, reduces costs, aids mental health and community engagement.
SB408 Senate amendment: Support 04:40:00.000 - 2:38:46 PM; Cimerelli supports SB 408, valuing mobility for full life participation. Insurance covers one walking device, unsuitable for recreation, risking injury/overuse. Compares to ACL tear coverage for able-bodied. Extending child law to adults prevents sedentary lifestyles, chronic issues; NH recognizes children's needs, should for all.
SB408 Senate amendment: Support 04:46:16.037 - 2:45:02 PM; Lala, 36-year amputee and 20-year prosthetist, shares post-accident fears as active athlete. Everyday prostheses limit activities; activity-specific (e.g., running blade) enable jogging, reduce joint stress. Addresses costs ($13,000-$25,000), low utilization (10-30% of 7,000-9,000 major amputees), K-levels/medical necessity safeguards. Promotes activity to combat obesity/heart disease/depression, generational health benefits.
SB408 Senate amendment: Oppose 05:01:16.037 - 3:00:02 PM; Bragdon opposes SB 408, as it mandates coverage beyond medically necessary devices (for daily living), increasing costs ($12M annually per fiscal note, $7/member/month top end). Notes rising group premiums (15-35%); small beneficiary group but precedent for more mandates. Clarifies sections: kids annual, adults every five years; supports repairs if necessary but not extensions. Questions tracking prior usage across carriers.
SB610: Support 05:10:00.000 - 3:08:46 PM; Betancourt introduces SB 610, addressing provider-carrier contract frustrations and notice provisions that can alarm consumers and influence negotiations. Proposes options: carrier-designed notices reviewed by department or standardized department notice, ensuring informational tone without emotional manipulation. Adds public forum for input on negotiation impacts. Acknowledges draft needs polishing due to tight timeline; affects large providers (e.g., hospitals impacting 1,000+ lives).
SB548: Information Only 05:10:00.000 - 3:08:46 PM; The commissioner continues responding to questions about SB548, explaining the origin of the 1,000-member threshold to avoid excessive hearings, the need for polish in the bill, and how it addresses biased notifications during contract negotiations. He emphasizes ensuring factual information for consumers and a public hearing to keep focus on public impact without interfering in negotiations.
SB548: Support 05:31:16.037 - 3:30:02 PM; Gerzeric and Reap testify in support of SB548, highlighting the need to protect patients with unbiased information during contract disputes. They note the deep patient-provider relationships, average wait times for appointments (30 days for primary care, longer for specialists), and the importance of transparency without disrupting negotiations. They appreciate Senate amendments for balance and emphasize patient self-determination during notice periods.
SB548: Oppose 05:46:16.037 - 3:45:02 PM; Dunlap opposes SB548 as drafted, arguing the notification requirements complicate existing processes and could delay member notices beyond the 5-day legal requirement. She clarifies that current notices are factual and informative, provides an example, and notes they create microsites for updates. She points out the bill doesn't address provider communications and that large terminations are rare.
SB548: Oppose 05:46:16.037 - 3:45:02 PM; Bragdon criticizes the bill's poor drafting, especially sections 2 and 3 with confusing timelines, and suggests rewriting. He supports the kernel idea of clear information for enrollees but opposes department approval of notices due to First Amendment issues and timing problems post-contract termination. He advocates for an information session rather than a regulatory hearing and notes asymmetry in regulating carriers but not providers.
SB610: Information Only 06:01:16.037 - 4:00:02 PM; Rillard briefly introduces SB610FN, noting it requires public comment opportunities before long-term care rate increases under certain circumstances.
SB610: Information Only 06:01:16.037 - 4:00:02 PM; Betancourt provides background on long-term care insurance challenges from mispricing in the 1980s-1990s, leading to rate increases. He supports the bill's public hearing provision (changed from 'may' to 'shall' in Senate) and discusses modernizing statutes for innovative products like those with long waiting periods to build reserves. He emphasizes flexibility in approvals while ensuring solvency.
SB610: Support 06:01:16.037 - 4:00:02 PM; Sullivan supports SB610, detailing the history of long-term care insurance from the 1970s-1980s, underpricing, carrier exits around 2010-2011, and resulting rate hikes justified by loss ratios. He criticizes short notice for decisions (e.g., zero days in his case), calls for public hearings before approvals, more data on stopped sales, and notes elected commissioners in 12 states have lower increases. He argues against subsidizing carriers' mistakes at consumers' expense, as lapses drive up Medicaid costs.
SB610: Support 06:16:16.037 - 4:15:02 PM; Evans shares his personal experience with MetLife long-term care policies purchased in 2001, with premiums doubling to $8,734 annually. He criticizes ceasing new sales leading to funding issues, treating policies as a single book without considering full company performance, and urges public hearings, accountability, and considering full business books to prevent driving policyholders to Medicaid.
SB610: Support 06:31:16.037 - 4:30:02 PM; The consumer testifies about purchasing policies in 2003 on advice, with premiums rising from $4,900 to over $6,000 (147% increase) by 2027, plus benefit reductions. He received short notice (less than two months) without recourse, criticizes approvals favoring insurance lobbies, and requests mandatory public hearings for consumer input to counter large increases unaffordable on fixed incomes like Social Security.
SB610: Oppose 06:31:16.037 - 4:30:02 PM; Bragdon opposes the bill's extension to other insurance types (health, life, etc.), arguing it would require endless public hearings on rates, disclose confidential data, and duplicate existing annual health rate hearings costing $250,000. He suggests alternatives like comment periods but notes limitations without full information.