Committee Summary for House Commerce and Consumer Affairs (04/23/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB47 00:06:01.520 - 9:05:12 AM	Public Hearing	requiring certain health insurance policies of a birth mother to provide coverage for a newly born child from the moment of birth.	Birdsell, Regina(R)[B-]2025
SB121 2024-1453h 00:29:29.000 - 9:28:40 AM	Public Hearing	requiring notice to the insurance department of the discontinuance of certain types of insurance, including Medicare Advantage Plans.	Avard, Kevin(R)[B]2025
SB247 01:04:44.640 - 10:03:55 AM	Public Hearing	prohibiting network exclusion for pharmacies that refuse to dispense a prescription of the PBM reimbursement that is below the pharmacy's acquisition cost.	Rochefort, David(R)[B-]2025
SB124 03:33:25.040 - 12:32:36 PM	Public Hearing	relative to continuing care retirement communities.	Ricciardi, Denise(R)[B]2025
SB297 03:56:00.040 - 12:55:11 PM	Public Hearing	relative to pooled risk management programs.	Carson, Sharon(R)[B]2025

SB47: Regina Bartzell, State Senator for District 19 (Derry, Hampstead, Windham) Support00:06:01.520 - 9:05:12 AM; Senator Bartzell introduced Senate Bill 47, stating that it was requested by the Department of Insurance. The bill aims to clarify that a birth mother's health insurance policy is the primary policy for a newborn child's health care, unless the mother is uninsured or covered under an employer-sponsored health plan. She noted that existing statutes already ensure a child is covered under their parents' insurance for the first 31 days, and this bill codifies the department's interpretation of that statute.
SB47: DJ Benton, Commissioner of the New Hampshire Insurance Department Support00:08:19.560 - 9:07:30 AM; Commissioner Benton supported the bill, emphasizing its role in clarifying the department's interpretation of existing statutes regarding newborn health insurance coverage. He highlighted the vulnerability of young children and the importance of ensuring clear consumer protection in health policies.
SB121 2024-1453h: Grant Bosi, Deputy Chief of Staff with the New Hampshire Senate Support00:29:29.000 - 9:28:40 AM; Grant Bosi introduced Senate Bill 121 on behalf of Senator Kevin Avard, explaining that the bill requires insurance carriers to notify the department when they cease writing an entire line of business or make changes to Medicaid advantage plans. He mentioned an amendment that was adopted to address concerns from property and casualty carriers.
SB121 2024-1453h: DJ Benton, Commissioner of the New Hampshire Insurance Department Support00:30:29.279 - 9:29:40 AM; Commissioner Benton provided detailed context for the bill, recounting the disruption in the Medicare Advantage market and the subsequent confusion among consumers. He explained that the bill aims to require carriers to notify the department of any changes or discontinuations in their offerings, to better assist and direct consumers. He also clarified the differences in regulations and network adequacy requirements between Medicare Advantage and other insurance products.
SB121 2024-1453h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:36:36.640 - 9:35:47 AM; The speaker discusses the scenario where healthcare providers in a county could boycott an insurance company by refusing to sign contracts with them, raising concerns about potential antitrust issues.
SB121 2024-1453h: Representative Gibbs Information Only00:37:41.839 - 9:36:52 AM; Representative Gibbs asks for clarification on the term 'no longer writing policies,' specifically whether it applies to new customers only or includes the cancellation of current policies. The response clarifies that it means the insurer will not renew policies after the plan year but will not cancel current policies.
SB121 2024-1453h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:38:52.480 - 9:38:03 AM; The speaker discusses the Medicare Advantage program, noting the one-year policy duration and the requirement for annual sign-up. The speaker also mentions concerns from reinsurance organizations about a 120-day notification period, which has not changed despite earlier issues being resolved through a technical correction bill.
SB121 2024-1453h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:39:50.640 - 9:39:01 AM; The speaker explains the decision to align the notification period with federal requirements, moving from 120 days to 90 days, as discussed in a Senate review. An amendment to change this to 90 days is planned for a work session.
SB121 2024-1453h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:40:42.920 - 9:39:53 AM; The speaker addresses enforcement mechanisms in the bill, stating that non-compliance could result in license revocation or fines, depending on the severity and the company's other products in the state.
