April 9, 2026 · 8,387 words · 19 speakers · 123 segments
Ball. Excuse. Benavidez. Bridges. Bright. Bright. Excuse. Carson. Catlin. Cutter. Excuse. Danielson. Doherty.
Here.
Exum. Frizzell. Gonzalez. Gonzalez. Excuse. Hendrickson. Judah. Kip. Kirkmeyer. Kirkmeyer. Excuse. Kolker. Linstead. Linstead. Excuse. Liston, excused, Marchman, Mullica, Pelton B, Pelton R, Rich, Roberts, Rodriguez Simpson Snyder Sullivan Wallace Weissman Zamora Wilson Bright Linstead
Mr. President. Let's do this. The morning roll call is 30 present, zero absent, and five excused. We have a quorum. Senator Bright, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Colleagues and guests, please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God. God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Approval of the journal. Senator Snyder.
Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate journal of Wednesday, April 8th, 2026, be approved as corrected by the Secretary.
You've heard the motion. All those in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Opposed, no.
No.
With the ayes have it, that motion is adopted. Senate Services.
Correctly printed. Senate Bill 157. Correctly engrossed. Senate Bill 153, correctly re-engrossed. Senate Bill 103, 136, and 144. Correctly revised House Bill 1229 and 1244, House Joint Resolution 1024. Correctly re-revised House Bill 1081, 1208, 1237, and 1239.
Consideration of resolutions, Majority Leader Rodriguez.
Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate proceed out of order for consideration of resolutions The motion to proceed out of order for consideration of resolutions All those in favor say aye Aye Opposed no The ayes have it and that motion is adopted We proceed out of order
Consideration of resolutions. Mr. Schaffler, please view the title of SJR 20.
Senate Joint Resolution 20 by Senator Pelton R and Representatives Johnson and Garcia-Sander concerning the recognition of April 9, 2026 as Home Education Day in Colorado.
Senator Pelton R. Thank you, Mr. President. Would the clerk please read Resolution 20 at length? Oh, I move Joint Resolution 20 and ask that it be read at length.
Very good. Mr. Schoffler, please read SJR 20 at length.
Whereas Colorado law affirms that it is the primary right and obligation of parents to choose the proper education and training for children under their care and supervision, and that home-based education is a legitimate alternative to classroom attendance for the instruction of children, and whereas home education is part of America's national heritage, as evidenced in the formative years of home-educated Americans such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abigail Adams, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Booker T. Washington, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison, Mark Twain, and Ansel Adams. And whereas growing research indicates that adults who were home-educated internalized the values and beliefs of their parents at a high rate. And whereas home-educated students score above the national institutional average on achievement tests, regardless of their parents' level of formal education or their family's household income. and whereas there were an estimated 57,000 home-educated students in grades K-12 in Colorado during the 2024-2025 school year and whereas the home-educated students in Colorado saved taxpayers an estimated $1 billion annually and whereas the 3.4 million children who are home-educated in the United States today save American taxpayers an estimated $64 billion annually and whereas parents who have home-educated their children are to be commended for their extraordinary sacrifice and commitment that has produced millions of home-educated graduates who are equipped to be successful and productive citizens because of the values, education, and training they have received from their parents. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate of the 75th General Assembly of the State of Colorado, the House of Representatives concurring herein, that we, the members of the Colorado General Assembly, honor, thank, and celebrate home educators and their home-educated children of this state and recognize April 9, 2026 as Home Education Day in Colorado.
Senator Pelton R.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. everybody you can have a seat it's always a great day in the building when the home educators are in here my wife and I well my wife homeschooled our kids I was in charge of field trips and that's a good thing for them they got a good education that way but you guys were treated to the chorus singing this morning, man, they did. They just knocked it out of the park. If you notice, interact with these kids and the parents, they are so respectful. They are so knowledgeable. They do such an awesome job. When my two daughters graduated and went on to college, they excelled. They They had respect for their professors. They did the homework, and some professors found that kind of different, that kids actually did their work and turned it in. So I applaud the parents that do this I have a daughter My youngest daughter is homeschooling her kids It a great way to raise your kids a great way of life You instill your values into your children and then they raise up children and a lot of times they do the same thing. So if you guys have a chance to interact with these parents and students today, please do that. We have some members, a lot of members in the building that serve on the executive committee, and please take some time today. It would be well worth your while. So with that, Mr. Chair, I renew my motion for Senate Joint Resolution 20.
Senator Pelton R. will be fined $2 for referring to the president as a chair twice. It's okay, though.
