Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 090

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which stands one nation, one of the indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

representatives bacon aml bacon excuse to barone bassenecker bottoms bradfield bradley brooks brown caldwell camacho Carter. Clifford. Representative Clifford. It's excused. Rep DeGraff is excused. Duran. English. Espinoza. Representative Espinoza. is excused. Ferre, Flanelle, Froelich. Representative Froelich is excused. Garcia, Garcia-Sander, Gilchrist, Goldstein, Gonzalez, Hamrick, Hartsook Jackson Johnson Joseph Representative Joseph is excused Kelty Leader Rep Leader is excused Lindsey Luck Lukens Mabry Marshall Representative Marshall Martinez Morrow McCormick Wynn Pascal Phillips Richardson Ricks. Representative Ricks. Excuse. Rutanel. Representative Rutanel. Excuse. Ryden. Sirota. Slaw. Smith. Soper. Stewart K. Stewart R. Story Sukla Taggart Tatone Valdez A Representative Valdez excused Velasco Weinberg present. Wilford. Winter. Woodrow. Oh yeah, Rep. Woodrow's excused. Woog. Zokai. And Madam Speaker. Here. With 57 present, 8 excused, we do have a quorum.

Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I move that the journal of Saturday, April 11, 2026, be approved and corrected by the Chief Clerk.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. And by Madam Chair, I meant Madam Speaker.

Members, Colorado has a shortage of teachers, especially for students with disabilities and especially in rural Colorado.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm going to start again because I think everyone is going to be really interested in this announcement. Members, Colorado has a shortage of teachers, especially for students with disabilities and especially in rural Colorado. When I was the executive director for the San Luis Valley BOCES, we hired teachers from the Philippines. One day I interviewed via Zoom a teacher and we offered him the job and he was so emotional when he accepted because he was so grateful for the opportunity to come to rural Colorado and teach students with disabilities. Last year, he was the San Luis Valley BOCES Teacher of the Year, and he is here with us today with his transition students, teachers, and parents. Emil created a transition program for 18- to 21-year-olds with disabilities that used to be a bunch of kids sitting in a high school classroom being bored all day. Now, they have their own house, they have work experience, they have real-life skills, and every year they come to the Capitol. Welcome, Emil, Dennis, Lori, and the SLV BOCES transition crew.

Thank you Madam Speaker Today is Purple Up Day again here at the Capitol so we want to welcome all the children of military families that are stationed here in Colorado to the Capitol We have some that are over here on the bench, and they're a lot more in the Capitol this morning. Additionally, we will be having them in the Old State Library at 1230 today, so if you would like to please go stop by and talk to them and give them about your experience.

or all kinds of things that my kids have missed, but I know that all of the other kids, they have all of those same experiences. So I thank them for putting up with our service.

I apologize. I apologize. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also wanted, first of all, I wanted to make sure that they rise so that you guys give them their proper announcement. I also wanted to point out that there are several members of the legislature who are former Purple Kids as well, as in they are sons and daughters of dependents that also had to follow behind their fathers and their mothers, and they're up here and they rise up here with me. So I just want to make sure that we recognize not just the Purple Kids, but the Purple Kids that are in the legislature as well.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The State Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee will meet at 1.30 p.m. in LSBA to hear House Concurrent Resolution 1002.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wish I had worn purple. I'm one of those kids that was in 14 different school districts before I graduated from high school, so welcome to you all. Also, Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources Committee will be meeting at 1.30 to hear three bills. Senate Bill 62 for action only, House Bill 1342, and House Bill 1341.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. I apologize for not signing up in advance. I will pay my dollar fine.