SB121 2024-1453h: Paula Rogers, Ahip Support00:41:44.079 - 9:40:55 AM; Paula Rogers supports the bill with the amendment to change the notice period to 90 days, aligning it with federal requirements. She mentions ongoing discussions with the insurance department about this change and expresses satisfaction with the proposed amendment.
SB247: Representative Brian Cole, Manchester, NH Support01:04:44.640 - 10:03:55 AM; Representative Cole introduces Senate Bill 247, explaining that it prevents pharmacies from being forced to sell prescriptions below their acquisition cost. He discusses the complexities of contracts between pharmacies and Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), emphasizing the unfairness of selling at a loss. He is open to questions due to his familiarity with the topic from a previous special committee on PBMs.
SB247: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:05:59.359 - 10:05:10 AM; The speaker provides an example of how a PBM might force a pharmacy to sell a drug at a loss, explaining that the consumer ends up paying a higher price at the pharmacy due to the PBM's pricing. The speaker addresses whether pharmacies should have the option to sign contracts with PBMs, acknowledging that pharmacies must deal with PBMs to get medications.
SB247: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:08:14.400 - 10:07:25 AM; The speaker discusses the dynamics of contracts between pharmacies and PBMs, highlighting the ability of PBMs to change pricing mid-contract, which can lead to pharmacies selling at a loss. The speaker mentions historical context and the evolution of the market, noting that the issue now affects a larger percentage of generics.
SB247: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:09:57.120 - 10:09:08 AM; The speaker recounts a historical decision by the committee that was overturned, allowing pharmacists to match mail-order prices. The speaker explains that the current bill aims to prevent pharmacies from being forced to sell below cost, emphasizing the pharmacists' willingness to serve customers despite potential financial loss.
SB247: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:11:01.920 - 10:10:12 AM; The speaker clarifies that the bill does not force pharmacies to sell at a loss but allows them to refuse filling prescriptions that would result in a loss. The speaker highlights the significant market control by a few PBMs and the historical context of the issue.
SB247: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:12:35.520 - 10:11:46 AM; The speaker discusses potential impacts on consumers and small pharmacies, suggesting that the bill might favor large PBMs. The speaker notes the distinction between chain and independent pharmacies and the financial pressures on independents.
SB247: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:14:49.920 - 10:14:00 AM; The speaker questions the benefits of the bill, suggesting it might primarily benefit large PBMs owned by major insurers. The speaker also mentions the exclusion of Medicare and Medicaid from the bill's mandates.
SB247: Representative Ammon Information Only01:15:25.120 - 10:14:36 AM; Representative Ammon passed the question regarding the market dynamics of excluding certain entities to another speaker, indicating they were not equipped to answer the question directly.
SB247: Representative Gibbs Information Only01:15:25.120 - 10:14:36 AM; Representative Gibbs clarified that the bill allows pharmacists to inform patients about not selling a drug at a higher price and to redirect them to contact the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) to find an alternative source.
SB247: Representative Sullivan Information Only01:16:35.040 - 10:15:46 AM; Representative Sullivan questioned the availability of options for patients who prefer to pay extra to obtain their medication immediately from a local pharmacy rather than waiting for mail order, expressing concern about the loss of consumer choice.
SB247: Representative Burroughs Oppose01:18:22.880 - 10:17:33 AM; Representative Burroughs shared a personal experience of difficulty in obtaining medication promptly due to the requirement to use mail order, expressing frustration and concern over the potential negative impact on consumers needing immediate access to medication.
SB247: Representative M Information Only01:19:23.920 - 10:18:34 AM; Representative M sought clarification on whether pharmacists could charge a premium based on customer loyalty, to which it was clarified that such a practice is not allowed under current PBM rules.
SB247: Representative Gibbs Information Only01:20:15.520 - 10:19:26 AM; Representative Gibbs further discussed the implications of the bill, noting that if a PBM mandates a selling price lower than the acquisition cost, the pharmacist cannot sell the drug at a loss and the patient must seek the medication elsewhere.
SB247: Glenn Peralt, Colonial Pharmacy, New London, New Hampshire Support01:21:29.000 - 10:20:40 AM; Glenn Peralt, owner of Colonial Pharmacy in New London, New Hampshire, supported SB247 with amendments. He emphasized the need for reinstating language that would allow pharmacists to charge patients the difference between acquisition cost and PBM reimbursement, arguing this is essential for pharmacies to remain viable and to serve their patient population effectively. He highlighted the severe financial strain pharmacies face due to PBM contracts and the impact on medication availability and patient care.