See, I should have been homeschooled. Then maybe I got that right. There we go.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the adoption of SJR 20. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 30 ayes, 0 no, 0 absent, and 5 excused, SJR 2620 is adopted. Co-sponsor is Senator Pelton R.
Thank you, Mr. President. I got it right.
You got it right.
I ask that the current roll call be added as co-sponsors.
Seeing no objection, the current roll call will be added as co-sponsors. Mr. Schaffler, please add Senators Gonzalez and Cutter to the roll. And Ball to the roll. Third reading of bills, consent calendar. Mr. Schaffler, please read the titles of all the bills on the consent calendar.
House Bill 1229 by Representatives Taggart and Ferre and Senators Amabile and Ridge concerning authorizing the health disparities and community grant program to consider the human-animal bond as a social determinant of health. House Bill 1244 by Representatives Slaw and Joseph and Senators Frizzell and Exum concerning considerations for the Department of Public Health and Environment to use a basis for making distributions from the nursing home penalty cash fund. Senate Bill 153 by Senators Colker and Simpson and Representatives Bacon and Martinez concerning graduate academic requirements for a licensed school counselor and in connection therewith establishing a minimum number of credit hours required for special services, licensure with a school counselor endorsement.
Mr. Majority Leader.
Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the passage of all the bills on third reading of bills, final passage consent calendar, which is House Bill 1229, House Bill 1244, and Senate Bill 153.
Any discussion on any of the bills? Seeing none of the motion is the passage of all the bills and third of your bill's consent calendar. Are there any no votes? Senator Pelton R.
Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to be a no vote in 1229.
Senator Pelton R. will be recorded as a no vote on House Bill 1229. Senator Zamora Wilson.
Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to be recorded as a no vote for House Bill 26-1229.
Senator Zamora Wilson will be recorded as a no vote on House Bill 1229. Senator Baisley.
Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to be recorded, please, as a no vote on House Bill 1229.
Senator Bazin records a no vote on House Bill 1229. Are there further no votes? Seeing none. With a vote of 30 ayes, 3 noes, 0 absent, 2 excused, House Bill 1229 is passed. Cosponsors Senators Kip Cutter Marchman Wallace Benavidez Judah Weissman Carson Coker Please add the president With a vote of 33 eyes zero no zero absent to excuse House Bill 1244 is passed Co-sponsors. Please add the president. And Senator Pelton R. With a vote of 33 ayes, 0 no, 0 absent, 2 excused. Senate Bill 153 is passed. Co-sponsors. Senators. Marchman. Judah. Kip. Gonzalez. Cutter. Wallace. Sullivan. Lindstedt. Mr. Majority Leader, please add the President and Senator Frizzell. Third reading of bills, Mr. Majority Leader.
Thank you, Mr. President. I move to lay over third reading of bill's final passage until Friday, April the 10th.
The motion is to lay over third reading of bill's final passage until Friday, April the 10th. All in favor say aye. Aye. Polls no. What? But the I still have it. And third meeting of the bills will be later until Friday, April the 10th. Second meeting of the bills, consent calendar. Senator Ball. Let's give him a round of applause. Senator Ball.
Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate to resolve itself into the committee to hold for the consideration of general orders, second reading of bills, consent calendar.
You've heard the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. Wow. But the motion to adopt the descendant will resolve itself to the committee to hold for the consideration of general orders, second reading of bills, consent calendar. Senator Ball will take the chair. Get you some, dog. You have a big truck.
The committee will come to order. The coat rule is relaxed. Will the clerk please read the titles to all the bills on the general order's second reading of bills. Consent calendar.
Senate Bill 72 by Senators Carson and Snyder concerning increasing criminal penalties related to assault of conduct with a motor vehicle and in connection therewith adding the conduct of causing the death of another person with a motor vehicle to the crime of criminally negligent homicide.
Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move for the passage of the bill on General Order's second reading of bill's consent calendar, which is Senate Bill 72 and the accompanying Judiciary Report.
Is there any discussion on the committee report? The motion before the body is the adoption of all the report to the bill on the General Order's second reading of bill's consent calendar. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the report is adopted. Is there any discussion of the bill on the consent calendar? The motion before the body is the adoption of the bill on the general order's second reading of bill's consent calendar. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Aye. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted. Majority Leader Rodriguez.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the committee rise and report.
The motion is for the committee to rise and report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the motion is adopted. The committee will rise and report. Amen.
The Senate will come to order. Senator Ball.
Thank you, Mr. President. The committee has had a bill under consideration. Will the clerk please read the report?