Members, I just wanted to take a moment. Today, April 13th, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, his funeral services are down in southwest Colorado. He died on December 30th. He was my predecessor from the early 80s and went on to serve a wonderful career in the Senate. And the flags will be flown at half staff, and I just wanted to take a minute to honor him and recognize him. and I apologize, Madam Speaker, for not putting my name down.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to invite people to the Legislator Bible study tomorrow morning and it starts at 7.15 in room 109. And also I am remiss for not mentioning the Bible study that meets at noon in SSB for lobbyists staff journalists and sergeants Thank you

It's not often that I come up two times during announcements, so I just wanted to add my welcome to the Purple Military Kids. I myself am a Purple Military Kid. Similar to the representative from Boulder County, I went to 10 different schools before I graduated high school. And when I was first born, when I was first born, when I was born, my dad actually was picked up via a helicopter because he was out to sea serving this country via the Navy. So certainly want to recognize all of the sacrifices that our kids and our families make in order to ensure that our military members can serve and really do want to welcome you all to the people's house.

Madam Speaker, I move that the following bills be made special orders.

It's okay, Madam Speaker. I'm just a step ahead. That's all.

Senate Joint Resolution 16 by Senator Linsett, also Representative Stewart R., concerning the improvement of retirement readiness and financial well-being.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Joint Resolution 16. So moved. Colorado, members, has built one of the strongest retirement systems in the nation. And this resolution today affirms the General Assembly's commitment to protecting and strengthening this legacy, not only for public employees, but for the long-term economic health of the entire state. Supporting this resolution today is a statement that Colorado values financial security, workforce stability, and sound fiscal management. Colorado has already demonstrated leadership through PARA, through Higher Education DC Plan Design, and through the Secure Savings Program. It's helping its workers prepare for retirement. This resolution today builds on that record by affirming that lifetime income is a cornerstone of retirement security and a driver of statewide prosperity. Evidence clearly shows that well-designed financial education, combined with structural tools like automatic enrollment, employer match incentives, and access to lifetime income options as default investments, meaningfully improves retirement outcomes. I respectfully ask for your support today to send a clear message that Colorado is committed to ensuring that its public employees and all of its workers can retire with dignity and that a secure retirement is good for every community and every corner of the state. Thank you.

Yes.

Yes. Representative Rutnell votes yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Representative Routenel, co-sponsors

Please close the machine Madam Majority Leader

Seeing no objection, the bills listed by the Majority Leader will be made special orders today, April 13 at 1021 a.m. Representative English Members, you have heard the motion Seeing no objection, Representative English will take the chair Thank you. Thank you.

House Bill 1233 by Representatives Lukens and Zokai, also Senator Roberts, concerning property tax procedures for non-residential properties.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1233 and the Finance Committee report. To the Committee report. Thank you, Madam Chair. In the Finance Committee, we had a few amendments. One was to conform to Senate Bill 46. One was in relation to reclassification of criminal petty offense. One was in relation to venue protection and judicial exclusivity. And with that, I move Amendment L4 to the Finance Committee report and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment makes two clarifications to the bill. First, it specifies that the petty offense applies only to the person who actually submits false information, ensuring liability is limited to the individual responsible for submission itself. Second, it makes a timeline clarification requested by the Board of Assessment Appeals to provide clearer procedural direction and ensures the appeals process is administered consistently. I ask for your yes vote on Amendment L4.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask for your yes vote on the Finance Committee report.

I move L006 to HB261233 and ask that it be displayed. Oh.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and for the sponsors again. And this amendment really is intended to ensure full transparency, full disclosure, and ensure that property owners that may not be represented and may not be familiar with the processes going forward at the Board of Assessment Appeals, that they actually understand that both sides in this process have the ability to make recommendations and make decisions for themselves. So I'll read it to you. I know it's pretty straightforward, but in this process, the county may file a motion with the board stating that the county's preference is that the case be heard in district court versus by the BAA. This amendment ensures that the property owner understands that they're not obligated to move the case to the district court, and if they choose not to that this does not prejudice their case in front of the BAA It very straightforward but it just to ensure that those that truly aren represented may never have stood before the BAA, don't get, I won't, well, I'll say steamrolled, and that's not really the intent, but that they just don't get caught up in the flow of motions and don't misunderstand that they don't have a voice in this. So I would recommend an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the good representative from Elbert County for this amendment. We are going to ask for a no vote. I do appreciate the intent behind it. I just also find that once an appellant is at the BAA level, they are pretty sophisticated and the BAA does already go through what is and is not required. I'm hesitant to put extra requirements on the BAA into statute and so happy to keep chatting about it but for today urge a no vote.