SB247: Glenn Peralt, Colonial Pharmacy, New London, New Hampshire Oppose01:31:27.000 - 10:30:38 AM; Glenn Peralt argues against the bill, stating that it benefits only insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) by steering patients towards their own or mail-order pharmacies. He explains that PBMs were created by insurance companies to manage drug costs and blames them for high drug prices. He also discusses the difference in pricing between generic and brand-name drugs, emphasizing that the legislation could harm consumers by increasing costs and reducing access to local pharmacies.
SB247: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:39:13.360 - 10:38:24 AM; The unnamed speaker discusses the role of PSAOs (Pharmacy Services Administrative Organizations) in the pharmacy industry, clarifying that PSAOs bundle insurance plans and provide reconciliation, but do not negotiate drug prices. They mention their experience with different PSAOs and buying groups, emphasizing that buying groups, not PSAOs, negotiate drug prices. They also express support for an amendment to SB247 that would allow pharmacies to charge patients the difference in cost, which they believe would benefit patients and pharmacies.
SB247: Michelle Heaton, Director of Life and Health, New Hampshire Insurance Department Information Only01:43:37.119 - 10:42:48 AM; Michelle Heaton provides an overview of the issues surrounding prescription drug costs and health insurance premiums. She explains that SB247 amends the managed care law (420J) and does not regulate PBMs directly but affects prescription drug benefits under commercial insurance plans. She notes that the bill allows in-network pharmacies to decline filling prescriptions if not reimbursed at cost and directs patients to contact their insurance or PBM. Heaton also mentions that the bill includes consumer protection amendments for PSAOs. She expresses concerns about the potential impact of re-adding an amendment that would allow pharmacies to charge patients the difference in cost, suggesting it could undermine managed care and increase prescription drug prices. She clarifies that the Insurance Department remains neutral but is available to assist with implementing policy changes.
SB247: Representative Sharesa Information Only01:55:51.280 - 10:55:02 AM; Representative Sharesa asked for clarification on whether pharmacies have the option to charge a delta by charging an extra copay under the current bill structure. The discussion revealed that this was related to an amendment that was removed from the bill by the Senate. The representative was seeking to understand if this amendment could be reintroduced.
SB247: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:56:59.920 - 10:56:10 AM; An unnamed speaker provided further clarification on the amendment that was removed from the original bill. They explained that the original bill allowed pharmacists to charge more than the co-pay, which is against the managed care contracts that prohibit balance billing. This was in response to Representative Sharesa's question.
SB247: Ally McGold, Serin Haley, Healthcare Distribution Alliance Oppose01:58:01.360 - 10:57:12 AM; Ally McGold from Serin Haley, representing the Healthcare Distribution Alliance (HDA), testified in opposition to Senate Bill 247. She highlighted that while HDA checked 'oppose' on the card, they were primarily seeking amendments to specific parts of the bill. McGold explained that the bill's primary goal is to allow pharmacies to refuse fulfilling prescriptions if the reimbursement from PBMs is less than their acquisition cost. However, she pointed out that some sections of the bill incorrectly define and impose unachievable criteria on Pharmacy Services Administrative Organizations (PSAOs). HDA requested the removal of these sections or suggested amendments to ensure the legislation accurately reflects the roles and capabilities of PSAOs. McGold emphasized the optional and limited role of PSAOs in helping pharmacies manage PBM contracts and expressed concerns about potential state regulations impacting independent pharmacies' choices and viability.
SB124: Max Taylor, Legislative Aid to Senator Rashardi Support03:33:25.040 - 12:32:36 PM; Max Taylor, representing Senator Rashardi, introduced Senate Bill 124 FN aimed at enhancing protections for seniors in continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs). The bill seeks to update and strengthen regulatory frameworks, expand certification requirements, enhance reporting obligations, and specify provisions for life care contracts to ensure greater transparency and accountability. It also introduces escrow protections for entrance fees, outlines procedures for contract termination, establishes a residence bill of rights, and mandates notifications to the insurance department regarding sales or transfers. Taylor emphasized that these measures are crucial for protecting seniors' investments and ensuring stable living environments, urging support for the bill.