April 9, 2026. Mr. President, the committee of the Holbeg's leave to report it is added in consideration the following attached bill being the second reading thereof and makes the following recommendation thereon. Senate Bill 72, as amended, passed on second reading in order to engrossed and place on the calendar for third reading and final passage.
Senator Ball. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the adoption of the report.
The motion is the adoption of the committee of the whole report. Are there any no votes? With the vote of 33 ayes, 0 no, 0 absent, 2 excused. Committee of the whole report is adopted. Madam Secretary.
Senate Bill 72 is amended. Passed second meeting. Order of gross place to count for third meeting. And final passage, general orders.
Second meeting of the bill, Senator Ball.
Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of general orders second reading of bills.
You vote the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. The Senate resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole. For consideration of general orders second reading of bills and Senator Ball will take the chair again.
The committee will come to order and the coat rule is relaxed for everyone in the chamber. Majority Leader Rodriguez.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Senate Bill 134 layover until Friday, April 10th.
The motion is for Senate Bill 134 to layover until Friday, April 10th. All those in favor say AYE. AYE. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and Senate Bill 134 will layover until Friday, April 10th.
Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that House Bill 1084 layover until Friday, April 10th.
The motion is for House Bill 1084 to layover until Friday, April 10th. All those in favor say AYE. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and House Bill 1084 will lay over until Friday, April the 10th. Will the clerk please read the title to Senate Bill 26-140?
Senate Bill 140 by Senators Frizzell and Marchman and Representatives Gilchrist and Johnson concerning exempting certain drugs from the scope of affordability reviews conducted by the Colorado Prescription Drug Affordability Review Board.
Senator Marchman.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Senate Bill 140. To the bill.
Senator Frizzell.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, members, when the Prescription Drug Affordability Board, sometimes known as PDAB, was created, the PDAB Advisory Council was also created, and that PDAB Advisory Council recommended that the PDAB not review rare disease treatments until the impacts of upper payment limits on access were better understood. Unfortunately, the PDAP completely...
Senator Frizzell, I apologize. Everyone in the chamber, if we can please keep the volume down a little bit. Some of the senators who are listening are having a little bit of trouble. Please keep the volume down. I apologize for the interruption. Senator Frizzell, please continue.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am very appreciative of your intervention. So, again, the PDAB completely disregarded their own advisory council's advice and made their very first review a rare disease drug. The reality is this bill Senate Bill 24 it excludes rare disease and plasma treatments from PDAP review in line with the original advisory council advice It will exempt only 31 drugs that also have common indications and that's something that we heard a lot about in testimony, in committee. without this carve out treatments for diseases rare diseases like huntington's disease pediatric lupus nephritis hemophilia pray to willie syndrome and many many more are going to be at risk because they also happen to create a treat a common illness only five percent of rare diseases have any treatment at all. And it takes decades of research and trials and failed attempts to finally come up with something that is actually going to give meaningful relief to people with rare diseases. It's really, really critical because there are so few treatments that patients do have access to the limited options that they have available. Plasma therapies, which is one of the treatments that is carved out in this bill, plasma therapies, their only source are from people. And they are very expensive. They have high overhead, long manufacture times, complex processes. These drugs are just necessary for people to have meaningful and productive lives. One of our witnesses, and someone who actually authored this bill, and it's really important to understand this bill came from patients. It didn't come from pharmaceutical companies. They are not involved with this. This bill was written by patients who have rare diseases, like lupus and many, many other things, cystic fibrosis. This is an incredibly important bill for these individuals who live on a margin that is so thin because they have limited options. These drugs give them, in many cases, freedom to lead a productive life. With that, I'd like to turn it over to my co-prime.
Senator Marchman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my co-prime. This has been a very meaningful bill, I believe, for both of us to carry. As my co-prime mentioned, this bill comes from patients and their families, oftentimes moms, dads, and advocates. These folks are fearful that the PDAB will result in access challenges and end up harming the research that's needed to find treatments for the 99% of rare disease patients with no options. And let's face it, it's harder for rare disease patients, caregivers, and advocates to defend their treatments. They're already foregoing jobs, portability. They're often in the hospital. They often have lower levels of energy perhaps access issues And it takes time and energy to come down here and talk to 100 of us to say hey, please don't keep me involved in this experiment. Please let our family live our lives, take care of ourselves, and not have to worry that the government is going to take away life-saving medicine for us. That's what this bill does, is it provides hope for patients and families with rare diseases. We urge you to protect access to rare disease therapies until the full impacts of upper payment limits are known. Untreated rare patients, they don't just get sicker. Sometimes they could die. risking access to therapies in the name of saving costs possibly could backfire and shift our costs to hospitals. One Colorado CF patient experienced six hospitalizations a year at $300,000 for each stay. Now they're living kind of a normal life because they have access to Trikafta. This saves over $1.5 million a year in hospital expenses alone. Even with these exemptions in this bill, it would take the PDAB 20 years to review the remaining medications on their latest list. 70% of rare disease diagnoses happen in childhood. two-thirds of rare disease patients are children, and rare disease patients and caregivers should not have to dedicate months to fight for their treatments. This bill provides hope for patients and families with rare diseases to safeguard access for these families to treatments and ensure the continued development of these life-saving and life-changing treatments. I urge your support of this incredibly important bill. Thank you.
