May 9, 2026 · State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs · 23,985 words · 19 speakers · 234 segments
The State Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee will come to order.
Mr. Beck, please call the roll. Representatives Bradley?
Yeah.
Carter?
Present.
Graff?
Espinoza? Present.
Furet?
Here.
Froelich?
Here.
Luck?
Joyfully here.
Wynn?
Go Avs.
Ricks?
Here.
Clifford?
Here.
And Madam Chair.
Here. All right. We have three bills on the agenda, 186, 184, and 185. Because bills 186 and 185 do not have testimony and have the same sponsors, we'll hear both of those bills first, and then we'll move on to Senate Bill 184. All right. We've got our photography out of the way, so let's start with Senate Bill 186. Who would like to begin? Representative Titone.
Thank you, Madam Chair. All right, this is a really very complicated bill, so stand by and be ready. This is a JTC bill. It adapts the Workers' Compensation Act, and it says that you don't have to continue to mail things to people, and that's pretty much it. It was that certified mail was the only way you could inform the people, so we got rid of that and made it more flexible. So now you can email people and things like that. So that's it. That's all the bill is.
Wonderful. Representative Kelty, do you want to add anything? If not, it's okay. Good bill.
Well, yes. I love that very much.
All right, members, any questions for the bill's sponsors? Representative Espinosa.
And also my little chat bot friends on both sides. Thank you.
Okay, wonderful. Any other questions? Seeing none, we'll move into the testimony phase. There is nobody that is currently signed up to provide testimony. Is there anybody with us today that would like to provide testimony? If so, please come forward. Nobody is running, so we will close the testimony phase. Do you have any amendments? No amendments. Committee, any amendments? No amendment? Do you have an amendment, Representative? Nope. Okay, great. Just for fun. Amendment phase is now closed. Bill wrap up. Would you all like to offer any closing comments? If not, that's cool too.
Great. Vice Chair Clifford. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 26186 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. Second.
All right. Did you want to speak, Representative Chitone?
No.
Okay. All right. Closing comments. Representative Espinoza.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, sponsors, for bringing this bill forward. I just want to say this bill is a representation of an issue that we faced in statutory revision at the beginning of the year, where we actually considered the possibility of turning, putting an overall statute that would allow for electronic mail service in every instance in order to avoid having to do bill by bill approach. But as this bill indicates, there's a complicated nature and process that has to go through with the different processes when we're changing from mail to electronic service. And so I appreciate you bringing this forward, doing the work to update the statute. And I wish we could have done a holistic thing, but thank you very much for taking this on.
Any other closing comments All right Representative Luck Thank you Madam Chair Just one thought Hopefully this doesn't signal the final death knell in the U.S. Postal Service.
All right, I'm not seeing any other hands, so with that, Mr. Beck, please poll the committee.
Representatives Bradley?
Yes.
Carter?
Aye.
DeGraff?
Yes.
Espinosa?
Yes.
Frey?
Yes.
Froehlach?
Yes.
Luck?
Yes.
Wynn?
Yes.
Ricks?
Yes.
Clifford?
Yes, for today.
Madam Chair.
Yes. Senate Bill 186 passes unanimously on a vote of 11 to 0. Let's hear Senate Bill 185.
Representative Chitone. Today, Madam Chair, this one's a little bit simpler. No, actually, it's the opposite. So this is another joint technology bill, And this one really intends to get the statute to comply more with the OIT security audit. And for those of you on the audit committee or have heard about what's going on, there's been a lot of things in the IT security audit that have not gone well enough. And there were a lot of discrepancies. And this bill puts a lot of things into statute to be sure that they are getting done to a certain specification. And so we are saying that within 90 days after the chief information security officer files a written information technology, A compliance report with the JTC has required to request that the Legislative Audit Committee direct the state auditor to conduct a special information technology security audit. So if we need to have extra auditing done, this bill allows the state auditor to do that, and it takes money from the Technology Risk Protection Fund, which is a fund that OIT has that is suitable for this purpose under the statute. And we're just saying that that money can be used for that purpose when this additional audit needs to be made. And then we have a few other things where if the JTC votes to request IT security audit, and we have this framework in place to do that. The bill specifies that except in the case of an information security emergency, OIT shall not publish or implement a technical information technology standard. And that standard is void unless the standard was publicly posted already. The bill prohibits the chief information officer from delegating a duty of responsibility to the security officer. And the bill requires the security officer to submit two annual reports to the JTC. The first report is a written compliance report, and that's all of the security standards, all open audit recommendations regarding OIT made to the state auditor. And then the second report is a written statewide IT security risk report that assesses the overall security risk posture of the state. So that way we understand a little bit more about where they're going to make sure that the audit does not get off track again. We want to make sure that the audit gets done right and that we improving and we not going backwards which is what happened before The bill also requires a security officer the chief information officer If a security officer is unavailable so that way we always have somebody in that role to perform the duties and uphold the responsibilities assigned to that position pursuant to law. So it's really just kind of conforming language that we're putting into statute to be sure that the audit gets done correctly. We've talked with the auditor and OIT to be sure we're getting this language right. OIT wants to get back on track and get this going, and this bill will be sure that we have in very clear language what the expectations are so that way we have a good audit at the end of the day.
Representative Kelty, do you want to speak?
Good bill. Vote yes. Love the brevity.
Members, any questions? Not seeing any questions. Let's move into witness testimony. As of right now, we don't have anybody that has signed up. Is there anybody with us today that was just to provide testimony? Seeing none. The witness testimony phase is now closed. Any amendments? Committee, any amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is now closed. We'll wrap up. Representative Chaton.
We need this to be sure that JTC can do their job moving forward and that the auditor has clear reasons to get a new audit if they need to. So please vote yes for this so we can have tighter IT security. IT security is going to be really, really needed to be tight and concise, especially with all of the hacking that's been going on. IT is making hacking worse. And we just saw the Canvas thing. They had a hack at most of the schools. We have to bolster our IT security. This will help us get more on track. So this is an important update.
Representative Kelty.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And with this bill and everything that they're doing in OIT, it's pretty standard across the board as far as taking IT security seriously, strengthening the cybersecurity and security procedures that most people, even the government, takes part in. So it's very standard and very normal, and auditing is a good thing because it finds where you can improve. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Vice Chair Clifford.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 26185 to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation.
Second. Seconded by Representative Varey. Members, any closing comments? Seeing none, Mr. Beck, please poll the committee.
Representatives Bradley? Yes. Carter? Yes. DeGraff? Yes. Espinoza? Yes. Ferre? Pass. Froelich? Yes. Luck? Yes. Wynn? Yes. Ricks? Yes. Ferre? Yes. Clifford? Yes. Madam Chair? Yes. Senate Bill 185 passes unanimously with a vote of 11 to 0.
Thank you very much, sponsors. Our next bill is Senate Bill 184 with Representatives Carter and Mabry. Thank you Okay on Senate Bill 184, who would like to begin? Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I think all of us would agree that firefighting is one of the most dangerous jobs that there is. When most people think about that danger, they picture collapsing buildings, explosions, firefighters running into flames. But today, the greatest threat facing firefighters is occupational cancer that is now the leading cause of line-of-duty deaths among firefighters. There is overwhelming scientific evidence linking firefighting to elevated cancer risk. Firefighters are routinely exposed to carcinogens through smoke inhalation, diesel exhaust, asbestos, burning plastic, PFAS, in turnout gear, firefighting foam, heavy metals, and toxic combustion byproducts. these toxins into their bodies, through their lungs, through their skin absorption, and through contaminated gear. And modern fires are becoming more dangerous because homes today contain more synthetic materials than they did decades ago, producing highly carcinogenic smoke when they burn. The largest firefighter cancer study ever conducted, a long-term NIOSH study of nearly 30,000 firefighters, found a 9% increase in cancer diagnosis and a 14% increase in cancer-related deaths compared to the general population. Research consistently shows elevated rates of mesothelioma, lung cancer, melanoma, kidney cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple types of other cancers. Mesothelioma, which firefighters are disproportionately exposed to through asbestos exposure, has a five-year survival rate of roughly 10 to 12 percent. Firefighters have substantially elevated mortality rates for skin cancer, kidney cancer. Studies have shown roughly 40 percent higher kidney cancer mortality rate among firefighters and dramatically elevated rates of melanoma risk tied to toxin absorption. And in recent years, more than 70 percent of line of duty deaths have been linked to occupational cancer. That's what this bill is about. Senate Bill 184 is about expanding and strengthening Colorado's firefighter presumptive cancer protections. The bill expands the list of cancers presumed to be occupational diseases, and critically, the bill changes the legal standard required to rebut those claims. Right now, firefighters who are sick with cancer are struggling to access workman's comp benefits because cancer is extraordinarily difficult to attribute to one single source. So they're dying of cancer and they're stuck in a bureaucratic process. Under the current system, they're asked to prove with precision that years of toxic exposure caused their illness. That is a difficult burden and this bill recognizes that reality by requiring employers to rebut the presumption with clear and convincing medical evidence. The bill also clarifies some things about family history and... Tobacco use. I also want to address concerns that we've heard regarding the cancer trust and workman compensation offsets. The bill is not intended to impact the trust. Under existing law, specifically CRS 842-103H, Colorado already has a mechanism that offsets workman's compensation benefits with benefits an individual receives from the trust. Firefighters are not prohibited to double dip under current law, and nothing in this bill changes that. And it's important to understand that these systems are not apples to apples. Cancer trust benefits are designed to help cover out-of-pocket costs, such as deductions, prescriptions, durable medical equipment, and workman's comp are fundamentally different. They cover all medical treatment prescriptions. mileage they even cover 100 of a salary continuation in some instances they're distinct systems that serve different functions and we want to continue conversations clarifying amendments that will address concerns about how this bill is not intended to us to impact current law regarding the offset. I also want to address the issue of wildland firefighters, which we will hear about today. I believe deeply that wildland firefighters face the same cancer risks and toxic exposures that this bill addresses, and I believe that they deserve these protections. True, but as is true with many bills this year, probably bills people on this committee have run, we have to recognize the physical reality facing the state budget, expanding protections to state employed wildland firefighters this year would create a budget impact that is not likely to pass and we can do something to help the vast majority of firefighters this year i want to come back and cover the wildland firefighters i'd be happy and enthusiastic to carry that bill and i also want to be clear there's no equal protection issue here state employees are not a protected class and therefore they would be subject to rational basis review under an equal protection analysis. Budgetary constraints are more than sufficient for that distinction to be met and for that legal bar to be met. This bill says when a firefighter develops one of these devastating diseases after years of service, we should start from a place of trust and recognition of the risk they accepted on behalf of all of us.
Representative Carter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill is fundamentally about fairness, accountability, and honoring the sacrifices of our firefighters that make every single day to protect our communities. When firefighters respond to emergencies, they don't ask whether the smoke they inhale is toxic, whether the chemicals they encounter are carcinogenic, or whether the exposure they face today will impact them years down the line. they run toward the danger because the people of Colorado depend on them to do so. But long after that fire has extinguished, many firefighters continue fighting different battles, some against cancer and neurological diseases directly connected to the dangerous conditions of their work. Current Colorado law already recognizes that reality by presuming certain cancers contracted by firefighters are occupational diseases. My bill simply updates our laws to reflect modern medical understanding and the risk firefighters already face in today's world. This bill will expand the list of cancers, include certain neurological conditions and strengthen the standard proof so firefighters are not forced to wage lengthy and exhausting battles just to receive the benefits they already earned through their service I want to be clear We not trying to create any type of loophole or provide any of these individuals any type of unfair advantage The presumptions are still rebuttable. Employers and insurers will have the opportunity to present evidence. What this bill does, it says that when a firefighter spends years exposed to smokes, toxins, carcinogens, and hazardous materials in the line of duty, we should not place the burden on them to prove the obvious. Firefighters already carry the burden protecting our lives, our homes, and our community. They should not also have to carry the burden of fighting alone for basic workers' compensation protections after becoming seriously ill from the jobs we ask them to do. This bill is about keeping our promise to the men and women who put their health and safety on the line every day. It tells firefighters across Colorado that we see their sacrifice, we value their service, and we'll stand by them when the job they perform for all of us causes lasting harm. I'm asking for an aye vote on 26-184.
Members, any questions? Representative, wow, got dueling questions. We're going to start with Representative Wynn, and then we'll work down next Representative Luck and then Espinosa. Go ahead, Representative Wynn.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Bill of Sponsors, for presenting information about this bill. Do we know other states that have similar processes or procedures or laws that we're trying to implement here in Colorado? Representative Mabry.