SB124: DJ Bettencourt, Commissioner of the New Hampshire Insurance Department Support03:35:32.600 - 12:34:43 PM; Commissioner Bettencourt expressed support for Senate Bill 124, which aims to update the outdated statute related to Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs). He highlighted the necessity for the bill due to the evolution and challenges within the industry over the past 30 years. The objectives of the legislation include enhancing consumer protection, especially for vulnerable senior populations, and addressing the financial distress of these entities more proactively. Bettencourt emphasized the catastrophic consequences of CCRC insolvency and detailed the department's experience with receivership. He noted that the bill represents a comprehensive overhaul developed over three years, with significant stakeholder input achieving 90-95% consensus among the state's CCRCs.
SB124: Steve Notinger, Attorney at the New Hampshire Insurance Department Support03:41:13.120 - 12:40:24 PM; Steve Notinger supported Senate Bill 124 and discussed the importance of quarterly financial reporting by CCRCs to enable quick action in cases of financial distress. Drawing from his experience as a bankruptcy trustee, he underscored the significance of timely intervention. Notinger also outlined the inclusion of a Bill of Rights for residents, giving them rights to self-determination, complaint without retaliation, and participation in governance. He mentioned that the bill provides more autonomy to well-performing CCRCs and includes an early warning system requiring a financial plan within 60 days if a CCRC is in trouble.
SB124: Lisa Henderson, Executive Director of Leading Age Maine New Hampshire, Durham, NH Support03:50:17.279 - 12:49:28 PM; Lisa Henderson supported Senate Bill 124, representing Leading Age Maine New Hampshire, which includes all 14 non-profit CCRCs in New Hampshire. She appreciated the department's openness and the inclusion of an early warning system and modernized statutes. Henderson highlighted the financial health of most members and the flexibility around escrowing entrance fees based on occupancy and cash position. She noted that while the majority of CCRCs operate traditionally, a few operate differently and might find the administrative burden heavier, though not due to financial concerns.
SB297: Grant Bosi, Deputy Chief of Staff, New Hampshire Senate, Concord, NH Support03:56:00.040 - 12:55:11 PM; Grant Bosi introduced Senate Bill 297 on behalf of Senate President Sharon Carson, highlighting that the bill was requested by the Secretary of State due to concerns about the solvency of some risk pools in New Hampshire. These pools, established in 1987, allow political subdivisions to self-insure for employee and municipal property coverage. The bill proposes setting minimum and maximum contingency reserves to ensure ongoing operational success and protect taxpayers. It also includes emergency trigger mechanisms allowing the Secretary of State to seek a receiver to enforce immediate assessments if necessary. The legislation aims to increase transparency and mentions ongoing work on an amendment to address short-term premium increases and long-term solvency risks.
SB297: James Gray, Senator, District 6 (Alton, Gilmanton, Rochester, Strafford), NH Oppose03:58:38.399 - 12:57:49 PM; Senator James Gray expressed concerns about Senate Bill 297, indicating it has been problematic for him. He discussed his analysis of the situation, pointing out issues like underutilization of insurance due to delayed medical procedures during the COVID-19 period, which increased the reserves of risk pools. He criticized the Health Trust's approach to solvency based on actuarial reports, suggesting they did not follow recommended methodologies to achieve a 5% chance of insolvency. Gray also mentioned an amendment under consideration that would allow funds to remain at the Health Trust level rather than being distributed locally, which he opposes. He advocated for moving the regulation of these pools to the insurance department but only after solvency issues are resolved.
SB297: David Scanlan, Secretary of State, NH Information Only04:09:19.600 - 1:08:30 PM; Secretary Scanlan provided an overview of the current state of risk pools in New Hampshire, emphasizing the need for Senate Bill 297. He discussed how political subdivisions form associations to self-insure under RSA 5B, and highlighted the financial troubles faced by some risk pools, notably Health Trust and New Hampshire Interlocal Trust (NHIT). He explained that SB297 aims to set reserve thresholds to maintain healthy risk pools without interfering with their management. He also noted the recent closure of NHIT and the subsequent receivership to ensure a proper wind-down.