Senator Wiseman.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. We heard this in Health Committee recently, and it was some of the harder testimony probably we've had to hear on any bill all year. There are patients who have pretty serious illnesses that the wonders of our modern pharmaceutical industry can sometimes develop a treatment for. We did hear testimony from patients and patient organizations on both sides. There are folks who are concerned that the setting of an upper payment limit through PDAB will cause, in my words, market exit on the part of companies that make those drugs. It's important to note in all the years that PDAB has existed, they have set a UPL on exactly one drug. there was a review process more recently that led to there not being an upper payment limit set. I understand that process was very grueling for folks to engage in. I was one of the two no votes in committee. I wanted to come up here and say a little bit about why. I think what nobody debates is the gravity of certain illnesses that folks desperately try to manage. the question as anytime I evaluate any bill here is the fit between the problem and the solution I ultimately had to vote no because I was not convinced of the appropriateness of the fit The bill proposes to exclude a class of drugs by reference to a certain federal law definition. A couple of problems with that definition. One, if you pull it up and look at it and how the statute goes, Title 21 United States Code, if I remember right. It's a status that a drug maker itself can push to get into, can try to be given. That was concern one. Concern two, there was a provision buried in the multi-hundred page H.R.1 that Congress passed last year that I think creates a really powerful incentive on top of existing incentives for drug makers to sort of get themselves classified through federal government process into that status because that provision of H.R.1 said if you get that status, now you're out of the federal government being able to negotiate those prices for federal health care programs. That issue, of course, being something that Congress had to fight for many years to do on behalf of beneficiaries and the American taxpayer, and now we have a bite out of it. So PDAB is relatively newer in Colorado. It was a hard-fought mechanism to effectuate in the first place. My concern with the bill as currently drafted, although I think all of us are coming from the same place, whatever side of the vote you ended up on, which is acknowledgement of the pain and desperation of patients, sitting, listening to hearing, taking notes. I mean, I probably came up with a list of six or seven or eight other measures, I think, that could be written that would address procedurally or substantively the scope of PDAB, would speak to the concerns without essentially, I mean, kind of ending the effectiveness of the mechanism nearly altogether, which is what I'm afraid that the bill, as it sits before us right now, would do. Again, the concern of proponent patients of the bill is upper payment limit will lead to market exit. I think there are some powerful incentives against market exit on the part of drug makers. One is just practical. They do want to be here to conduct business. Another is legal. I mean, you can't hold yourself as advertising the availability of things which you then actually don't make available. But the flip of that and why there were patients and patient groups testifying against the bill as well as for it is another form of non-availability is simply price. If a drug can ostensibly be purchased but is tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, you don't meaningfully have it. And an unfortunate reality is that sometimes, you know, through the patent system or other transactions, a formerly affordable drug, you know, will get bought up by some new owner, and then the price goes up by some amount you've never heard of. I believe it's called Wilson's disease. there's a condition where the body can't properly metabolize copper. There's an old medication. If you take it, you're fine. And if you don't have it, you're in a world of hurt. That used to be very affordable. Some other company bought it. The price went up, I mean, like a hundred times. Not because, you know, you hear it takes a billion dollars to develop a new drug. This wasn't one of those. The drug was out there. Somebody, frankly, just wanted to pad their profit. So we've got to look out for those kind of things. This is a complex base to be because there's a lot of federal law in patents, in the development of pharmaceuticals, in licensing and sale of pharmaceuticals. And we also have these state law questions about what should be our policy to promote affordability. It's a really hard subject. It was a tough hearing. But, again, we have to evaluate, I think, not just is there a problem, is there a condition to try to do policy for. I agree there's a condition to try to do policy for. I think relative to the way the problem is described, 140 as it's before us goes way too far in the other direction. So I can't support for those reasons. I wanted to say a little bit why. Thanks.
Senator Gonzalez.