I don't have the specific list of states. I bet one of our witnesses does, but this is a growing trend across the country to recognize this danger and to create this presumption.
Representative Locke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions. There was a reference to a comprehensive study of 30,000 firefighters. Do you guys know what the time frame of that was and whether it was national or whether it was specific to a locale?
Representative Mabry. It was national and it was within the last five to seven years. I can find you the study.
Thank you.
Representative Luck. Thank you for that. My second question. So it was noted that the state firefighters have had to come out of this because of the fiscal realities facing the state. Are you all concerned about the fiscal realities facing our local fire departments? Representative Avery.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So if it were up to me and I was on the Appropriations Committee and got to make all of these decisions, I would have kept this in and made this a priority. I think that, of course, we're concerned about fiscal constraints across the state. But I think ultimately, to me, this is one of our fundamental obligations, right? If people as part of their public service are making it this much more likely that they're going to get cancer because they're keeping us safer, then we should recognize that and not have so many of them stuck in this bureaucratic process while they're dying.
Representative Luck.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And last question, gentlemen. And so there is, as I understand it, a higher standard of burden for the employer to meet in order to not provide these benefits or services. Do you guys have any numbers as to how many more people will then be caught up in this? Or how many will be served in addition to what is currently happening Again I think a question for our witnesses but what I will say is the goal of this bill
as written by firefighters whose colleagues are going through this system, the goal of this is to make sure that there are fewer firefighters with cancer who are caught up in an unnecessary bureaucratic process.
Representative Espinoza and then Representative Bradley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a few questions. I think my good colleague from Penrose asked one in terms of the excluding of the state employees solely being based on a fiscal note. But I would tie into that. You make a claim that this is not a protected class, but that's only true under the anti-discrimination laws. Aren't state employees covered under mandatory workers' compensation? and wouldn't they have a standing to say why is the state excluding them from that benefit, which is different than protected class?
Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Rep. Espinoza, before you got here, I promised Rep. Bradley we want to turn this into the Judiciary Committee. But to answer your question, of course they have a standing, but I think that on review that this distinction would stand. The distinction between how we are dealing with state employed firefighters and local employed firefighters, it's not going to require strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny. It's still the rational basis standard test.
Representative Espinoza.
I would disagree with that, but I'll move on to my next question. Can you be more specific about how this system works with the trust? Because you've indicated there's no double dipping, and I just want to make sure I'm understanding the distinctions.
Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, again, the trust and the workman's comp benefits currently work side by side. There are currently firefighters across the state of Colorado that can benefit both from the trust and from workman's comp. and they do different things, right? The trust at the outset, if you get cancer, provides a certain amount of benefits. Upfront, you do not have to go through the same bureaucratic process that you have to go through to get workman's comp benefits. And if then later you apply for workman's comp, there's no requirement that you apply for workman's comp, but then later or concurrently you apply for workman's comp, there is an offset. The offset rules are outlined according to the law set forth in 29.5403, subsection 10. My understanding of how that works is there's a one-to-one offset, meaning the benefits you receive from workman's comp will reflect the fact that you have received some benefits from the trust. But they will not – it doesn't zero out because, again, these benefits are for different things. The workman's comp benefits are much more expansive. And we're working with stakeholders. Specifically we heard concerns about the bill striking language that makes that clarification that there no impact to the offset But what we mean by double dipping is that offset Representative Espinosa I guess I would say I prefer to have that language back in so that it is clear that this bill is not intended to make that offset.
My next question is, isn't the real problem here that not all fire districts are paying into the trust, and so therefore there's a lack of financial support to protect these firefighters in light of the trust?
Representative Mabry.
It's a completely different problem. That's also a problem that impacts our firefighters who do get in this situation. But again, because I said, as I mentioned, there are a lot of firefighters that benefit from both workman's comp and the trust. And so we did pass House Bill 24-12-19 a few years ago. That bill said employers shall participate in the trust. There are some that are not, but it can be true that in those jurisdictions, there are people that should have access to benefits in the trust, but also true at the same time that because workman's comp benefits are so much more comprehensive and necessary, particularly if you get very sick, that we want you to be facing less bureaucracy. Both of those things can be true at the same time.
Representative Espinoza.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I can appreciate that, but I'm trying to look at the fiscal allocation of situations and what's causing the larger problem to get to that result for our firefighters. Is it the lack of funding of the trust, or is it because the trust covers different things, is that what's causing the difficulties for the firefighters and why they've come and asked for additional protections and worker compensation? or is it because people aren't paying, they're supposed to under the required trust and there's not money there? I'm just trying to see what the fiscal shifting is happening between these two
entities so that I can be very clear about what we're doing in this bill. Representative Mabry.
If that was the problem that firefighters wanted to address, that's the bill they would have ran. They're related, but not the same problems. There are similar problems. There are problems in terms of lack of ability to access benefits that firefighters should be entitled to, but they're different benefits.
Representative Bradley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. First, easy question. I thought you said that this bill did not touch the trust, but it seems like Section 3 is about the trust. Am I reading that wrong?
Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So as I mentioned in my opening testimony, we're in conversations with the drafter and stakeholders on clarifying language to make sure that there's not unintended consequences. That is feedback that we've gotten from stakeholders. I sat with my drafter, with our drafter for probably 30 minutes today going over potential options for language to clarify. We intend to bring an amendment to clarify that we're not impacting how the trust currently works.
Representative Bradley. Thank you Madam Chair and I got a letter from Larkspur which is interesting because I don't get a lot of letters from the fire district from Larkspur so I wanted to see if you could answer just a couple of quick questions. They're obviously opposed the the fire chief is opposed he says the current trust model ensures that diagnosed firefighters receive payments within 10 days shifting to a workers compensation framework introduces a cumbersome lengthy process that forces members to navigate a claim system during their most vulnerable moments. I'll tell you as a practitioner of six years, the most aggravated my patients become are through a work comp system. They're denied claims. They don't get the medical treatment that they deserve, that they need. I often have to tell them to get a lawyer. It's a very frustrating process for me as a health care practitioner. It's a very frustrating process for my patients. So I was just wondering, you say that the trust fund is upfront benefits. Do those benefits then run out? Is this a system that is flawed? Are they getting up front cost benefits and then it just stops? Kind of walk me through that.
Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The trust and workman's comp are not meant to replace each other. You're supposed to be able to benefit from both, and so there's no intent to replace the trust with workman's comp.
Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. But if one starts with receiving payments within 10 days and ensures a lack of a cumbersome, lengthy process, is there a need for the second?
Representative Mabry.
Well, so our firefighters are going to be here to talk about this and how this actually impacts them. I've learned about this issue within the last month. But what I will say is, again, you can benefit from both. And so the trust coverage isn't as expansive. And so the trust is great. And it doesn't have that incredibly cumbersome process on the back end. I think part of the reason why is the benefits from it are smaller and less comprehensive. but you should ask when our support witnesses come up, ask them what they see on the ground.
Last question, Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. But you can see where the representative next to me, where the double dipping might come from because if the trust does pay for out-of-pocket benefits, workers' comp could also pay for out-of-pocket benefits as well. So I've had patients come to me that might be out-of-network for my practice, and then the trust could pay for those as well. So there would be an ability for fraud to be ripe within a system that could cause double dipping.
Before I call on you, Representative Carter, Representative Ricks, I do want you to know I see your hand up. You will be called on next. Go ahead, Representative Carter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep. Bradley. My understanding is the trust is more of that beginning immediate need because of the way the trust is set up. You are allowed to get benefits on a faster basis than with the workers comp. But we also have experts here who are going to explain that specific process. But my understanding of the trust is it allows you to start claiming those benefits earlier than you would have to go through the cumbersome workers' comp process.
Representative Ricks.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I have a couple questions. My first question is, what is going to happen to claims that are filed before the effective date? The bill applies only the claims that are filed on or after the effective date anticipated August 12, 2026.
Will that leave firefighters with pending or recently denied claims without recourse under this new stronger standard Who would like to answer Representative Mabry Thank you Madam Chair They would be subject to the older standard and that why we running this bill As with every bill we run, current law isn't great in a lot of places, and after we make the change, it's better for workers, better for renters, depending on the context. But yeah, you would be subject to the lower standard. And I'm not sure on the second part of the question about if they can reapply.
Ask one of our witnesses that. Representative Ricks, did you have a second question?
I did. Thank you, Madam Chair. And how will clear and convincing be defined in practice? The bill doesn't define this evidentiary standard in its own text. Will there be regulatory guidance to ensure consistent application across the workers' com proceedings?
Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. RepRix, clear and convincing evidence is a very standard legal term. We have a sliding scale of evidentiary standards in the law, preponderance of the evidence being a lower one, which typically means more likely than not. so lawyers who work with the clear and convincing evidence lawyers understand what clear and convincing evidence means because it is applications in criminal law and civil law across the board but it's a typical legal standard.
Representative Ricks, did you have another question?
No, that's it. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much.
We're going to go to Representative DeGraff.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm curious how this came about. You said in the last month, because I'm a little curious on here because you have some chiefs and fire associations that are opposing, some amending, some. And then because, you know, when we take out the state cost, you know, to drive the state firefighters, and that drives the fiscal note down to zero, I do agree. I mean, we have an obligation, but, I mean, we're not really seeing what the overall cost and what the impact is on the state at some point, you know, that is relevant. And I'm also concerned with if how would without violating HIPAA standards, how would somebody given a presumptive with the presumption of medical evidence that something like smoking or tobacco use, tobacco use, genetics, health failure for, you know, annual health screening family history. How would, without violating HIPAA, how would they disprove, go about providing the clear and convincing evidence that the cancer was not? It seems like that would be a violation in and of itself.
Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, HIPAA is a protection that applies to the patient. And if the patient is trying to get a benefit, if somebody needs information that's covered by HIPAA, they have the right to waive their HIPAA rights in pursuing more benefits. That already is how the system works, regardless of the evidentiary standard shift.
Do you have any further questions, Rapportograph?
Yep. Well, think about that. but then just how this came about because I a little confused with some I would think some fire chiefs approve up in favor some opposing and opposing and why the difference between the two groups
Representative Mabry.
So, Reptograph, this system already exists, right? We are just changing the presumption to make it more likely that firefighters will get their benefits. Firefighters with cancer who are stuck in a bureaucratic process. And there will be firefighters here today to talk about why they're bringing the bill forward.
All right. I'm not seeing Reptograph's hand flying up, so we're going to move on to Vice Chair Clifford.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As we've talked about out of committee, I've got some concerns about this, because this is one of the first bills that I looked at when I first came into the General Assembly, was that 24-12-19. And we've had a lot of conversations about the trust and how really kind of phenomenally the system has been set up in Colorado for this thing. I know that I've worked with our fire protection district, South Metro Fire Protection District, to deal with other ancillary matters like their cardiac screenings, etc. And we've had a lot of dialogue specifically about this trust. So I've kind of always been of the mindset to protect it and wondered why some agencies aren't participating in a particular way. And I do have concerns that the measures in this bill will cause damage to the trust or cause the departments that are currently paying a set rate are going to have increases, et cetera, because of the participation and some of the changes in workman's comp. Can you just kind of tell me, and I know that this is a little bit of a national push on the workman's comp side, but if our system is already different than kind of the national state, why are we not trying to enhance what we're doing really well instead of going back to the workman's comp model?
Representative Mabry.
Well, so it's working well according to the employer. The employees are here saying that system is not working well and serving them. That is who the firefighters are. We're here on behalf of the employees, the people who are trying to get the benefits, and they're saying it's not working for them.
That's why this bill exists in the first place. And the other thing I'd say, you know, said this in response to three questions now, the trust and the workman's comp are different things, and they do not replace each other. There's no one-to-one. Now, there is an offset if you later get workman's comp benefits, but like Rep Carter said, getting the benefits from the trust is easier, quicker. You can do it right at the offset of getting your diagnosis, but later on, workman's comp takes longer. You need to cover expenses right up front. And there is an offset in the workman's comp statute to recognize benefits you've received, but it doesn't cancel out everything that will then come. You still get benefits, even with the offset. And again, we want to bring an amendment on second to clarify that this isn't impacting the way that that offset currently works. Vice Chair Clifford.
I appreciate an amendment that's coming that might clarify this, but will this not cause those that are not participating? I mean we've been trying to, we put shall language in if you will in 24 that said that they must participate and I know that some agencies are still not participating and that been some consternation across the board about the health of the trust because of that But I think that when you look at what the contributions are going in, when we start messing around with this, do you not think that the contributions are going to have to go up for those people that are already participating in the trust?
Representative Carter.