SB297: Christina Ferrari, Outside Counsel to the Secretary of State's Office, NH Support04:21:29.920 - 1:20:40 PM; Christina Ferrari, as outside counsel, supported the need for additional regulatory guardrails in RSA 5B to prevent further financial deterioration of risk pools. She detailed the provisions of SB297, which include defined terms, fiduciary responsibilities, transparency requirements, and mechanisms to prevent insolvency, such as reserve ranges and assessments. She emphasized that these measures are minimally invasive and designed to protect the interests of the member political subdivisions.
SB297: Hua Lee, Actuary, Casco, NH Support04:34:09.039 - 1:33:20 PM; Hua Lee, an actuary from Casco, responded to a question about the potential impact of SB297 on contributions from municipalities. He clarified that based on their analysis, contributions might slightly decrease or remain unchanged for most pools, except for Health Trust, which might see a slight decrease. He addressed concerns about the bill's financial impact on smaller municipalities, noting the recent amendment to hold funds at the risk pool level rather than with the members.
SB297: Actuary from Seagull, NH Support04:36:05.480 - 1:35:16 PM; The actuary from Seagull, working with the Bureau of Securities Regulation, discussed the historical context of risk pool insolvencies, including PLT and NHIT. He highlighted that these pools charged less than actuarially recommended rates to compete for market share, leading to insolvency. He stressed the necessity of SB297 to provide regulatory tools to prevent such insolvencies and to facilitate orderly wind-downs, such as the current situation with NHIT.
SB297: Mark Nunan, Actuary, Seagull, NH Support04:40:43.040 - 1:39:54 PM; Mark Nunan, an actuary from Seagull, supported the provisions of SB297. He mentioned his role with the Bureau of Securities Regulation and clarified that there is no overlap with his work on the state health plan. He emphasized the importance of the bill in setting reserve thresholds and providing tools to manage and prevent insolvency in risk pools.
SB297: State Team, Seagull, NH Information Only04:41:33.040 - 1:40:44 PM; The speaker from the state team discussed the importance of solvency protection through contingency reserves in risk pools. They explained that when setting contributions for the year, pools must consider paid claims, administration costs, and other adjustments such as plan changes or high-cost services like weight loss drugs. The speaker emphasized that contributions should ideally cover claims dollar for dollar, but in reality, there are fluctuations. Contingency reserves are crucial for handling unexpected high-cost claims, such as a million-dollar transplant or neonate event. SB297 aims to address these reserves by setting a target of 12 to 16% of claims for health and 30 to 40% for property and casualty, with an option to request an additional 2% for health, up to a maximum of 18%.
SB297: State Team, Seagull, NH Information Only04:45:50.718 - 1:45:01 PM; The speaker continued to explain that the contingency reserve for health claims, set at 12 to 16%, equates to about one and a half to two months of claims experience. This reserve allows pools to cover claims for up to two months without additional contributions. They noted that contributions are updated annually, allowing for quick adjustments to address any material events that might affect the reserve. The risk of insolvency is minimal with a 16% reserve, but issues arise when pools operate below this level due to self-inflicted decisions like not following actuarial recommendations or capping rate increases.
SB297: State Team, Seagull, NH Information Only04:47:20.840 - 1:46:31 PM; The speaker further elaborated on the misuse of contingency reserves, stating they should not be used as a security blanket for aggressive plan designs or contribution decisions that lead to deficiencies. SB297 aims to minimize this risk by setting a target range for reserves and requiring pools to adjust premiums to stay within this range. The speaker also clarified the separate 4% risk fund, which is not part of the contingency reserve but serves as an emergency fund, giving pools the option to fund it or not.
SB297: Representative Spear, Seagull, NH Information Only04:53:01.600 - 1:52:12 PM; Representative Spear raised concerns about the fixed percentages in the law and whether they would be effective five years later. The response was that the law includes a provision to reassess these percentages in four years to ensure they are still effective.
SB297: Representative Ann, Seagull, NH Information Only04:53:01.600 - 1:52:12 PM; Representative Ann asked the speaker to describe the risks of doing nothing, to which the speaker replied that the risk is the potential bankruptcy of NHIT, emphasizing the severe consequences of inaction.