This bill before you I think is an excellent bill that has much needed cleanup to procedures and clarification of our laws and represents our joint efforts to make a more fair property tax valuation system. There are times that assessors have issues with receiving information and with taxpayers that find ways to work around the system. And this happens more when you are talking about non-residential property, as those property owners tend to have more means and have hired help overseeing their appeals. It is extremely problematic for assessors to be faced with a taxpayer that does not seem to be acting in good faith and to have no tools to address it. And that is why we have this bill before you today. I will go through some of what this bill does. We are adding penalties for willfully providing false information and allowing our counties to be able to hold bad actors accountable. We are allowing counties to request a case be moved from BAA to district court. Currently, the taxpayer can choose which path they want to move their case forward, and we would like the county to be able to make their preference known as well. We are also clarifying that we want the BAA to consider if a taxpayer has provided conflicting information through the appeal process or if the information they provided changed in any way. And we are also stating that interest is not available if a taxpayer has committed a petty offense. The property taxes that are paid on non-residential property make up a significant percentage of most counties' public revenue, which funds schools and other vital programs, We must work to create a system that is fair and has accountability for anybody that is gaming the system for their own personal gain. And I urge a yes vote.

So House Bill 1233 creates new penalties, mandates, costly appeals. it's another bill that if passes coming out of this building that is simply bleeding businesses dry Since 2019 the year Governor Polis took office I believe almost 100 companies 13 jobs have been lost or downsized That is absolutely the wrong direction. These are real jobs, real paychecks, and real families. businesses are leaving Colorado for states with lower taxes and less red tape yet we continue to pass bills that are anti-business in a year when our budget is in dire straits and here we go again another bill punishing businesses punishing people punishing families Colorado should be a state that

Senate Bill 128 by Senators Snyder and Kirkmeyer, also Representative Lukens, concerning a sales and use taxation exemption on certain fees charged by destination management companies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've moved Senate Bill 128 and the finance report. To the finance report. Thank you, Madam Chair. In the Finance Committee, we had varying changes to clarify the definition of destination management company, and we striked the repeal date. We ask for your yes vote on the Finance Committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill codifies our current practices into statute to ensure that we have...

It is a longstanding principle in our tax code that we do not impose sales tax on services. Destination management companies are a unique industry. They are not traditional retailers, but rather are purchasing goods on behalf of their client for large-scale events, conferences, tours, etc., and they pay sales tax at the point of purchase. As such, they have been treated as service providers, and while they do pay sales tax at the point of purchase, they don't collect and remit sales tax on behalf of their clients. Ambiguity in current law has caused confusion over whether their service fees should be taxable, and that would effectively be taxing the same transaction twice. This bill is a simple fix to protect the investments that DMCs make in Colorado and maintain the $50 million in revenue that these companies generate each year for our state, and we ask for your yes vote.

House Bill 1195 by Representatives Raiden and Mabry, also Senators Mabale and Mullica, concerning restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence related to psychotherapy services.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1195 and the Health and Human Services Committee report, and I move L009 to the committee report. It's a multi-page amendment. Yeah. Thanks, Javi.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought what I would do, colleagues, is walk through what the multi-page amendment does, and then once we... Members, we need to hear this amendment.