As Representative Mayberry indicated prior, we are not, we are not, this bill is not about those who are not participating in the trust. And believe me, we've had conversations about those who are not participating in the trust. One of my, my city is one of the places that's not participating. This is about our firefighters having access to that trust regardless. And so if you want to have a conversation about those who are not participating in the trust, we can do that on another bill. But this bill is specifically about our firefighters or the firefighters getting access to that trust, changing the level of accountability on the specific cancers and the presumptions. But we're not talking about those who are not participating in the trust at this time.
Vice Chair Clifford.
I do appreciate that. And trust, I am working through this. As we as we talk about this, the. While it may not be a dialogue about the trust, I get that the trust got created. Because literally just a few years ago, the firefighters came to us and said workman's comp wasn't working. And that it was slow and problematic and they were completely dissatisfied with how that was working. and now it seems like we're going backwards. And I can also get the argument, well, it hasn't been working. But I kind of am in the mindset of, well, why are we not fixing our new system that should be working better for them rather than going back to the system that they came and we created a whole system to fix the problems with to begin with?
Representative Mabry.
I don't think that the intent was ever to replace Workman's Comp with the trust. And you should talk to firefighters about that. I don't think they've ever been here and said, well, now we got the trust. Let's get rid of Workman's Comp benefits because Workman's Comp covers more things than the trust. and so I think you should talk to the firefighters who come here today about their experience with how these benefits overlapped and relate to each other. Thank you. Representative DeGraff, last
question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, so I think I have that the trust and you're just envisioning
like the Venn diagram where you have the trust on one side, you have this you have the workman's comp on the other and you have an overlap and you're not in that there's an area where both might cover the same thing but you're only allowed to get it from one maybe that's not the most accurate now when we talked about removing because ultimately it's it's getting into the definitions and how workman's comps works out um so if less than my understanding is less than 200 firefighters for the state would have cost a couple million to four million. And then that there's 12,000 and so well, I mean, you would like to cover the state firefighters and everybody would like to cover all the firefighters. I mean, how do we work this into a balance? Yeah. I mean, what was the cost? What is the anticipated cost of changing the nature of the workman's comp benefits for those $12,000? Because I guess we could base that on what it was for the state ones that are less than $200. I don't know if it projects linearly or not.
Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I don't know if I would necessarily concede the point with the department that it would have cost the state $2 million. I think that was their estimate as they were coming up with information to give to the fiscal analyst and how we do our process. But the other thing that I would say is the reason why we will acknowledge that often this is expensive is because the cost of health care coverage when you get cancer in this country is criminally expensive. And that is why we're having this conversation in terms of high dollar amounts. I got emails about this bill saying, oh, we're worried about this sort of financial impact. Let's be honest about what they mean about financial impact. What they mean about financial impact is there will be more firefighters dying of cancer who get benefits.
Last question for real this time, Representative Graff.
I don't think anybody wants. I'm just asking what is the fiscal impact? It's just a matter of we have limited resources. I can definitely think of a few places that I would prioritize firefighter health care and health care in general over some of the other programs. So it's not a matter of wanting anything to happen to firefighters. It's just a matter of wanting to know what the fiscal impact is.
Representative Mabry.
The fiscal impact will depend on the number of firefighters dying with cancer that get increased benefits, and that's something that's impossible to predict.
All right. Thank you all so much for your questions. We are going to move into witness testimony. We will call up the opposition first, then we'll hear from amend, and then the supporters. Everybody will receive two minutes to testify, and I will be strict with that. Let's call up Paula Lauder, Megan Wagner, Elizabeth Haskell, Jeff Reister, Mark Novak, and Ann Terry. Welcome, Ms. Haskell. Let's start with you.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Elizabeth Haskell with the Colorado Municipal League, representing 271 cities and towns in Colorado. Colorado CML opposes Senate Bill 184. This bill represents a massive unilateral rewrite of current law developed with very little meaningful input or problem solving with municipal or fire district employers. The existing workers' comp law relating to firefighters seemed to work. We hadn't heard otherwise until last Thursday. CML has two concerns to highlight, the expansion of the current presumption and the repeal of the provision allowing employers in the firefighter cancer benefits program to be excluded from that presumption. Current law presumes that covered cancers are occupational diseases, meaning employers must prove that cancer is not work related No other profession has this benefit under workers comp The rebuttal standard preponderance of evidence is workable and reasonable It protects firefighters while preserving basic fairness Senate Bill 184 gets that framework by raising the standard to clear and convincing medical evidence, and then makes that even impossible to meet. When the original presumption passed in 2007, preponderance won out, precisely because it was a reasonable standard. The fiscal impact is significant also in this bill. The state projected $2 million in costs next year and $4 million the year after, just for 163 firefighters, before they were removed from the bill. There are 12,000 firefighters statewide. Using that same math, we're talking potentially hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars over two years, with no meaningful discussion on affordability for this bill. Most local governments' budgets are no better off than the state's. it is not fair to exempt yourselves by placing a massive burden on every other government and their taxpayers. Finally, repealing the cancer trust exception is deeply troubling. Municipalities that invested in that program as a physically responsible alternative will now face both obligations simultaneously, eliminating the program's entire value. We strongly urge this exception for the trust.
Thank you very much, Ms. Haskell.
Thank you.
Welcome, Ms. Wagner.
Please introduce yourself.
The floor is yours for two minutes.
Good afternoon, Chair Wilford and members of the State Affairs Committee. My name is Megan Wagner, and I'm testifying on behalf of the Special District Association and are more than 2,800 members. I'm testifying in opposition to Senate Bill 184. No one here disputes the firefighters are at the risk of getting cancer. That is why SDA, along with professional firefighters and the fire chiefs and CML, created the Cancer Trust. And that was an important piece of legislation that has been working. The trust is working, and everyone here, I think, can agree to that, including there was testimony in the Senate Business and Labor Committee that the trust was working. Where our concerns lie is Senate Bill 184, as you have heard, was introduced, I think, last week with two stakeholder meetings and very little discussions. We have worked really well as partners with the professional firefighters and the fire chiefs and CML on finding solutions. And the solution was creating the cancer trust so someone doesn't have to sit and wait to have access to benefits. Even if you change the workers' comp presumption, they will still have to wait for those benefits. They don't in the cancer trust. So I'm not sure why we created a whole system to make sure people have access to benefits quicker. And now we've decided we're going to go back to workers' comp with even the increased presumption. They will still wait for cancer treatment and benefits. And that's not the whole point of creating the cancer trust or the purpose of us all working together to find a solution that works for all parties. So I respectfully request you vote no on the bill. I 100% understand a no vote is concerning, but what I would say is a no vote is understanding the importance of that all firefighters, if this is so important, should have access to this presumption. And right now, it's only certain firefighters that have access to it. So thank you for your time today.
Thank you very much. Welcome. Please introduce yourself and the floor is yours.
Good afternoon, Chair Wilford and members of the committee. I'm Paula Lauder, the Claims Advocacy Manager, representing the Special Districts Association of Colorado, the Colorado Firefighters Cancer Trust, and the Colorado Employers Advocacy Association. We strongly oppose Senate Bill 184 The Cancer Trust has successfully operated for nearly nine years covering the five system cancers under the current 2007 Work Comp firefighter presumption statute and has expanded to include breast, thyroid, and lung cancers based on credible scientific data. We have accepted 99% of claims without any invasive investigation, paying within 10 days of receiving completed forms and medical reports. If a firefighter dies from recovered cancer, it's considered a line of duty death. Per House Bill 24-12-19, all firefighters shall participate in the cancer trust, currently funded by the state through DOLA. Since not all agencies participate, pressure should be put on them to join rather than changing legislation. Senate Bill 184 creates an unmanned mandate for local governments with already limited resources. amendments exempting certain groups create unfair disparencies and fire benefits the cancer trust has helped fire agencies reduce their work comp costs by removing cancer claims from the work comp system since inception labor representatives have served as officers in the trust creating a collaborative process including labor management and trustees to add cancers appropriately we need the opportunity to review new data and adjust the program accordingly any changes should be followed in this established process to ensure continued success fiscal responsibility which is why stakeholder meetings should have occurred prior to the bill being introduced we ask for a no vote due to the inconsistencies it causes with the cancer trust thank you for your time thank you
very much welcome mr reester the floor is yours for two minutes thank you madam chair members of
the committee my name is jeffrey reester i'm here on behalf of the department of law to speak in opposition to this bill. First, I want to be clear that we agree that firefighters have dangerous jobs and face serious health impacts because of it. That cannot be disputed. However, our office has serious concerns with this bill as it creates unfair and unreasonable distinctions between firefighters who perform similar jobs with the same risk. That means state employees versus non-state employees. This creates an equal protection concern. It's not our only concern, but it is the most glaring. We look at case law to see how the courts may view this. In Pepper v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, the Corps of Appeals could not conceive of a valid reason for allowing police volunteers to be accepted from workers' compensation coverage while mandating that all other volunteers who similarly serve in a vital function and are subject to similar risks and perils be covered. Under PEPBURG is a rational basis test because the receipt of workers' compensation benefit is not a fundamental right. It is not because they are not a protected class. The courts have recognized that reducing costs may be a legitimate interest, but the They have also concluded in PEPPER that statute was not, that statute was not rationally related to achieving that purpose because it provides coverage for some volunteers but not others who are similarly situated. We agree with that decision and cannot find a valid reason why a wildland firefighter or state employee would be excluded when they face similar risks and perils as other firefighters. The courts have also found generally that financial administrative burdens are not enough to justify ignoring the Constitution. We ignore you to vote, we urge you to vote no on Senate Bill 184 or risk-expensive litigation that will end up ultimately this law being found unconstitutional and not providing the value that the proponents claim. Thank you and happy to answer
any questions. Thank you very much. Let's go online to Mark Novak. Please come off mute and
the floor is yours for two minutes. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for your time today. My name is Mark Novak. I'm the fire chief in Vail. I'm testifying today on behalf of the Colorado State Fire Chiefs in opposition to SB 184 I been in the fire service for 42 years I known many colleagues who have had cancer including several who have died from their cancer I do not take the threat of cancer lately We know that fighting a workers' comp claim is stressful. We also know that stress is bad for the immune system, and we know that a healthy immune system is essential when fighting cancer. The Cancer Trust is a model program which removes the uncertainty in filing a claim, allowing the firefighter to focus on their well-being and fighting the cancer. SB 184 would undermine the highly effective cancer trust model. The Firefighter Trust recently conducted a study of firefighters who have filed a claim with the trust. The respondents were overwhelmingly happy with the trust and they were thankful for the benefits they received. Within my own organization, our firefighters have expressed gratitude for being members of the Colorado Firefighter Trust. As firefighters, we know that our understanding of cancer and the relationship to our profession is evolving. Since its inception, the trust has been open to new science and has accepted several new types of cancer as covered conditions. If there is a need to modify the coverage of the trust or the approach to coverage, I would respectfully request that the bill sponsor engage in dialogue with stakeholders to ensure that we provide the best possible system for our firefighters without negatively impacting the highly effective Colorado Firefighter Cancer Trust. For this reason, I urge you to vote no on SB 184. Thank you.
Thank you very much, members. This is our panel. Do you have any questions for them? Representative Luck and then, or I'm sorry, Representative Bradley.
We'll start with you. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the claims advocacy, Paula, I didn't get your last name. I'm so sorry. Can you walk me through the trust provides immediate benefits, but we're hearing that maybe they don't provide all the benefits. Is the trust not providing all the benefits that the firefighters need? Because I want to know that they're getting what they need. And it sounds like you've expanded it to breast and thyroid, I heard you say. So what is the problem?
Who were you directing that at?
Ms. Paula.
I didn't get her last name.
Okay.
Ms. Louder.
Sorry.
Thank you.
Yes, so the trust program currently covers the five system cancers that's under the 2007 work comp presumption, along with they added breast, thyroid, and lung over the past few years. What was the other part of your question?
I'm sorry.
Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Is there a problem with the trust fund? Are we dropping firefighters before they get the treatment they need? Is there a need to go through the work comp system? Walk me through the problem with the trust fund because it sounds like you're adding more to what you're covering.
Ms. Louder.
Thank you. We're not aware that there's a problem with firefighters getting benefits under the trust fund. When a firefighter files under the cancer trust fund, they go through their personal health insurance, which is actually a win for them because under work comp they have to go through a designated provider. and so this allows them to treat directly with whatever physician they want to do. We ask no questions. We pay a cash award. That cash award is based on their type of cancer that's covered under the trust and the stage of cancer, and that is applied to an award table that we have in our trust coverage document. And that includes when the trust was put together, studies were done to determine what type of lost time would an individual have for a certain type of cancer, what type of impairment might be possible under work comp? What would the medical co-pays out-of-pocket be for these individuals? Because their health insurance is paying for the treatment, but not co-pays out-of-pocket costs. So all those cash awards that's currently in our program is based on that information. So those awards are paid once the form and the medical record is provided. Those benefits begin within in 10 days based on the award that is in our chart showing what stage and type of cancer.