Good morning, everybody. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in opposition to Senate Bill 140, and I want to talk a little bit about why. Look, I ran the bill in 2021 that established and created the Prescription Drug Affordability Board because I had spent years talking to Coloradans who were making impossible decisions between affording housing and their medications every month. I talked to Coloradans who went and were having their medications or taking their medications every other day in order to be able to make ends meet at the end of the month. And so we responded to that policy. We responded to that harm by advancing policy in order to start to tackle the cost of prescription drugs. First in the country, friends, first in the country to actually do meaningful work in order to lower the cost of prescription drugs here in the state of Colorado. And let me tell you, the lobby was big mad about that. As I was gearing up this morning to look at the comments, I was trying to pull up an editorial that I had written during the passage of this bill, during the implementation of this bill. I was trying to look up an old editorial that I'd written and look at this sponsored result that popped up on my ads. Sponsored result. The impact of PDAB in Colorado. PDABs do not work in Colorado. Sponsor result by pharma. Huh, interesting. Let me go and look at another Google search. PDAB, Colorado. Sponsor result, pharma. How the COPDAB fails patients. The flawed health policy in Colorado. That, friends, is what we are talking about with this bill. Now, let me just be very, very clear. This is my eighth and final year in the state Senate. Lobby won't have to deal with me in this capacity after this legislative session. But the testament of the prescription drug affordability actually making concrete improvement in people lives is demonstrated through the upper payment limit that has been set once Now look, do I wish that this bill that we passed four years ago would be more effective, that it would actually have resulted in upper payment limits being established for more than, I don't know, one medication? Absolutely. Do you think that the fact that when this similar policy to the Senate bill, what bill number is this, 140, was introduced two years ago, and then a compromise in terms of how the process would work when addressing medications that are meant to support people living with rare diseases? You think that had anything to do with slowing down the process and the efficacy of the Prescription Drug Affordability Board in the first place? Hmm. Fact of the matter is, friends, nobody's coming to save us when it comes to lowering the cost of prescription drugs but us. Embro, the one medication, costs Coloradans and their health plans over $83 million a year. The establishment of this upper payment limit helps reduce pressure on the skyrocketing insurance premiums across the state. That's why I'm seeing sponsored ads on my Google search results. it's why I rise in opposition to this bill with great respect to the sponsors with great respect to the patients who are terrified about losing access to their medications because pharma threatens, oh, if we have to abide by potentially extracting less profit, we'll just leave the state of Colorado. That's a, I'm not going to curse here. That is a wild proposition. I ask for a no vote.
Senator Roberts.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, colleagues, for this discussion. I am not on the health committee, so I haven't been as deeply involved in this discussion. And I want to first thank the good senator from Denver who just spoke for sponsoring the bill that created the PDAB five years ago, five years ago. And I think that's probably the reason why we're having this debate is because I think our constituents, and when I supported that bill when I was a member of the House, I was excited about it. I've worked on several pieces of legislation to cap the cost of prescription drugs for our constituents. Insulin, EpiPens, things that people need on a daily basis to stay alive. And I was hopeful that the PDAB was going to step up and talk about all the other drugs that people are getting ripped off on in our state. Our constituents rate this as one of the top issues facing them is the affordability of health care and the affordability of prescription drugs But it incredibly disappointing that the PDAB has only taken on and only set an upper payment limit on one drug in five years. And I think the cost to the taxpayers in terms of what it's been costing to run PDAB is close to a million dollars at this point that we've been spending on what, bureaucracy, engaging stakeholders to talk about what we might do in the future. this bill probably wouldn't be here if the pdab were doing the work that we all expected it to do so that is disappointing as somebody who cares deeply about making sure all of our constituents can have access to affordable prescription drugs with regards to senate bill 140 and the carve out for these rare disease drugs i want to also say that is despicable if the pharma industry is telling patients in Colorado that they are going to leave the state and those Coloradans wouldn't have access to those drugs. That is absolutely ridiculous tactics. We all as lawmakers and as policymakers know, of course, that that's not true, but put yourself in the seat of somebody suffering from one of those diseases, you're going to believe that. Of course you are. And so we're torn here between trying to continue to support a board that we were told was going to make all this big difference. And it's great that we were the first in the nation proud of Colorado, but if it's not doing anything, it's not doing anything. So the PDAB needs to do a lot better. I support this bill because it's important that we look out for the Coloradans who are coming to us saying they are terrified about their ability to continue living in this state because of something that a government board may or may not do. So with all due respect to the work and the goals of PDAB, They need to do better, and for now, when they're not doing anything, we should support this bill. Thank you.
Senator Frizzell.