I'm just going to walk through quickly what that multi-page amendment that was on your desks kind of does, and then once we adopt the committee report, we will certainly talk more about the substance of the bill. Of course, we're adding some language for FDA-approved AI technologies. Of course, this came out of some negotiation. There are currently none actually being used in this field, but we certainly want to make sure that if they become developed and approved and go through that rigorous FDA approval process, that we don't limit that here in our state. We also needed to add a definition of AI. We have been relying on the definition in Senate Bill 205, which we know now is in a different state, so we're making sure to include that. And in the future, we're happy to look at when we get to a place with different AI definitions across different bills, consolidating that, but we at least need something in this bill. We also, in negotiations with the governor's office, we added what's called synchronous real-time allowable use of an AI-type therapy system. That means it has to be used with a licensed individual who's licensed in the state of Colorado to provide psychotherapy in real-time. We also moved a considerable amount of language that talked about regulating AI systems into the Consumer Protection Act and out of the Mental Health Practice Act, as well as added a little bit of specific language back into the Mental Health Practice Act that made it very clear to therapists who are maybe using AI what they can and cannot do. We also wanted to address liability, making sure that if we have clinicians who are using AI as something that's required from their agency or from a system that they individually are not held accountable if there is a breach. Just like when there's HIPAA breaches or things like that, there is a process in place for that, so we wanted to make sure that that doesn't include the licensee who might not have control over how that AI system was being used. We had some additional allowable uses for AI and psychotherapy, adjacent-like tools, therapeutic homework, for example. and then we wanted to be mindful of deployers of systems that might be using some AI and psychotherapy-like tools, and so we added knowingly into that language. So with that, I would ask for an aye vote on the committee report. And the amendment. Representative Bradley. Sorry, a few minutes.

Thank you Madam Chair It an honor to serve with you It an honor to serve with you my friend Thank you to the bill sponsors for bringing this forward This bill is so important and super excited to speak on this bill The amendment first, though, definitely clears up the language. In the medical field, we are seeing AI kind of take over, and there's got to be some safeguards in place because patients need to know that their treatment plan cannot be based on AI model, that we can use this to subjectively and objectively put things into the chart, but then therapists, physical therapists cannot use AI to then come up with treatment plan and diagnosis. And so it's very important that there is clarity as we're starting to see AI really take over, and I kind of feel like we're behind the times, but we definitely need the clarity and the language to make sure that patients know when it's acceptable for their therapist or their medical provider to use AI and when it's not. And I think from this point on, we've got to draw clear lines in the sand so it's not a gray area because we do have penalties in this bill. So we need to make sure that the consumer is protected, we need to make sure the provider is protected, and we need to make sure that there's clarity in the language. So I really appreciate the bill sponsors going through such a technical amendment and cleaning it up and listening to what we were saying in committee. I believe this does it, and I have one more thing to add, and I'll be back up soon. Thanks.

Thank you, Chair. I think this is a good bill also in some aspects, and I think this amendment helps it. I would say I was struggling a little bit with some things, but I think this amendment helps it. We do need to allow AI for us to have access to it in certain contexts. Obviously, when it gets to the final, when there has to be human interaction, that's where it needs to stop. But to say somehow that we cannot use this in this space, I think in any space. I'm not in the therapy space, but let me use the example from my own life as being a pastor. I use AI to do a lot of study, to take a lot of time out of my study that normally would be there, preparing messages and teaching and things like that. And I use AI, put the structures to it. but when it comes down to the final, I'm putting my messages together, and I'm the one speaking my messages. AI is not speaking my messages.