Representative DeGraff.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And Ms. Lowry, again, on the types of cancer, would the proper procedure be to present the evidence and then to have these added? Are these cancers that are being considered? or I'm a little concerned about the legislation weighing in on medical advice. Is this something that they're considering or how does that work?
Ms. Louder.
Oh, sorry. The trust is open to having conversations on adding the type of cancers that are in the proposed bill that are writing are not in the trust document. But we would need to do research. we would need to have actuarialists study the cost, and then we could come back to our trustees to determine if that's a cost they want to approve by adding those additional cancers. But it's a conversation we are definitely open to. We added breast in 2021. We added thyroid in 22 and lung in 24 based on those conversations, based on firefighters coming to the trust saying, my cancer is not covered, but I want it to be covered in the future. Our board of trustees listened. We did the research and came up with the dollar amount, and they approved adding those three additional cancers.
Representative Espinoza.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you describe, in light of what you've just described, how would there not be double dipping or what happens to the cost of care? Because my understanding with workers' comp is you have designated doctors. So if someone gets treatment under the trust and then moves to the worker comp situation, how is that handled? Or have you been seeing that now? Or does the trust replace workers' compensation under our existing system?
Ms. Louder.
Thank you. Under the current trust program, I would say majority of the claims stay within the trust. Firefighters can still file a work comp claim, but it's no longer the presumptive 2007 statute. so it does become their burden to prove that their occupational cancer is from their work exposures but i have to say i also work on the colorado special district's property and liability pool which is a work comp pool and we have many fire protection districts within that pool and those firefighters don't file that work comp claim because they're satisfied with the amount of the award that they're getting it makes them whole it covers all their expenses and plus some We've actually had some come back to our claims administrator to say, you paid me too much. But we say, no, that's the award based on our coverage document. The award is yours to use.
Representative Espinoza, I have three other people that want to ask a question.
Can I just one follow-up?
Sure, one follow-up.
I guess the question though is if they choose the trust how do we keep the double question from the last time I just trying to understand how that works today Ms Louder So under the current coverage document and statute if a trust claim is paid first and then that individual does go and ends up having an accepted work comp claim and if there's any indemnity benefits, which is last time wages impairment rating, then that adjuster would take that offset that their trust already paid so they don't get it twice. Vice versa. If for any reason the firefighter wasn't aware of the cancer trust and they went through work comp and it was awarded benefits first and then realized if the trust was there with their covered diagnosis, then the trust would take any offset work comp had already paid. That way there's no double dipping, but they're still whole.
Representative Luck.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I see five issues that you all have raised. You have equal protection. We have the trust workers' comp changes. We have new cancers being added. We have a higher burden to be met. And there's also just the knowledge of not knowing that these were issues up until like a week ago and not being able to really look into this matter. Of those five, how would, like, especially because I think, Ms. Reister, you're really focused in on the equal protection, but if you have others, that's great. But for you three who are representing the districts more broadly, how would you rank those five in terms of severity, what you're most concerned about to least concerned about?
I'm sorry, who was that for? Okay. Who would like to take it? Ms. Louder.
Our biggest concern is the increased cost in workers' compensation with the proposed bill. 55 fire districts that had filed trust claims, if they had filed those under workers' compensation, it was estimated that $16 million would have been paid under workers' compensation. Instead, those fire districts only had to pay the membership into the trust. The trust pays those claims out of our finances, out of our reserves. So right there, fire districts, municipalities, they already have a tight budget. So if their work costs are going to go up, that's the biggest concern. policy to buy a work comp policy is projected to go up like it did after passing of 2007 for self-insured employers they buy excess work comp coverage to have an excess carrier to be available once they hit their self-insured retention those self-insured retentions at one point reached $2 million for just the class code firefighters. The trust takes that all out of work comp, and now those same excess carriers, work comp carriers, they give discounts for those fire districts to be part of the trust.
Okay, we're going to move on to Representative Wynn.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is to also Mrs. Launder as well, just because we're on the topic of the trust. Who is enrolled in the trust, and do you have any numbers of how many folks have been processed or obtained these benefits since the founding of the trust Ms Louder No I do not know the membership numbers I do believe off the top of my head there are at least 130 fire districts
municipalities, the state that are part of the trust, and I want to say covering at least 6,000 full-time firefighters, 800 maybe part-time firefighters and 84 volunteers and that's just off of the top of my head I don't
have that information exactly. Vice Chair Clifford. Thank you Madam Chair.
I am on the dais currently trying to look back at the testimony from 2017. Can you describe what life was like a little bit before the trust. Are you familiar, Ms. Louder? Ms. Louder. Yes, I am. At that time, I was a work comp supervisor for a third-party administrator,
and we were putting tentative notice of contest filings on those claims, which is ultimately a
denial under the Division of Work Comp I's, because as an adjuster, you have 20 days to admit or deny on a claim and you don't have enough time to really gather all the the information that you need to accept a claim so to preserve the rights a tentative notice a contest does go out and so those were going out before the trust years of litigation firefighters you know on their worst day fighting cancer they were having to also get a work comp attorney file for hearings, you know, go to independent medical evaluations to fight for those benefits under work comp. The trust takes that all away. The cash rewards, the firefighters get 100% of that money. They don't have to share it with anybody else because the process is so simple and easy for them on their worst day fighting cancer.
Thanks, Chair Clifford.
Thank you. Just reading back on some of that, I mean, some of the same people that are advocating for this bill today, their own testimony was the system was described as cumbersome and where claims were often bottled up in litigation. But one of the things that I'm noting from that 2017 testimony was the more that we had workman's comp claims, it seemed that the rates for workman's comp went up substantially. Can you tell me what you think will happen given if this bill passes, that we've been handling a lot of these expenses in the trust, what that will look like for workman's comp? Whoever wants to answer that, I know that Ms. Louder is getting a lot of work up here.
Ms. Louder.
Yes, I expect the same thing will happen, that increased costs for work comp policies will go up. It'll be where fire districts, municipalities, they won't be able to join the trust because it's potential that the trust could go away. And so if a district is fighting to pay a higher premium for work comp because work comp is mandatory, they're not going to have the funding to also join the trust. so it highly likely over the next few years even sooner depending on their reaction if this bill does pass that the membership of the cancer trust could go away Vice Chair Clifford last question Thank you I mean speaking of mandatory we made this a shout
Can you tell me why you think some agencies are not participating in the trust? Ms. Louder.
Thank you.
We don't understand that ourselves as the trust administrator. We have sent out communication providing that information. it is an easy process to join the membership. For example, our underwriting team will send out a roster explaining how to fill it out. The roster needs the firefighter's name, date of hire, years of service at that department,
years of service at any other department to see if they meet the eligibility. And then from there, they're provided the trust agreement for which, if you're a fire protection district, that goes to your board to approve. If you're a city, it goes to your city council to approve. Once all those documents are completed and actually before the approval of the agreement, our team can provide them with a quote of what will the cost be. Currently, to join the trust for full-time firefighters, and we'll just go with non-members of our work comp pool, it is $385 for full-time. Part-time and volunteers is $134. And again, that is provided, they can get reimbursed under House Bill 24-12-19 through DOLA once they pay that invoice. All right. Thank you all so much for your time and your testimony. We're going to call up the next panel Ken Watkins Ryan Talmadge Bryson Garrison Alec Alan Kaha and Jenna Kitchell and all of these folks are remote Yeah, I think so. Okay, let's start with Ken Watkins. Good afternoon, Madam Chair Wilford and members of the committee. My name is Ken Watkins, and I serve as the Executive Director of the Colorado State Fire Chiefs, representing the leaders and the members of over 300 fire departments across the state that provide nearly 12,000 firefighters to safeguard our residents, visitors, infrastructure, and economy. The state fire chiefs have collaborated extensively with Colorado professional firefighters on a variety of matters, and history demonstrates that our joint efforts have produced significant benefits for our members, our communities, and our state. Presumptive cancer laws have provided support to firefighters facing medical and financial burden of cancer diagnosis. But in Colorado, with your assistance, we established the Colorado Firefighter Heart, Cancer, and Behavioral Health Benefits Trust, which is unique to our state. The trust has served as a model by delivering reliable and affordable benefits and simplifying the process that at times was adversarial workers' comp process. Since its inception, the trust, as you've heard, has approved 99% of cancer claims. We believe the proposed bill risks undermining the trust structure, as you've heard. We also acknowledge that not every department is participating in the trust as mandated by law, and we are committed to enhancing education and outreach to promote the inclusion of all agencies. We also are concerned with the Senate Amendment that excluded state-employed firefighters, as it would result in varying levels of benefits across the groups. And lastly, these issues are not... complicated systems involving numerous stakeholders, which could lead to unintended consequences. Given the complexity, it is not feasible to resolve these matters during the last few weeks of the session. I believe our relationship with CPFF remains strong, and we welcome the opportunity to collaborate directly to address these issues. Our chiefs share the CPFF's commitment to the well-being of firefighters and the aim to ensure access to necessary benefits for those impacted with cancer. With cooperation and sufficient time for joint problem solving, we could further enhance our existing support system for our firefighters. Thank you so much for your testimony, sir. Your time has expired. Let's move on to Ryan Talmadge. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, committee members. I'm Ryan Talmadge, the Risk Manager with the City of Colorado Springs, and I am testifying in opposition to SB 26184. not because the city doesn't support providing more coverage and care for our firefighters, but because it invalidates the Firefighter Cancer Trust and adds neurological conditions that are tenuously tied to firefighting at best. The bill states that it is necessary to ensure fair evaluation, administration, and payment of cancer claims while strengthening the firefighters' ability to defend their claims. This is the same reasoning that was used to establish the Cancer Trust Fund. By removing Section 3, CRS 295405 from the Work Comp statute, this bill appears to relieve the trust from covering the added cancer, mesothelioma, and the neurological conditions. It may even relieve them from covering cancers that it has already accepted, which are thyroid and breast. Since the trust was established to streamline and improve the claims process for firefighters, it should be maintained for that purpose because adjusting claims under workers' compensation, I know from firsthand experience, is slow and very cumbersome. The trust allows firefighters to choose their own care. The workers' compensation system allows employers to challenge care and direct care. Firefighters are going to lose if this bill passes. Please know that the city has recognized mesothelioma as a cancer that is covered under workers' compensation. The city joins the Colorado fire chiefs in questioning the inclusion of neurological conditions at this time. We care about and for our firefighters, but this bill will only slow the process and negatively impact our firefighters. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, Brian Grayson, or Bryson Grayson. Garrison. Wow. really nailing it today sorry about that that's okay hi everybody i'm bryson garrison uh fire chief in brighton colorado as well as the treasurer for the connor state fire chiefs thanks for uh getting let me have the chance to testify today um i am driving so i apologize i left all my notes behind so you're just going to hear just a little bit of what i think is most important which is we work very collaboratively with the cpff and we really haven't had a chance to come together and i think we're thinking really fast about something that we need to think slow about. And I'd ask everybody to slow us, slow this down and let us come back together to work collaboratively to find a way forward. The trust is an amazing tool that was built. It serves firefighters very well. And I know that there are some folks that are not part of the trust. I think that might be where this stems from. Workers' comp is also a good tool. It does require you to prove the cancer. On the other side of that, if we make everything presumptive, the inquiries into people's individual lives about what they were doing to try and disprove it, I also think becomes very onerous and too intrusive into our firefighters' world. A couple quick things This is a bill that would cover me as well It would cover my family members that are also in the fire service And I share with you I have a love for firefighters and I would love to continue to protect them better This might just be the wrong tool to do that with And I think finding ways to increase our coverage through the trust, which has been very collaborative over the years, is the right way to go. And I think someone had asked, is there something like the trust anywhere else? And I really haven't found it in any other state. And I get the chance to travel and teach in a bunch of different states. And we are very, very fortunate to have that. So my recommendation would be to oppose this. Let us work together with the trust to find new ways to cover our firefighters. And let's do it in a way that doesn't exclude our state employees, which are very, very much important. We don't leave anybody behind in the fire service. And doing this this way leaves people behind that are very important to the partnership and collaboration of how we move forward in fighting fires in Colorado. That's all I have to say. Thank you, everybody, for your time. Thank you very much. Next up. Alenka Hahn. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Alenka Hahn. I'm Assistant General Counsel at Pinnacle Assurance. Pinnacle is currently in an amend position on Senate Bill 184. While we fully support our brave firefighting community, this bill creates significant fiscal risks for employers and the workers' compensation system. To put this bill in perspective, it expands from five forms of cancer under the current law to 28, plus adds neurological diseases and moves away from acute occupational illnesses towards lifelong degenerative care for conditions often caused by factors entirely unrelated to firefighting. firefighting. It then removes the use of an exam for pre-existing conditions. It incorporates a new, much higher evidentiary standard and burden of proof that is nearly impossible to defend, and places new restrictions on the use of evidence, such as smoking patterns or family history. Finally, the bill clearly erodes the cancer trust, if not eliminating it entirely. Currently, fire departments generally fund this specialized coverage through either the Cancer Trust or through workers' compensation, but our premiums today do not reflect coverage for both because a condition is not presumed to be work-related if the firefighter's employer elects to join the Cancer Trust. This will certainly change over time, as there will be no practical use for the trust if the presumption applies whether or not a district is a member of the trust. This bill was introduced late last week and moved very quickly. We've been working with the sponsors and proponents and thanked them for working on common sense amendments to ensure quality benefits, without burdening small districts around the state that can be the community's only emergency response resource. Thank you for the opportunity to address you, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your testimony. Last up, Jenna Kitchell. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jenna Kitchell. I'm the Chief Administrative Officer at the Division of Fire Prevention and Control. We're located within the Colorado Department of Public Safety. Director Mike Morgan is unavailable today due to a family emergency, but I am testifying today in an amend position, respectfully asking you to include all of the state firefighters in Senate Bill 184 The Division of Fire Prevention and Control is much more than just a wildland firefighting agency We provide all of the structural firefighter training and certifications as well as all hazards response in the communities where we embedded We are also the state's lead fire agency on fire and arson investigation, which exposes our investigators to the same carcinogens as local firefighters. We feel it's inappropriate to treat firefighters differently based on the agency they're housed within. Fire doesn't care about boundaries or jurisdictions. The carcinogens are still present in vegetation smoke, and all firefighters are exposed to those carcinogens during urban congregations, regardless of the agency where they work. There should not be a carve-out for state firefighters. They should be equally covered and protected. For those reasons, please consider amending to include state firefighters. Thank you. Thank you very much. Members, this is your panel. What questions do you have? All right, I'm not seeing any. Thanks for being here. Representative Espinosa. I just had one quick question, And that is, in terms of the state employees, would they still be members? Are they members of the trust? And would they have coverage if they're not covered by this bill? Can you tell me who you were directing your question to? I think maybe the person from the department. Ms. Kitchell? Yes, might be able to answer that question. Okay. Ms. Kitchell? we are and i think that one would be most appropriate for the trust to be able to speak to as well if you have more additional questions behind it okay i'm not seeing any other questions thank you all so much for your time and your testimony we're going to move on to our final panel this will be entirely of folks that do support the policy we'll call mr mac babcock kenny task Kevin Reichenbach, Kirsten Forseth, Jesse Reisman, Dr. Dan Wu, and David Seligman. Yep, we've got plenty of chairs. Thank you so much. Mr. Babcock, would you like to begin? Good afternoon, Madam Chair. members of the committee. My name is Mac Babcock and I am a practicing workers' compensation attorney. I represent injured workers in the families of deceased workers. I have done so for 24 years. I am here on behalf of the Workers' Compensation Education Association, more affectionately referred to as WCEA. I've been past president of the organization. In 2007, Colorado passed the Colorado Workers' Compensation Firefighter Cancer Presumption in response to the growing recognition both in Colorado and nationwide that cancer is often a line of due disease for firefighters. Decades of medical research had shown that firefighters are exposed to dangerous carcinogens that significantly increase the risk of developing cancer. The intent of the 2007 law was to ensure the quick and efficient payment of workers' compensation benefits to firefighters diagnosed with cancer while avoiding the delays litigation and administrative hurdles often associated with the workers compensation system Cancer for firefighters has always been a work condition but prior to 2007 proving so often took extended litigation which meant delays and expense that a firefighter with cancer could not afford. The intent of the presumption was to reduce claims, denials, and litigation. Unfortunately, the response by insurance carriers to the 2007 law was the exact opposite. There was significant litigation over the presumption. The bill you are considering today has the same intent of the presumption passed in 2007. Reduce claim denials and litigation. It does three things. It expands the list of recognized cancers. It makes clear that retired firefighters are entitled to protection should they be diagnosed after retirement. And it strengthens the presumption going back to the original intent in 2007. Reduce unnecessary claims denials and litigation. I ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much. Welcome. Please introduce yourself on the floor. It's yours. I was going to say good afternoon, but probably good evening now. Kenny Tasker with Colorado Professional Firefighters. Madam Chair and members of the committee, my name is Kenny Tasker, and I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Professional Firefighters to strengthen the cancer protections for firefighters. Every time firefighters respond to a call, they're exposed to a toxic cocktail of carcinogens, burning plastics, chemicals, heavy metals, and smoke that we note is cancer-causing. In fact, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified the occupation of firefighters as a group on carcinogen, the same category as asbestos and tobacco. This is not theoretical. Cancer is now the leading cause of death among firefighters. It's the greatest threat to the men and women who protect our communities. This bill recognizes that reality. It broadens the range of covered conditions, including cancers. such as those affecting an increasing number of female firefighters as well as neurological diseases. It strengthens the presumption so that firefighters don't have to fight a second battle, this time against their own employer or insurance companies, just to receive the benefit they've earned, and ensures that the claims are handled fairly and promptly based on the science and the known risk of the job. Firefighters don't hesitate when they are called to serve. They go into environments that are merely dangerous to life and health without question. When they develop cancer as a result of that service, they deserve this same certainty and support. This legislation is about fairness. It's about recognizing the real and documented risks firefighters face every day, and it's about standing behind those who spent their careers standing up for us. I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Welcome, sir. The floor is yours for two minutes. Good afternoon. Good evening, Madam Chair, and the rest of the committee. My name is Kevin Reichenbach. I am here representing 5,300 members of the Colorado Professional Firefighters in support of strengthening cancer presumptive protection for firefighters. I am saddened by the number of groups opposing a bill that addresses the leading cause of firefighters' deaths. Last year, I attended our International Memorial Walson ceremony in the springs where 311 names were added. Of those, 211 were firefighters who died from occupational cancer. Opponents claim this bill will destroy the current cancer trust. That is simply not accurate. firefighters do not control the trust, fire departments do. Departments can already opt out due to financial hardship or choose not to participate at all. Nothing in this bill changes that. We believe that the trust can continue to operate alongside presumptive coverage and still help manage costs by allowing firefighters the choice of using the trust or workers' compensation. Opponents have raised concerns about DFPC state firefighters not being included under the bill. I would welcome the opportunity to fight for those firefighters, but the CPFF does not represent them. We have also heard claims that premiums will double, yet no data has been presented to support that. I contacted five large firefighter locals in Nevada where strong presumptive cancer legislation has existed since 2019. None reported major workers' compensation cost issues tied to that law. Finally, opponents have said that they would litigate cancer claims because they believe illnesses should not be determined through legislation despite the fact that they would not litigate a back or knee injury and already support a cancer trust that recognizes firefighter cancer as a job-related illness. Cancer is killing firefighters. It should not be litigated. The CPFF is not seeking to dismantle the cancer trust. We are simply asking the equal protection for firefighters who have no control over whether departments voluntarily opt out of the cancer trust or without firefighters' knowledge. We ask for your support. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Ms. Forseth, welcome. Hey, Kirsten Forseth with the Colorado AFL-CIO. We stand in solidarity with the Colorado professional firefighters in support of Senate Bill 184. Firefighters have a unique and dangerous occupation that puts them at exponentially higher risk of becoming extremely risk and dying. When we pass legislation, we try to accommodate all parties. Those compromises can result in consequences for workers by continuing harms we were trying to mitigate years ago. This is the problem being addressed in 184. It's an example of how over years we have failed firefighters and it is time to make it right. Firefighters who should qualify for benefits find it extremely difficult to point to the one source of the disease. They experience barriers after barrier to allow the employer to fight the presumption in law. As a result, they will be stuck in the bureaucracy for years, sometimes dying with an outstanding claim. Everyone loves a firefighter, right? Why would we ever want to make them getting their benefits difficult? Let's not just clap for them, pat them on the back, and send them thank you notes. Let's really support them and vote yes on 184. One little side note I would like to say is I spent the entire session fighting carve-outs of workers out of benefits. So if we're really talking about equal protection, you've got to be kidding me. So this legislature has done a fantastic job of cutting workers out of all sorts of benefits in all sorts of ways. All right. Thank you very much. Let's go online to Jesse Reisman. Good evening to the chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and to share my story. My name is Jesse Chris Reisman, and I'm here today because of my father, Jeff Crist, who was a firefighter with the Littleton Fire Department and spent over 25 years serving and protecting his community. Even knowing the risks and the terrible outcomes of the job, he still showed up every single day to save lives and to help others. My dad was diagnosed years later in 2007 with a glioblastoma brain tumor, and it completely shattered his world and ours. Given the nature of being a firefighter and the countless elemental exposures and carcinogens, we knew something had to be done. Watching my dad go from not remembering my name completely shattered my world and our families. Instead of putting all of our focus on his treatment, care, and stability, we were faced with a battle of being denied financial support and having to put all of our efforts into proving his cancer was work The added exhaustion and time of talking to lawyers surgeons researchers and other related professionals caused an unthinkable amount of stress financially and emotionally. It was so stressful and draining, and honestly, it felt like we were being asked to defend his service. My dad's case will forever be known and remembered, and this bill could have changed that outcome and assisted our family even further. However, I asked with so much courage and positivity in my heart to please support this bill to ensure no other families have to go through what mine did. Thank you for your time and for allowing me to share my story. Thank you so much for your testimony. Next up, Dr. Dan Wu. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Dan Wu, Chief Medical Officer for the International Association of Firefighters. I'm a triple board certified medical doctor and epidemiologist. In addition, I'm a 41-year veteran emergency first responder, spending 30 years as a professional firefighter and paramedic. And since 1992, I continue to serve as a senior disaster physician and medical team manager, as well as a founding member for FEMA's Urban Search and Rescue, Florida Task Force 1. The cancers added by this bill have already been accepted by many other local, state, and federal jurisdictions. This is due to the abundance of peer-reviewed scientific evidence proving that they are caused by firefighting occupational exposures. It also adds neurodegenerative conditions like Parkinson's because current scientific evidence demonstrates an increased incidence and prevalence of these diseases in firefighters, in addition to an acceleration in its onset by nearly a decade. Indiana, Virginia, and New York have already enacted presumptive laws classifying Parkinson's as an occupational disease of firefighters, and Colorado is correct in following suit. As a retired division chief of fire, rescue, and EMS operations and an assistant chief of emergency management of the six largest fire department in the nation, it's hard for me to reconcile the contradicting comments from chief colleagues that state they care for and understand this bill, yet they're opposed to it. Their perennial argument is unaffordability. However, in 2016, NIOSH showed a $500,000 to more than $600,000 difference between non-fatal and fatal claims for several cancers. It's important to note these amounts have not been adjusted for inflation and are 10 years old, predating the advent of immunotherapy even, which easily exceeds $10,000 per month. Neither does it include the overtime cost to backfill vacant positions due to sickness, nor the additional expenses of advertising for recruiting, hiring, training, and replacing long-term and permanently injured firefighters. Thank you so much, Mr. Lew. Your time has expired. Last up, David Seligman. Welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. An honor to be here testifying today in support of this bill. My name is David Seligman. I'm the executive director of Towards Justice, a nonprofit legal organization based here in Colorado that represents working people in court. I'm here to testify about the constitutional concerns raised about this legislation, and I'm happy to answer any questions that anyone has. I want to start first with the equal protection concerns. With respect, I disagree with the objections made to this legislation. The concerns rely on the Pepper case, where the Court of Appeals struck down a statute that the Court of Appeals determined drew an irrational line between classes of volunteers that worked for municipalities It concluded that there was no rational basis for the distinction drawn between similarly situated classes of volunteers This bill excludes state employees from some of the protections of the of the legislation And but that that distinction, the distinction between state employees and non-state employees is frequently drawn across our laws all the time. It's not a distinction that I think is always good as a policy matter, but it is not an unconstitutional distinction. That is because there is an absolutely clear, rational basis for that line being drawn. That's because the state pays the bills in cases where public employees are covered. It's not always a distinction I like, but it is absolutely a constitutional one. With respect to due process, the Supreme Court has made it very clear that in certain very narrow categories of cases. An irrebuttable presumption, a presumption that can never be rebutted, may be unconstitutional. But this legislation provides for a rebuttable presumption. It is a presumption that is difficult to rebut, but the legislature is empowered to impose evidentiary burdens, especially in light of asymmetries of power and information which arise in particular in the Wisconsin Congress. Thank you so much for your testimony, Mr. Seligman. Members, this is your panel. What questions do you have? This Representative Froelich and then Representative DeGraff. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you folks who came to testify. My first question would be for Mr. Babcock. You mentioned the importance of adding the different types of cancer to the cancers that are covered. The testimony from the trust was that they're open to that. Is this bill the only way that that can be accomplished? Mr. Babcock. Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill addresses our workers' compensation system. It is increasing the cancers covered under our workers' compensation system. It has nothing to do with the trust. Thank you. Representative Froehlich. If it's okay, Madam Chair. Sure. Okay, thank you. Maybe Mr. Tasker or Mr. Reichenbach, what are we to make of sort of people feeling like some firefighters are included and some firefighters aren't and that we're making choices based on that? Who would like to take that, Mr. Tasker? I can take it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative, for the question. I sit here today, just as I said in my testimony, I would love to represent every firefighter in the state of Colorado. I just don't have that ability. I operate and just we represent, the CPFF represents the 5,300 professional firefighters across the state of color. We don't represent the DFPC state firefighters. I would love to have them sitting next to me right now if I could have them here today and be fighting for that cause as well. I don't have the ability to do that. I too believe in that all firefighters should be covered the same. Okay, we're going to move on. Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Madam Chair. I had written down Mr. Rickenback. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. I think we're, I guess I think I'm missing some of the transitions between when we're talking about trust and when we're talking about workman's comp. But my understanding is that if the fire district or is or municipality is opted into the trust then they would not be paying into workman comp and that and that kind of the kind of but now with this they would be they could still participate in the trust but would require them also to participate in workman comp Are they currently paying less or not at all into workman comp if they part of the trust Or how does that work between you have the trust on one side, workman's comp on the other side? They both cost money. They both have their rules. How are these differentiated? because it seems like we're talking trust claims on one side, easy, talking workman's comp claims on the other that are hard, and then there's somehow there's this confluence in the bill. Mr. Babcock, I think that's probably best suited for you, and everybody nodded, so how about it? You can go ahead. No, I got it. The trust and workers' compensation are two separate things. Under current law, a firefighter who works for a department that participates in the trust who contracts one of the listed cancers can file for benefits under the trust. Under current law, that firefighter can also file for workers' compensation benefits. They can file for both. There is a dollar-for-dollar offset where if they get benefits under the trust, it reduces what they get under the workers' compensation claim. Under this bill, a firefighter who works for a department that participates in the trust can file for benefits under the trust, can file for workers' compensation. There is a dollar-for-dollar offset where if they get benefits under the cancer trust, it reduces the workers' compensation claim. Nothing in this bill changes that. That is current law that will continue to be the law. This strengthens the presumption to reduce the litigation of claims in the workers' compensation system. All right, next up, Vice Chair Clifford. Thanks, Mr. Rickenbaum. I wanted to catch you right after Rep. Froelich there. See you. You're expecting the question that I'm about to ask already. Given what you just said, you guys would be supportive of including the state firefighters in this legislation? Mr. Rickenbaugh. Absolutely. Thank you. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions. So the first question I assume will be best suited to the two gentlemen in the middle, but anybody is welcome. We heard from a representative from the trust that in years previous, in recent years, that they have added additional cancers to the list. I'm just wondering if you could give me an insight into the conversations you guys have been having with the trust, and have they opposed this additional set of cancers? What have those conversations and negotiations been? Mr. Rickenbaugh. Yeah, I mean, I think everything that's been brought forward from firefighters that have received something like breast cancer are females now and then thyroid cancer, which wasn't in there originally. Those things were brought forward over the years and actually added to the trust. The list that we're putting in there is specifically based on IRRC and the IFF, the International Association of Firefighters, and the cancers that they have data on, scientific data that firefighters are getting more often than the general public. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just as a follow-up. So what I'm really trying to understand is, have you guys as the firefighters representatives been coming up against a wall with the trust that they're saying, hey, no, we don't have don't want to add these such that you feel like it's important to go this route instead of go through whatever processes they have established to add those other cancers? No, that has not been the wall. The issue is that it's not mandatory. The trust is not mandatory. And anyone can get out, any municipality or district can get out at any time based on a financial hardship or if they don't want to. Right now, currently, the trust has been in play for nine years, almost nine years, I think she stated we're still only seeing 125 of over 319 fire departments in the trust. We don't know why that's the way it is. However, we have had firefighters that have applied for the trust, and they found out after they applied that they were denied because they didn't, their department wasn't in the trust. So it kicked them right back into work comp. We've had other departments where they did not pay the bill or just got out, and their firefighters didn't know about it. So it kicks them back into the trust if they do have to have a claim filed. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. And please forgive me. I'm really trying to come up to speed quickly. How does this bill help that problem? So you have these 150-plus fire districts that aren't in here. By adding more cancers, more things that they would have to be responsible for, how does this help fix what you're identifying? Mr. Rickenbaugh. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative, for the question. Yeah, I mean, this bill helps because now the employee no longer has to prove that they got cancer on the job. It goes back on the employer, so the litigation is a lot less to happen. We're seeing that across the states in the United States where these strong presumptive cancer legislations are going in place, and those things aren't happening. They're not being litigated. I would like to take all litigation out of workers' comp if we could. I don't have that ability because I really think it's ridiculous that our cancers that are killing our firefighters have to be litigated, as you can see by one of our testimonies that her father went through. So it just helps. It gets them going through the process where they're not having to worry about coming up with how they got it by finding all the calls that they ran, all the fires that they went into. it puts the burden back onto the employer and not the employee that's going through the cancer. Representative Wynn. Thank you, Madam Chair. Two questions. First question I asked earlier, and anyone can answer, of course, is whether states have done or implemented similar processes or policies like this. Who is that for? Anyone on the panel. Who would like to take it? I'm sorry, Mr. Babcock. I don't know if that's a promotion or a demotion. No, no, no. I believe the current count is that there are 38 states with some form of a cancer presumption within their workers' compensation law. The strength and coverage of those presumptions will vary from state to state. Currently, Colorado's protections fall towards the bottom. Representative Wynn. Follow-up question, actually, and why are we at the bottom? Is it because of premium rates? Is it because of pricing costs? I'm just curious. Mr. Babcock. Because we limit the list of cancers that are covered under our law, because our presumption is at a lower level, because we do not specifically address how retired firefighters who get diagnosed after their service are protected Our protections are weaker and what it does is it increases the number of unnecessary denials that, quite frankly, shouldn't happen, and then prolong litigation as a result of those denials. No further questions. Okay, thank you very much. Representative Espineza. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a series of questions. The first is, just following up on Representative Wynn's question, how many of those states have a trust like we have in Colorado that have changed their workers' compensation? Mr. Babcock. I do not know the answer to that, Representative. Do you? Representative Espinosa. I think he was going to try and answer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll answer that just approximately. I think there's one other agency out there, and that's Missouri Valley. Okay. Representative Espinoza. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Babcock, I'd also like to ask you, in the past when I've talked to workers' compensation attorneys, one of the biggest concerns they have is that the process for identifying doctors is very limited by employers and that those lists do not lead to often the workers being able to choose their doctors. My concern with what the bill is doing is now it's forcing people back into that worker comp system, which narrows the experts that they can see versus the trust which allows for them to go through their own insurance. Can you address that if that's still an issue? Mr. Babcock. Thank you Madam Chair. For about two years it is, year and a half, that law is changing. We passed a law last year that beginning in January of 2028 injured workers will get to pick their doctors from a list of certified doctors from the division of workers compensation. Representative Wilford, your chair, sponsored that bill. I think that's why I learned that information from last year. Representative Espinoza. I guess the other issue is we've heard a difference of opinion. The first set of panels indicated that the trust was mandatory under the law, that people are simply not paying into it. I think the same situation exists with workers' compensation, that it's mandatory. You'd be increasing premiums in mandatory nature. What makes you think that one mandatory law not being followed is going to be followed any more than another mandatory law in the circumstance? Mr. Babcock. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would characterize the 2024 legislation is saying that is sort of mandatory. If you look at the 2024 legislation, the mandatory part of participation in the trust is contingent on certain appropriations being made by the state. If the state does not make those appropriations, then participation in the trust becomes optional. I do not work for the trust. I don't know. You all would be better on the appropriations, But I do know that if those appropriations are not made, that allows departments to not participate in the trust. All right. Representative, or I'm sorry, Vice Chair Clifford. Boy, we really screwed that up. Trying not to have an unfunded mandate on our local governments. And here we are splitting hairs about how to make this work. What I'm left with right off the bat though, if we all got in a room for five or six meetings, we probably sort this out The first question I have for any of you if you could make the trust work would you go this route Mr Rickenbaugh Or Mr. Babcock. Do you mind? I don't care who speaks, just tell me. Please understand that the benefits under the trust are very limited. Workers' compensation covers medical coverage, wage loss, permanent impairment, permanent total disability if you die from your cancer benefits to your surviving spouse, your children, if they're under 21, if they're in college, 18, if they're not. The trust provides limited financial benefits. In your less significant, I hate using the term minor when we're talking about cancer, because I don't think that's minor. But in your more minor cases, the benefits under the trust, right, they provide financial benefits, and then you would get treatment under your health insurance. Because of the offset, quite frankly, those cases are going to get handled through the trust. There's going to be limited benefits, if anything, due to the offset through the workers' compensation system. In cancers that completely disable people or kill people, however, the benefits under the trust pale in comparison to what you would get under a workers' compensation claim. the protections under the trust, quite frankly, for the family of a dead firefighter are ridiculously low. Don't get me wrong. It's a couple hundred thousand bucks. If you have brain cancer, $300 and something thousand dollars. But compared to what you would get, the protection your family would get under a workers' compensation claim, it is not significant. Vice Chair Clifford. Just for speed, Madam Chair, can I dialogue? Sure. Thank you. That was some vice chair ask right there. She is ready for us to move on because she is that kind of chair. But having the trust has never excluded the workman's comp access if that is what was needed, which is where I get the conundrum. And the other conundrum is have we failed to make any of those appropriations? You talked about the appropriations that must be made in order for this to be mandatory. So while I appreciate that's the case, have we failed to make those appropriations? I don't know the answer to that question. I just know that there are 200 departments not participating in the trust. What was the first part of your question? It was a statement that was somebody participating in benefits of the trust. Does it cause them not to have the benefit of workman's comp should that be? Oh, right, right, right, right. So currently establishing cancer claims under the current standard in our workers' compensation system is more difficult. And so there is that reality. There is also a current provision in the law that if you are participating in the trust, providing those more limited benefits that I described, the firefighters in your department do not get the benefit of the presumption in the workers' compensation system. They don't get the presumption, but if you have something, as long as it's not duplicative coverage, it's still there and available, even though it's slow and problematic, which is, by the way, what we're about to be doing anyway, it sounds like. Two firefighters with identical cancer, identical history, identical service. The only difference between those two firefighters is that one of them has their department participates in the cancer trust. One of them, they're under current law. Under the other one, their fire department doesn't. The one who gets the presumption because he or she works for a fire department that does not participate in the trust their chances of getting coverage under a workers compensation claim is higher not great under our current law but higher The chances of the firefighter that works for the department that participates in the trust and therefore doesn't get the presumption of establishing a workers' compensation claim is very, very low. Essentially, if your fire department participates in the trust, you're not going to establish a workers' compensation claim under current law. Okay, I got that. And that does make some sense. But I think that the argument would be that people were having a lot of denials even before, which is where I get the concern. I am ultimately concerned that people get their coverage here. How we get there is far more important to all of us, I think, because what we're concerned about is a family not having to fight with an insurance company while somebody is sick. And I am definitely afraid of making a mistake here. I would much more be interested in having conversations why the other departments are not participating, bringing that burden down lower across the board and trying to figure out how to enhance the whole damn thing, maybe creating a private right of action, which we love to do around here from time to time for an employee that goes to the trust and finds that they're not covered because their department is not paying their participation and they are removing all of the unfunded mandate language that says, hey, look, we're going to keep funding this, but you've got to do it either way. In this scenario, it seems like we're trying to find a fix to a problem, but I'm scared we're not fixing the problem. I think we're regressing into something that is other, but do you, and we're leaving the state firefighters out. I'm so scared of what we're doing here. Can you help me understand why this is the right move for firefighters? We're dialoguing. Sorry. Well, I didn't know if I got in trouble when you said we were going to do that or not? Only me. I got in trouble. When the trust was created back in 2017, correct? Yes, correct. Right, 2017. I've been doing legislative work with WCA for a long time, so I remember it. It was never intended to replace workers' compensation. It's a limited benefit. okay it's a limited benefit and and and so representative i i appreciate the conversation but when i have a firefighter that's dying saying to them well you're going to get right this payout under the trust and you're just not gonna be able to get workers compensation benefits coverage for your kids until they reach majority for your surviving spouse potentially for the rest of their lives or until unless they got remarried. Perhaps you and I have a fundamental disagreement as to whether or not the more limited benefits available under the trust should replace a workers' compensation system that is in place of your Seventh Amendment U.S. constitutional rights. So, right, we may have a fundamental disagreement about that. I don't think you should be limiting benefits for the family of a firefighter who dies from their brain cancer. I just don't. Last question. Last question, yeah. Still in the world of this, like if we were all sitting down trying to work this out together, would we not then be working on making sure that the trust was fully participated in and removing the presumption? Removing the presumption from the workers' compensation? Yeah. Couldn't we, I mean, we made it up. Couldn't we unmake it? My position as somebody who represents these folks is that is only something that I would consider, and probably my organization if you were going to provide significantly increased benefits under the trust, which, quite frankly, will make it more expensive than workers' compensation. Workers' compensation is run by insurance. I'm sorry. We're going down a different tunnel. I'm talking about removing the presumption so that workman's comp would still be completely available so that you would be able to have both. I thought they worked together already, but it sounds like there's a barrier if you're receiving the trust that you're saying that you're going to get denied for the workman's comp benefits. I'm saying, is there not a way where we can make sure that whatever it is that your situation is, that you have coverage between either of the two models? I guess where we're getting tripped up is you talk about removing the presumption. If you remove the presumption, you're going to make it impossible for firefighters with cancer to get coverage under workers' compensation. So probably a verbiage thing. It could be, yeah. Thank you. And so that's why I reacted that way, right? Yeah. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your dialogue very much. Yep. And my last question is for Mr. Babcock. What's the average benefit from the trust compared to the total cost of cancer? if i can the the gentleman to gentleman to my right is probably better to answer that sure go ahead average benefit under the trust well i you know obviously i don't know the exact number um what that is but if you look at the number of claims that have come out of the trust since 2017 it's 300 roughly 350 claims just under um 201 of them have been skin cancer claims which are very mild. Most happen often with firefighters getting moles removed, things like that. So it's a very small amount. So the average amount is a lot lower. The trust people would obviously be able to answer that question a little bit better, but what that average is. And as far as work comp, on the work comp side, again, I'm not a work comp HR person, so I'm not 100% sure. I'm sure they vary depending on the case or what the cancer is and what that looks like, but I don't have the 100% answer on that. Okay. All right. Thank you all so much for your time and your testimony. We do appreciate it. Is there anybody else with us that would like to provide testimony? Seeing none, the testimony phase is now closed. Bill sponsors, please join us. Do all have any amendments? Thank you, Madam Chair. We do not have any amendments. We expect on second spring amendments to strip the Parkinson's part of the bill, as we heard from Pinnacle, and to clarify any confusion about how this impacts the trust. Okay. Members, any amendments? Vice Chair Clifford. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L-6 to Senate Bill 184 and ask that it be properly displayed. Okay. Give us just a minute so we can circulate it This is the amendment Hold on Hold on two seconds okay I want everybody to have a minute to be able to see it I gave it to him yesterday Yeah. I've got one. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, everybody has the amendment. Let's give everybody a minute to read it and then you can proceed. All right. Thank you, Your Madam Chair. Before you proceed, you do need a second. I'll second. Oh, Representative Bradley seconds. Okay. Okay. Vice Chair Clifford. Thank you. with full disclosure, I gave this to Rep Mabry yesterday. He did say that they were not interested in this amendment, so I just want to let you know this amendment is to bring the state firefighters into this bill. And I request that I vote. Representative Carter. My name is Michael Carter, so he did not give it to me. I'm challenging it. I do not believe this is underneath the title. I don't believe this fits under the title challenge. Okay, let's stand in a brief recess. Yes. What is the title? I thought this was in the original bill. Thank you. Thank you. The committee will come back to order. All right. The chair rules that the language is under the title because it had previously been in the bill when it was introduced in the Senate. So with that I am curious if members have any questions or comments Representative Espinoza Thank you Madam Chair I would just note that if we were to pass this amendment it would drive a fiscal note and I believe that the sponsors have come and the reason it was taken out in the Senate was to reduce that fiscal note in its entirety, and so I think it's important that if we were to adopt this amendment that we would be needing to request this to go back to appropriations. Okay. Any other questions, comments? Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, we request a no vote on this amendment. The amendment is putting back in language that was stripped out of the Senate so that this bill would be able to pass this year. I think you've heard both me and Carter and witnesses in support of the bill say, of course we want to come back and expand this coverage to the wildland firefighters. I'll run the bill. Let's find the money next year. But in the meantime, if we can provide meaningful relief to other firefighters, let's do that. Representative Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the discussions that I had specifically about adding the additional firefighters in was the $2 million fiscal note. What I indicated, I'd be more than happy to take it from the Department of Corrections. but at this time we do not have it if you want to kill the bill just say you want to kill the bill you don't have to bring facetious amendment or amendments because someone told you to if you want to kill the bill just vote no all right i recognize tensions are high let's all take a step back okay and not not do that to each other vice chair clifford and i'm sorry representative win Thank you. With all due respect, I spoke to the sponsors yesterday. You guys have not engaged me on this. I asked if you were interested in amendments. I did bring this to Javi. This is not some big surprise. You can call him Representative Mabry. I'm sorry, to Representative Mabry. There's no, I appreciate the tension here. We are talking about removing state firefighters. And I am not going to be offended if my colleagues vote no on this amendment. This was not something that I tried to do to you as a surprise. Representative Nguyen. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very difficult point for me because I used to be a state employee. I recognize that going back to appropriations would effectively kill this bill. I'm not going to support that, so I will be a no vote on this amendment. All right. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this is a challenge. Help me to be able to articulate to my districts that are struggling financially, that have carried special mill levy ballot initiatives recently in order to have additional funds for fire and ems in my district that we would be exempting the state from a liability that we are imposing on them like how would you answer that if if you had a fire district that was coming before you and saying we are hemorrhaging we are struggling to even stay afloat you're adding burden on us while removing it from yourself. Representative Mabry. Well, I would echo my co-prime sponsor and say I'd happily take $2 million from the Department of Corrections to cover this. I am not the chair of the Joint Budget Committee and we have had difficulty covering There been a lot of great bills that would expand health care coverage and if I could make that decision I would make that decision We not in a position where we as the co sponsors can fix that budgetary problem alone If it was my decision to make, I would have made it. But in the meantime, if we can decrease some administrative burden for some firefighters with cancer, and come back and have that conversation again next year, I still think that's worthy of our jobs here. Representative Espinoza. Thank you. I just wanted to, I've been looking at these two, subsection B and subsection C for a while, and just want to point in a little bit different direction. Although I do believe, I will not be supporting the amendment as is, But I do believe that the one question is there is an intersection when you took the state out of the definition subsection C for the fiscal reason. I'm not sure whether that adversely impacts the qualifications for a firefighter who may have taken some of that 10-year period, which is a period you can look back to count your benefits, out of that calculation that's covered in section C with a covered individual. because a covered individual is a firefighter. In subsection C, you're excluding the firefighter who's a state firefighter. So I just point that out because it comes to me as I see one of the other impacts of this section. I don't believe this amendment fully addresses it to my concern, but I did want to point that out. I will be a no on the amendment. Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate your diligence as always, Rep. Espinosa. I believe that that impact would not, we should look into it, but my initial reaction is that that impact would not exist because what matters is currently who you're getting your workman's compensation from, at least in terms of the physical impact. Now, I hear you in terms of does it have an impact on the calculation if your current workman's comp or the last employer you had would have been covered. Let's have conversations about that calculation piece. But in terms of who gets the benefit, I think it matters who your current workman's comp provider is and through which employer that is. Okay, hearing objection to the amendment, I will ask for the vote to be called. Representatives Bradley. Yes. Carter. No. DeGraph. Yes. Espinoza. No. Veray. No. Froelich. No. Luck. Yes. Wynn. No. Bricks. No. Clifford. Yes. Madam Chair. No. Amendment L-6 fails on a vote of 7-4. Are there any further amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is now closed. We'll wrap up. Representative Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Reuben Sims, Jr. I've spoken that name before, and I've spoken it to the members of this panel before. He was the first black firefighter in the city of Aurora. He ran into the smoke. He ran into the heat. He ran into the places that he ran into the places. He did what firefighters do. He made a promise to his community and he kept it on September 11th, 2020. 2006, a date that most firefighters already know, Reuben Sims Jr. died. Not in a burning building, not in a dramatic rescue. He died from cancer, the kind that builds quietly in the body that has breath, and it's what actually is left behind by those fires that he ran into. This trust, the original trust, came too late for him, but there was a promise that this state gave to all the firefighters that came after him. 20 years later, all we are trying to do is not about taking from the trust, all it is is not burdening those who administer it. It's just about the obligation that we already owe these firefighters who are already doing the job. The current law asks firefighters to fight again, to prove against the preponderance of the evidence that the cancer in their body came from the job. All this bill says is no more. We want clear and convincing evidence before a claim is denied. We'll expand the cancers. We'll extend the protections to retired firefighters. That's it. It's not a partisan question. It's not Democrat versus Republican. All we're asking is that the firefighters, the ones that are in the small counties, the ones that are in the big cities, the ones that are in aurora that they be protected under the same promise that we gave to them 20 years ago when we started to trust i get it you want to be mad about something fine you want to kill the bill fine talk about what's in the bill talk about what we are talking about that's all i ask have questions about the specifics but everything we're talking about is not what i'm asking you to do. I'm asking you to give access to firefighters who already pledged their lives to be firefighters, and now they have cancer. Now they have cancer, and I want you to bring down that presumption so they get more access. I'm not lying to any of you. Yes, I believe it gives more access to firefighters to the trust period you're damn right that's what i'm asking for and if you want to be a no be a no but i'm a yes representative mabry thank you madam chair so first again i want to reiterate that we do not plan on changing how the trust currently functions we hear the concerns and we're committed to making clarifying uh amendments on the floor I also hear the concerns about the Wildland Firelighters being left out, and I agree we need to come back to the table and find a way to address that issue as soon as possible. But right now, we have 126 fire departments participating in the cancer trust, while more than 200 departments are not in the trust at all. That means well over two-thirds of firefighters in Colorado are relying solely on workmen's comp protections, and under current law, they're facing a lower standard while trying to prove their cancer was caused by their work. And one thing that became very clear during testimony today and during questions, even though it was said 14 times at least, is that there is a fundamental difference between what the trust is designed to do and what Workman's Comp is designed to do. These are not interchangeable. They're not duplicative. They're not designed to replace one another. The trust was designed to provide fast immediate support after diagnosis, a streamlined benefit that firefighters can access quickly without prolonged litigation or procedural hurdles. And that matters When someone is diagnosed with cancer of course they dealing with financial instability suddenly and the trust is meant to help stabilize But to answer your question Rep Wilford we have the number The average payout from the trust is $21,000. In the context of a cancer diagnosis, $21,000 is peanuts. Cancer treatment can easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. So when we heard testimony today suggested the trust was meant to replace workman's compensation, I have to respectfully say that does not reflect reality. If the trust was meant to replace workman's comp, the average payment would not be $21,000. No serious person could look at the cost of cancer care in America and include that one lump sum payment of $21,000 was intended to substitute the comprehensive medical coverage that exists from Workman's Comp. Workman's Comp addresses a different problem. It provides wage replacement, full medical coverage, and support that continues for months and years at a time. That is not $21,000. Those are not benefits a trust the trust can replicate. They were never intended to be replaced by the trust. Colorado law contains an offset mechanism to prevent double recovery. Firefighters cannot double dip and collect twice for the same expense. $21,000 versus the cost of cancer in America. The overlap issue opponents are raising is already addressed in statute. We're happy to clarify that. And then I'll just emphasize that the Pepper case is distinct from what we're trying to do here in many ways, including that case involved a full exclusion of benefits, whereas this just addresses a slight change in how benefits are calculated. This bill says when a firefighter develops cancer after years of service, we should start from a place of trust and recognition and get them their benefits as soon as possible. the real benefits, the workman's comp ones, not the 21 grand from the trust. Thank you very much. Representative Carter, would you like to move your bill to the Committee of the Whole?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 184 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
Second. Seconded by Vice Chair Clifford. Members, do you have any closing comments? We'll start with Representative Wynn.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the bill sponsors for this bill. Thank you for the folks who testified for and against. I think I've learned a lot about firefighters and the work they've done in the last 15 hours. Truth be told, you know, I was a state employee for almost seven years, and I recognize that there is no difference between a state firefighter and a regular firefighter. However, during this budgetary crisis we're in, I do believe in incremental changes. I hope that the sponsors do follow through their promise that they will include state firefighters. So with that, I will be a yes for today and hopefully a yes when it's on the floor because I do believe that firefighters should get these benefits and be served well to their tremendous amount of work they've done to our communities. Thank you.