You know I'm serious because I have my laptop with me. Kidding. Just kidding. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I really appreciate this conversation. I appreciate the good senator from Aurora's perspective, and I also appreciate the perspective of the good senator from Denver. we agree health care is too expensive it's way way too expensive the cost of prescription drugs they are way way too expensive and yes colorado was the first in the country but we and we were followed by 10 other states. As of January 2026, there are 11 states out of 50 that have prescription drug affordability boards. And they all do different things. They're all different. This concept of carving out or excluding rare disease and plasma treatments from board review is not novel. And I'm going to say it again. It was, in fact, recommended by the PDAB Advisory Council way back at the beginning until the impacts of upper payment limits on access were better understood. And I'm not talking about pharmaceutical companies saying that they're going to exit the market. That's not what we're talking about. And I agree.
Any pharmaceutical company that says that they just not going to come to Colorado to do business because this bill passes that reprehensible That not what we talking about We're talking about the impact, and the thing that needs to be studied, is the impact of government payment limits on providers and infusion centers. That's what we're talking about when we talk about access. those treatment centers don't have to carry drugs that they lose money on and that's the reality there are two states, Oregon and Washington that exempt rare disease drugs again, this is not a novel concept all we're asking for is for PDAW But yes, put upper payment limits on drugs that are commonly used, that are costing our citizens lots and lots of money. Do that. Do that. But please, and because there's plenty of them, there are plenty of drugs to be reviewed. There are plenty of opportunities to save Coloradans money. Plenty. Do that. Leave rare disease drugs out of the review. Thank you. I ask for your aye vote.
Senator Gonzalez.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just appreciate the comments and the discussion that we're actually having here on the Senate floor. Let me just be clear. This is the last time I'll come up on this bill. In 2024, this narrower version of what we are considering right here, right now, was introduced in the legislature. Then the argument was patients who take orphan drugs wanted more input in the process because they were also worried about how expensive their medications were. The legislature put forward another process to require the board consider more input from patients with rare diseases before doing any affordability reviews. That requirement hasn't yet been implemented thanks to the molasses that we have imposed on the board itself. This, friends, is what death by a thousand paper cuts looks like. let those 2024 requirements take effect before removing the medications and narrowing the medications that can actually be considered. You want to get into how many medications would be exempted if 140 is allowed to become law? 67% of medications that the PDAB can even review. 471 medications. Ask Coloradans, where do they stand? Approximately 9 out of 10 Coloradans support setting standard prices for drugs to make them more affordable. 69% of Coloradans believe the PDAB ought to be able to set an upper payment limit on more prescription drugs, not fewer. Again, I ask for a no vote on this bill. Let the board work. But don't fight to make this policy unworkable and then run a policy to exempt two-thirds of the medications that can even be considered and then be upset that it's not working. Ask for a no vote.
Senator Marchman.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you. Gosh, I marked on this. Thank you to the good Senator from Denver and Aurora. Two senators from Aurora have helped us discuss some possible amendments. and we did write all seven of them down. We do not deny that these would probably make the PDAB better, maybe more efficient, maybe more accessible, but these don't do what our constituents are asking for us to do. I just want to start with gratitude. I didn't get to vote for this to be the way of Colorado, but I'm incredibly thankful that it is. We are often models for the rest of the nation, and we were in this case. And I'm thankful for that because I, too, hear that the cost of health care is completely unaffordable, and it is. and I think we're going to have to deal with that through a lot of different measures. But this bill actually came about partially because of what happened in 2024. At the very beginning of PDAB, as I've heard it from the rare disease patients I've been speaking to, they never really wanted to be a part of this process. They saw it then as an experiment and just said, please, let us tap out of this experiment. That didn't work. So in 24, they brought some form of legislation here, and we ended up passing what was Senate Bill 24, 203. At this point, the PDAB had ignored the advice of their own advisory council because their own advisory council recommended, hey, don't review these rare disease drugs. So now that this new council exists under 24203, the Rare Disease Advisory Council, they've issued these statements on this. Potential decrease in access and coverage for rare disease patient, unknown manufacturer response to UPL, that's why they were saying feels like an experiment, during the patient assistant plans, impact are known, unknown, and then significant emotional and psychological toll on these patients and their families while they are undergoing this So as it was there were a group of bipartisan legislators who ended up having to come together and beg PDAB please do not look at Trikafta This is changing lives of CF patients every day in Colorado, and you are just giving them trauma by making them wonder what's going to happen if they take my life-saving drug away? And so it was because of that bipartisan letter that the PDAP did not. We are hearing that it was because the PDAP worked that they didn't look at Trikafta. However, I wonder what would have happened if a bipartisan group of legislators hadn't sent a message to say, y'all, this is off limits. So I appreciate the conversation. I do know that this bill will likely take some twists and turns as it makes its way through the rest of the body. But I just want to thank you for taking the time to consider this, for hearing from me that I am running this bill for the families that we represent, and I appreciate you considering voting yes on Senate Bill 140. Thank you.