SB297: Unidentified Speaker, Seagull, NH Information Only04:54:21.200 - 1:53:32 PM; The speaker discussed the potential consequences of a risk pool going into receivership and dissolving. They explained that in such a scenario, members could be forced to purchase health insurance from private entities or transition to another pool. They highlighted the potential disruption in benefits and additional costs for members, as well as the issue of remaining claims and liabilities that would still need to be addressed, likely falling back on the political subdivisions.
SB297: Unidentified Speaker, Seagull, NH Information Only04:55:23.840 - 1:54:34 PM; The speaker addressed the financial implications of the bill on cities and towns, specifically questioning whether passing the bill would necessitate a special assessment. They expressed concerns about the financial risk to municipalities and sought clarification on the enforcement mechanism if the statute is ignored. The discussion included the potential for rate increases to rebuild reserves and the role of the Secretary of State in monitoring the situation.
SB297: Unidentified Speaker, Seagull, NH Information Only04:56:27.120 - 1:55:38 PM; The speaker continued to discuss the situation with Health Trust and its decision to dissolve, explaining that a receiver appointed by the court would assess the assets and claims to ensure continuity of benefits for members. They also responded to a question about the fiscal impact of the bill on municipalities, stating that the bill itself does not require a special assessment but noted that Health Trust is currently below the recommended reserve level.
SB297: Unidentified Speaker, Seagull, NH Information Only04:57:29.200 - 1:56:40 PM; The speaker clarified that the bill does not directly impose a special assessment on towns or political subdivisions but sets thresholds for reserves. They explained that if reserves drop below certain levels, alarms would be triggered, and the Secretary of State could intervene. They also discussed the current actions of Health Trust to rebuild reserves through a mandatory capital risk charge.
SB297: Unidentified Speaker, Seagull, NH Information Only04:59:43.080 - 1:58:54 PM; The speaker addressed concerns about the likelihood of Health Trust needing to impose a special assessment on its members. They explained that the current actuarial modeling shows a less than 5% chance of needing an assessment, and Health Trust could potentially hold a fund to cover such an assessment, reducing the risk to members to around 1%.
SB297: Unidentified Speaker, Seagull, NH Information Only05:03:23.840 - 2:02:34 PM; The speaker responded to a question about the current risk of insolvency for Health Trust and other entities. They stated that with the Senate bill, the risk of insolvency would be essentially zero, as the bill aligns with industry standards to prevent insolvencies. They also discussed Health Trust's current reserve level and plans to increase it.
SB297: Unidentified Speaker, Seagull, NH Information Only05:05:50.958 - 2:05:01 PM; The speaker addressed concerns about the 12% threshold in the bill, explaining that it's a warning level, not a direct trigger for receivership. They discussed the flexibility of the Secretary of State's authority and compared it to other statutes like Delta Dental. They clarified that the 12% threshold would lead to adjustments in contributions over time, not immediate assessments.
SB297: Unidentified Speaker, Seagull, NH Information Only05:10:01.120 - 2:09:12 PM; The speaker concluded the discussion by summarizing that concerns raised by Health Trust and others have been addressed through amendments or additional information in the appendix. They emphasized that the bill aims to reduce risk for members and is based on actuarial analysis, addressing fears about the adequacy of reserve levels and potential financial impacts on municipalities.
SB297: Scott D. Roach, Executive Director of Health Trust, Gene Heric, General Counsel of Health Trust Oppose05:13:18.120 - 2:12:29 PM; Scott D. Roach and Gene Heric from Health Trust expressed opposition to SB297, arguing that it does not allow risk pools to hold adequate capital for long-term financial stability. They criticized the bill for not being based on actuarial modeling and for proposing reserve levels that are too low and narrow. They highlighted the need for sufficient reserves to cover volatile claims and protect public sector entities from unexpected expenses. They suggested using a risk-based capital model as a more appropriate methodology for ensuring financial stability.
SB297: Brian Re, President of the Professional Firefighters of New Hampshire Support05:28:16.680 - 2:27:27 PM; Brian Re expressed full support for Senate Bill 297, emphasizing its importance in addressing the operational practices of Health Trust, which he believes pose risks to financial stability and member benefits. He highlighted the dismantling of member benefits under Health Trust, such as critical prescription drug coverage, retiree medical coverage, and wellness programs, arguing these changes were driven by cost-cutting rather than medical need. Re cited an example where a firefighter's spouse was denied prescription drug treatment for cancer, underscoring the need for accountability and transparency in risk pool management. He urged the committee to support the bill to ensure adequate contingency reserves and a proper standard of care for risk pools.