I usually am getting gaveled down when that happens, so that caught me a little bit there. But I'm the one actually speaking the messages. This is the same kind of thing. AI has some very negative context when it comes to the actual last line of defense on certain subjects. But to be able to use it and to use it productively, we're not going to be able to get away from that. AI is moving in this space and it's moving quickly in this space. But I do think this amendment does bring some of this back and tries to put some nice little bumpers on the edges. We're going to have to continuously do that over the next handful of years. We're going to have to continuously come back and say, AI needs to be changed here, developed, and really they're just bumpers We going to have to put some limitations in what aspects AI can speak into and what they can So I don think this is I think this is a good amendment I think we need this amendment I think it important for this bill also just because there was, I was kind of a little bit on the fence on some of this, on this bill. But I do want to think, and I don't think I've ever said this on a maybe bill before, but I do want to thank the sponsors for, yeah, I do. I thought it through again. I do want to thank the sponsors for bringing this because this is a pretty important moment. This is a pretty important, this is the space we're in right now in our society. We cannot get away from this. We have to figure out how to navigate this. And we've got to leave enough freedom in these things to be able to accomplish a lot of stuff while not actually, I know that we've even, this is, this is more kind of, I guess, on the bill, but we know that there's been even some lives that are lost in some of this, in this arena. I've seen this and walked with this a little bit over the last couple years how this can be dangerous. We're even trying to help some of our leadership and our church when it comes to youth and children and things like that to make sure that they're educating people on the AI issues and how this can be negative and make sure we're educating them on all the different nuances. So I think this is a decent amendment to try to help trim up the edges of this. So thank you, Bill Sponsors, for the amendment and the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We heard this bill in committee, Health and Human Services Committee, and I was immediately impressed by how clear this bill was thought out, how clearly it was delineated as to what AI could do and what AI could not do, what the therapist responsibilities were. And I understood it, even though this is a field that I have very little familiarity with. And I urge a yes vote.

This is a few things with this that I want to make sure that we have in front of us. So 1195 in a general sense, and this amendment is trying to trim, again, trim the edges of this, directly deals with psychologists. It directly deals with social workers and clinic social workers, professional counselors, therapists, marriage and family therapists, addiction counselors, candidates and registered psychotherapists, companies offering psychotherapy serving Colorado. And so we want to make sure that we're not hurting therapists from being able to have information, to be able to have some background, to be able to do some research, and to come up with some really good information to help them with the conclusion. The AI is not going to provide the conclusion or speak directly to it, but this amendment does give the opportunity for these therapists to have this information. It also does not do, I think maybe this is important stuff that it does not directly engage in therapeutic communication with clients And that is where this amendment is This is where it does kind of put the bumpers on the edges

Thank you, Madam Chair. We were working on an amendment. The bill sponsors have graciously said they'll accept in the Senate. All I want to do is to make sure that in the informed consent that a patient signs, that therapeutic communication, which is their language, does not include general wellness education, instruction, or guidance that is intended to promote overall health and well-being rather than to diagnose, treat, or address a specific mental, emotional, or behavioral health concern. will add that in to what a patient will sign as consent because then they will know what a provider is allowed to use as far as artificial intelligence and what they will not be able to use. I think it will just protect the consumer, protect the employer or the provider, and everyone will be on the same page. And I appreciate your graciousness. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to confirm on the record what the representative from Douglas County just said. We agree that's a good change, agree to make it in the Senate. Timing-wise, we're not going to get it done today, but thank you for that suggestion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We ask for a yes vote on this amendment.