Senator Kirkmeyer.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would ask for an aye vote on Senate Bill 26-140 as well. I've followed the PDAB saga since the very beginning. I think many of you probably heard me talk about the first Senatorial 5 that I was involved in. It was the PDAB bill in 2021, and it was Senate Bill 21-175. You know, it was my first year, thinking Senatorial 5 means five minutes. Well, five minutes actually means about three hours, apparently. It could be any amount of time. And that's how long they went into a Senatorial 5 to try and get the PDAB bill into a position after several amendments. and then came back and after several more amendments got it passed. So that was five years ago. And I've talked about PDAB probably, I don't know, maybe every year since then, because the bill in 2024, 203, that was actually my bill, along with Senator Janal, the good senator from Fort Collins. So five years ago, five years ago we put in place the Prescription Drug Affordability Board. In 2023, another law was passed, 1225. It took the number of drugs that they could look at from 12 to 18. Now, keep in mind, when that bill was being passed, the board, it took about 12 to 18 months, if I remember correctly, for the governor to even appoint the PDAB board. So we weren't moving too quickly and didn't really have a board in place, but we were trying to increase the number of prescription drugs that could have an upper payment limit from 12 to 18, no board in place. So board moves pretty slow, aren't really getting anything done, two years have passed. 2024 happens and we have to run a bill to basically tell the pdab board that they have to that they have to consider information that they have to listen to the public because part of the comments that i heard from folks was is that the pdab board just goes about their business and doesn really want to hear from the public and doesn want to hear from people in the public that are going to be impacted by an upper payment limit on a drug But really what the bill summary for 24203 said current law requires the Colorado Prescription Drug Affordability Review Board to take certain measures in determining whether to conduct an affordability review for an identified prescription drug. To act, the act requires the board in making such a determination to consider whether the drug has an approved orphan drug designation for one or more rare diseases and no other indications, and if so, to consider input from consumers and the Colorado Rare Disease Advisory Council. I think it's absurd that a board that had been in place for three years, after we have to pass another law to say that you have to take into consideration information from the Colorado Rare Disease Advisory Council, but that's what we had to do. The bill in 2024 tried to do much more than that, but we couldn't get it all the way through, so we compromised. Compromised and put a mandate in and said, you've got a board. Can you imagine we have to tell a state board that they have to take advice on rare diseases, on orphan drugs, rare disease medication on orphan drugs from the advisory council, that they weren't doing that anyways, but they weren't. So I'm in complete support of Senate Bill 26-140. It basically gets accomplished what I couldn't get accomplished in 24, and I'm thankful for that because I heard from a lot of folks that were concerned that they weren't going to have access to their drugs, that were concerned that the PDAP board was not listening to them. And then on top of all, the PDAB board, after five years, finally put an upper payment limit on one drug. And then a lawsuit happened immediately because they didn't listen to people. So it's in a lawsuit. We've spent millions of dollars, not just a million, but millions of dollars over the course of the last five years on this program, millions, updating databases, paying the Division of Insurance to have people do things, to get one drug that has an upper payment limit that the public, the people who need those drugs, said, whoa, you didn't really even listen to us, we're concerned about getting access, and then on top of it all, a lawsuit. So in five years, the board's basically done nothing except get us into a lawsuit and spend millions of dollars and have to be required to listen to the Rare Disease Advisory Council. I'm in complete support, and I would urge everyone to support 26-140.
Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of Senate Bill 140. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted. Will the clerk please read the title to House Bill 26-1268?
House Bill 1268 by Representatives McCormick and Smith and Senator Lindstedt concerning measures to advance renewable energy projects on previously disturbed lands through the designation of renewable energy reinvestment areas.
Senator Lindstedt.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1268. There is an amendment at the desk.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move L5.
The clerk please read amendment L005 Amendment L Senator Linstead Thank you I move L
Is there any discussion, Senator Linstead? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So L-5, we had a lengthy discussion in committee on the public hearing aspect of this bill. My incredible colleague had some really thoughtful ideas, and we took a day to kind of work through them and come to what I think is a really good place so that we can develop brownfield locations to build renewable energy. So I'm just really excited about his passion to build renewable energy projects in our state and make sure the public hearing process works efficiently. So I ask for an aye vote.