SB297: Margaret Burns, Executive Director of the New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose05:37:12.798 - 2:36:23 PM; Margaret Burns opposed Senate Bill 297, arguing that it threatens local control and negatively affects public sector employees and taxpayers. She criticized the bill for creating unlimited financial risk and liability for local governments and introducing a surprise billing model for assessments. Burns highlighted the mandate for health pools to establish local reserve funds as problematic and potentially insufficient. She also expressed concern that the bill could lead to the insolvency of risk pools, using the example of Interlocal Trust. The New Hampshire Municipal Association supports moving risk pool oversight to the Insurance Department and calls for an actuarial assessment before any new model is implemented.
SB297: Ty Gagny, Chief Executive Officer of Primex Support05:46:43.200 - 2:45:54 PM; Ty Gagny supported Senate Bill 297 as it applies to property casualty coverage, stating that Primex, a pooled risk management program in Concord, New Hampshire, would benefit from the bill's contingency reserve levels. He noted that Primex has worked collaboratively with the Secretary of State's office on reserves and surplus and believes the bill will strengthen the risk pool's financial health. Gagny mentioned that Primex has never needed to use member assessments but sees the bill's provisions as non-problematic.
SB297: Lisa Duket, Executive Director of School Care Support05:51:06.638 - 2:50:17 PM; Lisa Duket supported the Secretary of State's proposed amendment to SB297, emphasizing School Care's expansion of health coverage to political subdivisions in New Hampshire. She highlighted the organization's readiness to provide stable coverage options following the dissolution of New Hampshire Interlocal Trust. Duket praised the amendment for removing the mandate for individual member reserve funds and introducing a restricted fund held by the risk management program, which she believes offers a practical and fiscally sound approach to managing reserves. She appreciated the Secretary of State's engagement with stakeholders and urged support for the amendment to strengthen oversight and sustainability of risk management programs.
SB297: Representative Gibbs Information Only05:59:01.040 - 2:58:12 PM; Representative Gibbs clarified a point about health insurance availability through Harvard Pilgrim, confirming that political subdivisions can obtain insurance directly from Harvard Pilgrim as well as Sigma. He noted that many municipalities have struggled to get quotes from other sources, except for Health Trusts. This led to a discussion about School Care's approach to competitive pricing, where they sometimes cannot offer competitive rates due to high claims experience but provide explanations and strategies to manage costs.
SB297: Lisa Duket, Executive Director of School Care Information Only05:51:06.638 - 2:50:17 PM; Lisa Duket, finishing her testimony, explained that School Care sometimes cannot provide competitive pricing due to high claims experience. She gave an example of a community in the North Country where a 50% rate increase was necessary, but instead of imposing such a rate, she worked with the municipal manager to explain their claims experience and explore alternative strategies.
SB297: Megan Tuttle, President of NEA New Hampshire Information Only06:01:17.840 - 3:00:28 PM; Megan Tuttle expressed neutrality towards the bill, emphasizing the importance of affordable and reliable health insurance for her members. She is willing to work with the committee to ensure that the end goal of affordable health insurance is met. Tuttle mentioned that some of her members are part of School Care and Health Trust, and she has heard mixed feedback regarding benefits and medication coverage.
SB297: Morgan Deoce, Human Resources Director for Coos County Oppose06:03:44.760 - 3:02:55 PM; Morgan Deoce opposed the bill, explaining the financial strain on Coos County due to a sudden 39.6% rate increase from New Hampshire Interlocal Trust, which breached their contract. This increase would have a significant budget impact of nearly $1.7 million and a substantial monthly increase for employees. Deoce highlighted the urgency and fear among employees due to the uncertainty of their health insurance coverage, and noted that a partnership between Harvard Pilgrim and School Care was not a viable option for Coos County.
SB297: Ray Gorman, Selectman for the Town of Colebrook Oppose06:06:44.638 - 3:05:55 PM; Ray Gorman, representing the Town of Colebrook, opposed the bill due to the economic strain it would place on small communities. He mentioned the difficulty in finding new insurance coverage within a short timeframe and expressed hope for a larger risk pool that could lower rates. Gorman also discussed the broader economic challenges faced by the region, including the need for economic development projects like the Balsams.