We ask for a yes vote on the Health and Human Services Committee Report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First off, I want to recognize all the hard work my co-prime sponsor put into this bill. She did a great job leading the stakeholding, talking to members. So thank you, and thank you for asking me to be on the bill with you. I just want to take a few minutes to talk about why this bill is so important. When Adam Ryan told his AI companion that he wanted to die, the chatbot did not call for help. It did not encourage him to seek real support. Instead, it validated his feelings. It said, you do not want to die because you want to die. You want to die because you're tied to being in a strong, in a world that has not met you halfway. That same night, Adam died by suicide. OpenAI has said that hundreds of thousands of users may show signs of experiencing manic or psychotic crisis every week. and more than a million people have connections that include explicit indicators of potential suicide planning or intent. Through an update in ChatGPT5, OpenAI was able to reduce what they called undesirable responses in these conversations by 65 to 80%. 65 to 80% in millions of conversations. That should alarm all of us. And the reason why is because these systems are designed to keep us on them. That is how they make their money. And even when they are adapted to be used in the medical space, the underlying system is still open AI, clawed, anthropic, and they are designed to be pleasing to the users. That is how they make their money. That is how they keep us coming back. There was a tech executive named Joe Briarwood who launched a company that was supposed to provide AI therapy and let that company die because as they were developing, he was troubled by what he was seeing. He put it this way, do we really think that models that are trained on all the slop of the internet and then post-trained to behave a certain way, mainly to please the user, are the right structure for something that could shape whether we become our best or our worst selves? That is why regulation in this space is so critical. This bill recognizes that AI can be a powerful tool, but it also recognizes that mental health is not a product like any other. When people are in crisis, they deserve real treatment from trained professionals. Now, I acknowledge we've made some changes with our amendments, and I think that, as the representative from El Paso County said, we're probably going to have to keep coming back to the table on this issue because the technology is developing so rapidly. But this is an important first step to make sure that we're protecting dignity and mental health treatment. I'll pass it to my co-prime sponsor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, there's a problem. Some people are using artificial intelligence as therapy. And there are businesses that are marketing these AI technologies as therapists. AI cannot deliver psychotherapy safely. We know this. It can't respond to suicide ideation appropriately like a human can or assist in crisis assessment. It's not required to do mandated reporting, which is something therapists have to do by law. And people, especially kids, have died because of this. So our solution is to say in this bill, psychotherapy can only be delivered by humans and humans who are licensed in the state of Colorado to deliver psychotherapy appropriately and ethically. The second thing that this bill does is we, psychotherapists and those who are practicing in this space, they see value, of course, in using AI. It can expedite scheduling. It can help write notes, all wonderful things, but there's very limited guidance on how they do this ethically. So we have outlined in the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We've outlined in the bill how the practice itself of psychotherapists can use AI ethically in their practice. Again, using it for administrative purposes or scheduling purposes and being really clear that written consent is needed if you are going to use AI in any way in psychotherapy. We also put a carve out for research purposes. We know that maybe when you're training other clinicians, perhaps there is a space for AI to be used ethically. So we ask for a yes vote on House Bill 1195.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I was just on one of the bill sponsors I give you a lot of crap for the policy I don like so I going to give you kudos to the policy I do like This is something that everyone needs to be aware of I did not understand this so I set my four kids down at the table and they said Mom, this is a huge problem on TikTok right now. Chatbots and AI are able to reduce undesirable responses by 65% in regards to kids committing suicide when asking a chatbot. This is a problem. This is like giving meth to somebody suffering from drug addiction. They are sucking these children in like they are their friends and then only giving them positive responses. So when a child goes to this relationship bot and says, I'm not feeling very good about myself, then the chat bot comes in and says, well, you should, you know, affirms them feeling bad about themselves through a positive response. One in eight kids, 12 to 25, use chat bots for mental health advice. One in eight. and the automated response without a relationship. This is crazy to me, you guys, that our children are not getting a human relationship and instead one in eight are going to chatbots that are helping our kids commit suicide. This is insanity to me. I mean, so much that the representative that was up here talked about a man who started a mental health platform and then shut it down because his conscience wouldn't let him look himself in the mirror. This is a great bill. AI can help provide with administrative tools that's not safe for diagnosis and treatment plan. And we have been doing this in our clinic for a year or two. It definitely helps decrease administrative burden. When a patient comes in, I can take subjective and objective information, but that is where it stops. We have informed consent from the patient that they know what we're using and why we're using it, but we are not allowed to do diagnosis or treatment plan. There have to be guardrails for patients. There have to be guardrails for kids in the mental health space. We just went through a mental health crisis during COVID. So much that Children's Hospital declared us a mental health emergency. We have to put guardrails on things like this. And it doesn't go against the providers, and it doesn't go against the patient. They cleaned up the language. This is a great start to protecting the people in our community, and I support it 100%. Thank you to the bill sponsors.

Mr. Sheba, please read the title of House Bill 1324. House Bill 1324 by Representatives McCormick and Gilchrist, also Senator Doherty, concerning regulation of the Division of Professions and Occupations and in connection therewith, implementing recommendations contained in the 2025 sunset report by the Department of Regulatory Agencies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1324 and the committee report.