Senator Palton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, and thank you for that exaggeration of renewable energy projects about me. So, no, I just appreciate the discussion around this amendment. Basically, this amendment would remove a requirement for local permitting entities to engage in an administrative reputable process before eligible projects can be permitted and constructed. So we're making sure that it's not an administrative process. It is a public process to get this done. I appreciate the good senator from Broomfield that allowed this amendment on there, working with the lobbyists in the back on this bill. I appreciate my biggest hesitation with any project, whether it be green energy, whether it be data centers, whether it be any of that stuff, we have to have public processes for the people to engage in what's going on. And I appreciate the amendment, and I ask for an aye vote on the amendment, and I'll probably vote for the bill now. Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on L-005? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of Amendment L-005. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. To the bill, Senator Linstead.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1268 is a very important piece of legislation that will create an optional program so that local governments can better use disturbed lands. So I think brownfields, capped landfills, mining affected areas, formal and gas sites, so that they can have the financial tools they need to utilize those sites to create energy, energy independence for our state, to lower utility bills and expand our renewable energy projects. So it's an optional tool, not a mandate, that will allow local governments the financial tools they need to better utilize these sites. So a good bill. Thank you to my colleagues for working on this one with me. I ask for an aye vote.
Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1268? Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of House Bill 1268. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted.
Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the committee rise and report.
The motion is for the committee to rise and report. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The motion is adopted, and the committee will rise and report. I hear everything. That's true. Thank you. The Senate will come to order. Mr. Schaffler, please add Senator Kirkmeyer to the roll.
Senator Ball. Thank you, Mr. President. The committee has met and had of bills under consideration. Will the clerk please read the report?
April 9, 2026, Mr. President, in committee of the Holbeck's leave to report as added in consideration the following attached bills being the second reading thereof, makes following recommendations thereon. Senate Bill 140, passed on second reading, in order to engrossed and placed in the calendar for third reading and final passage. House Bill 1268, as amended, passed on second reading, in order to revise and place in the calendar for third reading and final passage. Senate Bill 134, House Bill 1084, laid over until April 10, 2026, and retained their place in the
calendar. Senator Ball. Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the adoption of the report. The motion is the adoption of the community of the
home report. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 34 ayes, 0 no, 0 absent, and one excused community of the home report is adopted. Senate Bill 140 passed the second reading order. Grows place a counter for third reading in the final passage. House Bill 1268 is amended. Passed the second reading order revised and placed a counter for third reading in the final passage. Senate Bill 134. House Bill 1084 played over until 410-2026. which hand it in place on the calendar.
Committee reports. Committee on Transportation and Energy, after consideration on the merits, the committee recommends the following. Senate Bill 150 be amended as follows, and as so amended be referred to the committee the whole with favorable recommendation.
Announcements.
Senator Mullica. Thank you Mr President Member of Senate Health and Human Services Committee will be meeting at 1 in the Old Supreme Court to hear House Bill 1194 House Bill 1116 House Bill 1262 House Bill 1305 and House Bill 1280
Very good. Senator Roberts.
Thank you, Mr. President. The Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee will meet this afternoon at 1.30 in Room 352. We will hear a confirmation hearing for members of the Geological Storage Stewardship Enterprise Board, and then we will consider House Bill 1213, House Bill 1184, and House Bill 1183.
Very good. Senator Amabile.
Thank you, Mr. President. Appropriations will be meeting tomorrow in LSBB. We will be hearing House Bill 1331, 1332, and 1333, and we will also be hearing Senate Bill 2, 20, 141, 80, and 137. Thanks.
Very good. Senator.
At 8 a.m.
Very good.
Senator Axton. Thank you, Mr. President. Senate Local Government Housing Committee we meet this afternoon at 1 in room 357 We will hear one bill House Bill 1045 Thank you Very good Senator Snyder Thank you Mr President I announcing that the Conference Committee on House Bill 1038 County Commissioner Redistricting, will take place tomorrow, 8 a.m., in HCR 107. Thank you.
Very good. Senator Wallace.
Thank you, Mr. President. The State Veteran and Military Affairs Committee will be meeting 25 minutes after adjournment in the old Supreme Court to hear House Bill 1113.
Very good. Senator Henriksen.
Thank you, Mr. President. 15 minutes upon adjournment, Senate Committee Room 352, Business, Labor, and Technology Committee will be hearing Senate Bill 127, Senate Bill 133, and House Bill 1228.
Very good. Mr. Majority Leader.
Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, we will be recessing as we need to read some those across the desk, so there's no need to return. On that, Mr. President, I move the Senate recess until 12 p.m. today.
Move over the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. What? The ayes have it. And the Senate will recess until 12 p.m. today. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.