SB297: Paul Deschene, Project Manager for the Town of Newington Oppose06:09:44.240 - 3:08:55 PM; Paul Deschene, on behalf of the Town of Newington, opposed Senate Bill 297 as currently drafted. He highlighted the irony of past criticisms of risk pools holding too much money in reserves and now facing a bill that requires more reserves. Deschene suggested that the insurance bureau might be a more appropriate regulator for these pools due to their fluctuating regulatory demands.
SB297: Mike Cote, Board of Selectmen for the Town of Rye Oppose06:11:43.958 - 3:10:54 PM; Mike Cote opposed the bill, arguing that small towns do not want to be involved in the risk market due to the potential financial liabilities it could impose. He advocated for fixed cost insurance coverage and criticized the current regulatory framework under the Secretary of State, suggesting that it should be regulated under the Department of Insurance. Cote provided historical context and his expertise in insurance to support his argument, emphasizing the need for stricter capital and reserve requirements.
SB297: Scott Gross, SAU19, New Boston and Goffstown Oppose06:24:57.200 - 3:24:08 PM; Scott Gross, representing SAU19, expressed opposition to SB297, stating the bill is not ready for prime time due to its complexity and the need for further study. He mentioned the multiple amendments and the complexity of insurance topics. Gross highlighted the administrative challenges with the return of surplus, suggesting it would be a nightmare to manage. He supports the regulation of insurance risk pools under the insurance department, drawing from his 30 years of experience in the insurance industry.
SB297: Kate McGrath, SAU19, Goffstown and New Boston Information Only06:27:07.520 - 3:26:18 PM; Kate McGrath, HR Director for SAU19, discussed the importance of risk pools and mentioned that they are exploring alternative options due to the legislation. She supports common sense legislation and a minimum threshold for reserves but feels the current bill and its amendments have been rushed.
SB297: Tara Tucker, Chief of Police, Greenland, NH, Nottingham resident, and New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police Oppose06:28:24.400 - 3:27:35 PM; Tara Tucker, representing Greenland, Nottingham, and the NH Association of Chiefs of Police, opposed SB297. She shared Greenland's experience with commercial insurance, which resulted in issues with payments, denials, and compliance with NH insurance laws. She emphasized the importance of risk pools for small towns and the challenges of budget constraints and employee recruitment and retention in emergency services. Tucker recommended an ITL vote on the bill as currently written and suggested moving oversight to the Department of Insurance.
SB297: Sheila Connelly, Holderness, NH Municipal Association Board of Directors Oppose06:34:16.638 - 3:33:27 PM; Sheila Connelly from Holderness opposed SB297, expressing concerns about the acrimony reminiscent of past issues with LGC. She believes the bill is not ready and needs more time for proper development to ensure a positive future for municipal partners. Connelly highlighted the resource constraints of small towns in dealing with such legislation.
SB297: David Moore, Town Administrator, Stratham Oppose06:36:27.040 - 3:35:38 PM; David Moore, the Town Administrator of Stratham, expressed opposition to SB297, emphasizing the complexity and large scale of the issue at hand, affecting 72,000 covered individuals under Health Trust. He highlighted the importance of Health Trust's role and warned about the potential negative impacts on small and medium-sized communities if they were to seek coverage independently. Moore also criticized the timing of the bill, noting it could worsen financial pressures on local taxpayers, particularly with upcoming renewals and premiums.
SB297: Michael Branley, Town Administrator, Windham Oppose06:39:34.600 - 3:38:45 PM; Michael Branley, Town Administrator of Windham, opposed SB297, noting he had not seen the amendment but found it slightly better yet still problematic. He expressed concerns that the passage of the bill could lead to the closure of Health Trust, leaving communities like Coos County struggling with increased costs and difficulties in finding coverage. He mentioned submitting written testimony based on the original bill proposal.

Hunt, John(Chairman)(R)[B+]2025	Post, Lisa(Clerk)(R)[A]2025	Potucek, John(V Chairman)(R)[A-]2025
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	Gibbs, Merryl(D)[D-]2025	McAleer, Chris(D)[D-]2025
Sullivan, Jared(D)[D]2025	Miles, Julie(R)[A-]2025	Presa, Adam(R)[B]2025