Okay. Representative Luck.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for bringing this. I like to sleep on things and I haven had a chance to sleep on this and so I apologize but I am processing in real time I have some concerns One, I am concerned about the cost to local special districts, especially. I know that the fiscal note explains that there will be increased costs for cities, special districts, and local governments. I am especially concerned about special districts. I have fire districts that are struggling to stay afloat and I have not had a chance to talk to them about this to see what this kind of thing will do and whether they think that they can absorb this or not. And so that is my prime concerned in this present moment. I'm also concerned about the addition of conditions without it from the conversation I my takeaway is that there really hasn't been a conversation between the sides on adding these things in and if there has been conversation that there hasn't been a hurdle with that and and not knowing enough about this process it doesn't feel like it has gone through the necessary processes. And so as lawyers, we normally exhaust all remedies before we take more extreme steps. And with my current understanding of how this process works, I feel like we have taken a step beyond where we are in the process. The side should have worked it out through the trust board and brought it like the thyroid and the breast cancer and all of these other additions. I'll also note that if there are these 200 plus districts that aren't participating and are in violation of the law, and that is a driving factor of this, then that, I think, should be its own conversation, right? I'm telling you I'm processing in real time. You all have sat with this for a month or multiple months. I'm processing in real time. And so if that is the issue, if these folks are not participating when they are by law required to do so, then coming up with mechanisms to get them to participate in the trust, I think, is a route that I would desire to go. So those are just some thoughts that I'm laying out there for you on a Saturday evening. Representative Espinosa. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you,
sponsors um this has put me in a very difficult position i do believe that you are willing to work with us but there is no time to work with us we have you know three days left this needs to get through um if it goes to the floor i don't know that the the way seconds will work on monday will give the body enough time to understand the complexity of what we just went through so i'm concerned about that i do understand the problem that i well i understand parts of the problem. But for me, one of the most critical questions that I asked today was, do the other states that have broadened their workers' qualifications have a trust? And there's only one other state that does, and I don't know if that state actually also broadened their criteria for expanding eligibility under workers' compensation. So the intersection between these two issues, which was not really directly part of your bill. Facially, when I read the bill, I thought it made a lot of sense, except was concerned about the exclusion, but I knew the reason because of our fiscal reality. However as I was listening and learning about the bill I then became aware of the trust And in terms of that really not apparent from the face of the bill the face of the bill seems to be saying we need a lower standard or a different standard to allow a burden shifting in workers' compensation for these illnesses that are specific to firefighters. I don't know where we're doing that in other areas of workers' compensation. I don't know how the new bill that will go into effect in January of 2027, which broadens the ability for workers seeking compensation in the workers' compensation form, will work. But I'm also dealing with the issue that under the trust, an injured party can start with their own doctors and go through their own insurance. And one of the things where there's still a gap for me is how the transition happens, because under the law, as I understand it, you can apply for the trust and still apply for workers' compensation. If the doctors are not the same, that may be why there's denials of the workers' compensation rather than just the medical list that we have here. I don't have enough information to know the answer to some of those questions to make a determination. And I am concerned about the fiscal note. I'm not sure where I'm at. I really want to give you the benefit of moving this forward, but I have real concerns that we don't have enough time and we have a disparity between state and other workers. And so I'll just have to see where I'm at. But I just wanted to put that on the record.
Representative Bradley.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the bill sponsors. I can see your passion, and, you know, I think we all try to bring forward bills that we're passionate about. Ditto to the past two. You know, when we talk about being in a fiscal crisis and being in a budget shortfall and then exempting the state but not caring about what we're going to do to local governments, right? They're in a fiscal crisis, too. Some of them are barely operating above red lines. We have got rural hospitals closing. We've got local governments. And then we mandate on them from Denver what they need to do, and that's problematic for them as well. I, HB 24-12-19 bothers me. It bothers me that there are some not paying into this, and that doesn't fix that either. And so that's bothersome to me. The equal opportunity that bothered, or equal protection bothers me. And I think the biggest bother is, from a medical professional standpoint, with clear and convincing medical evidence. That makes me believe that there's going to be a sweeping presumption with weak cost controls and shaky causation limits. the fiscal note not having really any preparation for that and what we're going to do on local governments makes me wonder you know with three days left and I'll just say on the record if this is something we're passionate about give us a fact sheet I don't I'm I'm going through and trying to figure out trust and who pays into it and what's going on and and the difference between trust and work comp like let us have a fact sheet so we can digest this and and not get it in real time and We're trying to ask all these questions and figure out where we all are. It would be good to have something so that while we're listening to testimony, we can figure out what we're trying to figure out at the end of session. Thank you.
Representative Ricks.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Wow, you know, listening to the testimony and everything that has happened in this committee hearing is hard because I think it's putting us on a place where we have to, we're in a pickle, we are prepared. losers and winners. And it's difficult. But I'm also hearing that, you know, there are people who do pay into the trust and some who don't. And I think those are all things that need to be straightened out within the state, which may not be part of what's in this bill. With three days left to figure this out is, you know, it's challenging. We know that This is not going to be worked out, all of these things. So I just wanted to put that on the record that we do need to figure out a way of how we can get the rest of firefighters protected. And hopefully, you know, this is something that the bill sponsors who are anticipating trying to work on next year as well. So just wanted to put that on the record.
Representative Froelich.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Bill Sponsors, for bringing this bill. And look, we all understand what happens at the end and things come fast and furiously. my roots are in are actually in new york i lost friends on on 9-11 my local firehouse the men and women that i went to the grocery store with um suffered tremendous losses and the folks who survived continue to suffer from ailments related to that catastrophe i believe we have a covenant with our firefighters to care for them through thick and thin. All firefighters. And we've fallen short, and it's heartbreaking, and it's immoral. We have to act, and I wholeheartedly wish that we weren't prevented from doing the truly right thing by our budget, but I think we need to do this thing.
Representative DeGraff.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there should be a priority. Unfortunately, I don't get to set the priorities. I'm looking at just some rough numbers that if we started with 200, 2 million for less than 200, and I think it was a lot less, I don't remember the number, but just less than 2 million. And then we go to 12,000 across the state, that's about 120 million across the state. And then there's about 200 districts, so around $600,000, and we're looking at $600,000 over a high-end district, unless they're like a Denver Metro being about $20 million, $3 to $20 million, and costing somewhere in the $600,000. And we as a state exempted ourselves, understandably so, because we have, because of $2 million out of $46 billion, out of $46,000 billion, out of 46 million 2 million out of 46 million So I don want to kill the bill but I don think we can I don I mean, this should have been, I mean, this should be a day and, you know, you get the bill when you get the bill, but this is, I don't, I don't think we can, I don't think we can just say, well, I think we need to do that when we're not, we're not prepared to do it as a state. Now we've talked repeatedly about where there's money in this budget. There's billions of dollars that I would assert have absolutely no benefit and negative benefit to the citizens of Colorado, yet those are the priorities of our budget process. Those are the sacred cows of the general assembly, of this body, of members of this body, of this panel. so we have equal protection we're cutting some out for the financial um i i mean just for the budgeting process i mean i i think i think the firefighters are i think they are a priority they are a legitimate priority and we should treat them like a priority instead of instead of forcing instead of forcing the you know literally the bravest among us to come and fight for scraps at the very end. I would like to see this type fund and make sure this is funded by gutting some of the serious fraud, waste, and abuse that has been supported even in these last days. So I have to be a no on this bill, but I am very disappointed because the budget process makes it so. And I I think the state, I think the General Assembly needs to get its priorities in order. And we're funding stuff. I don't set those priorities. Those priorities were set before me. I think just like our ballot initiatives, you know, come to me with, you know, take some of that out of the governor's green grift, kill one of his sacred cows, splay it out here on the altar of big government, and, you know, well, let's have a barbecue. you. But I mean, there's no, there's no money there and we can't just impose it on the, we can't just send it downstream without, without having understanding of what these ramifications are. So unfortunately I'm a no. It's been a real delight to have you in state
affairs today, representative DeGraff. Vice Chair Clifford. You're welcome. I'm here all week.
I hope not. I'm just kidding. Vice Chair Clifford. I'm just figuring out where to even start after that. So first of all to the sponsors I've never intended to kill your bill. Ms. Davis came and asked me whipping votes many hours ago and I told her that I was going to vote yes on this just because I recognize that if you got a need to do something and the firefighters are here saying that something is broken that we have to fix it Where I really jammed up here isn a whole lot different than what Reptichoraf just said We are in a budget situation where we can't fix things. We are going to go pay for an equal protection suit. It's not like there's not going to be cost. We're going to have costs for firefighters, for state firefighters, and all of the other ancillary costs that we don't just get to budget and manage as a normal budgetary process. We're here to have to, like, not deal with the employees that we're responsible for in legislation like this because we can't run a bill to appropriations today to fund it. And that is insane to me, that we have issues like this that we can't solve. Now, I don't think all this is great. I think I'm as scared about breaking something here and causing firefighters to get caught up in a system of bureaucracy and red tape that is known for the workman's comp process and denials. and longer processes because we're not zeroing in and providing real heat for the departments that are not following the law. If we didn't do something, if we didn't fund something, if we didn't manage something, I think we should be really accountable for that. And I think that we're in a tough situation here. And I want you two to know I recognize you're in that tough situation. and it's the reason I haven't been running around the floor like my hair on fire about this, but it's still the point. It's not that we can't solve it. We absolutely can. We're not allowed to. If you could walk out of here and go into appropriations today, you would have a little bit different bill, and we all know that. So I will be a yes today. I don't like the rush. I don't like that all of the fire departments and firefighters, I don't like that South Metro Fire Protection District, which has my entire district, is going to look at me and say, why did you vote yes on this when we are a no? I don't like it when two sets of friends that I have in this building can't get to the same place. and I don't like the employees that we are responsible for that we have to cut out of a bill because we can't go to appropriations. I trust that you going to do what you said you do on the floor I trust that you will continue to work on this and I hope like hell we get it right And I disappointed that we are having the conversations the way that we are today to try to solve this issue So I will be a yes on this bill, and I appreciate the work and the dialogue.
Thank you both so much for your work on this bill. And it's not lost on me how complicated the workers' compensation system is. It's something that, frankly, I believe that we all have more work ahead of us to continue to improve that system and make sure that it truly does work for workers. At the same time, firefighters don't get to choose what they breathe. They don't get to say when they show up to something, that building looks too toxic, I'm going to sit this one out. they go in and they go in every single time and when they come out on the other side with cancer we have to show up for them full stop i appreciate you all bringing this bill i will be a strong yes i do very much struggle with the fact that we're not able to cover everyone and i do not believe that that should be a reason that we should not move forward and cover as many people as we possibly can right now. So I trust you all to figure this out before second readings. We move massive policy in the course of three days, whether it's at the end of session or in a special session. So I believe that you will have time to do what you need to do and look forward to seeing what you come back with on second reading. Colorado takes care of its own. It's not something we just say. It has to be something that we actually do, and I think this bill is a chance to do that. So thank you very much. And Ms. Jawara, please poll the committee. Representatives Bradley.
Respectfully, no. Carter.
Respectfully, yes. DeGraff.
Unfortunately, no. Espinoza.
Yes for today. For Ray.
Yes. Froelich. Yes. Luck.
Respectfully, no. Gwynn.
Yes. Ricks.
Yes. Clifford.
Yes. Madam Chair.
Yes. Senate Bill 184 passes on a vote of 8 to 3. All right. Committee, this may or may not be our last meeting. I very much doubt, though, if we're being honest, that it's our last meeting. So stay tuned and plan on likely meeting at some point on Monday. All right. With that, have a great Mother's Day, and state affairs is adjourned.