In committee, we ran an amendment to update some language around the fee that is charged for the Legal Defense Fund. We also added language to put back into statute a series of folks that were taken out mistakenly, namely professional engineers, land survey interns, professional land surveys, surveyors, et cetera. And we urge an aye vote on the committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L007 to the committee report

Thank you. This is just striking the fee increase from $1 to $2. It was told by us in committee that it was to increase money for the defense fund, to prevent increases in licensing fees, that the fee has not been changed since 1958, but I'm just trying to figure out why do we need it? Are there a ton of defense fund legal fees that are happening? Are people being sued? Do we need more money? No one has told us what's in the defense fund, why we need to increase it. I know it hasn't been increased since 1958, but I haven't seen a lot of people being sued or a lot of legal defense having to protect people in the Division of Professions and Occupations. When provider rates are decreasing yet again in our state, I know a dollar doesn't seem like much, but it seems like much to the providers in the state. So I'm just wondering how much increased revenue will the excess tax increase annually? What is the current balance of that? I'd like to know what the current balance is before we just take another dollar from people or the fees. and what is the projected need in the legal defense account. I know we haven't raised it since 1958, but provide us with those statistics so we can understand why it needs to be raised across all divisions of professions and occupations, what that's going to increase to, how much we have in the fund, and has there been an increase in need of defense legally for these professions before we just raise fees? Thank you.

But we're out. Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of this amendment for the reason that, of course, everything right now is being feed. But we need to be prepared. I believe we should be prepared on information on why these fees are going up, information on what it's going to go towards. And then we can properly speak to it, to the people, why we're doing this. So I do believe that this needs to be explained. let's not raise the fee let's not raise the fee without being able to explain why our own constituents and our corresponding districts and not just that the whole state of Colorado why we have to raise these fees so I come in support with this amendment thank you

thank you Madam Chair so I'm going to give a little history about the Legal Defense Fund. First, I want you all to know what professions and occupations this bill is covering. It covers every health care practitioner from acupuncturists to veterinarians in alphabetical order. It also covers architects to radon professionals in alphabetical order. There's about 15 of them. And businesses from accountants to professional land surveyors. So there's quite a few professions, over 60, that this bill is overseeing. The legal defense account is, as we have heard earlier, has not been updated since 1958. And this fund helps supplement the cost of legal services for all of those individual programs, of which there are over 60. the funds in the account may be used to help pay legal expenses incurred by any one of those programs And in the five years examined before this sunset review total legal expenses for the division range from million in fiscal year 21 to $5.2 million in fiscal year 23-24. These legal expenses include costs associated with holding administrative hearings, charges for legal services provided by the Attorney General's office, and each one of those divisions has their own Attorney General liaison that helps them with the implementation of the laws that we pass here. It pays for costs for administrative law judge services. It also includes the costs associated with investigative work and hiring expert witnesses or consultants whenever any one of these professions is taken to court. Legal expenses are also incurred when various regulatory boards and programs are sued in civil court for enforcing new laws passed by this General Assembly. And knowing that we're only raising this fee by $1 since 1958, we have been told that the ability to raise this one fee for the Legal Defense Fund will offset, that if we don't do this, many of these legal professions licensing fees will go up. So this is using economy of scale to have everybody pay $1 more into this fund so that individual license fees won't go up. So we respectfully urge a no vote on this amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you so much to the bill's sponsor for giving me some statistical backup. I see what you're saying, $3.1 million to $5.2 million. Just wondering if you know how much money is in the legal defense fund offhand. Thank you for all that information I wrote down. Do you happen to know how much is in the legal defense fund at hand right now? Not often.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L-003 to 1324 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Representative Gilchrist. Thank you, Madam Chair. This issue came up in committee about administrative tasks within the bill. And so this is a clarifying amendment just to make sure that we are allowing for the board to oversee any significant changes, the medical board, and all boards, but that administrative tasks can be delegated to staff. So that was just clarifying, and we ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-004 to 1324 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The reason that this is a multi-page amendment is that we're just changing throughout the bill that they have to provide a receipt confirmed with seven calendar days, and so that had to be changed throughout the bill. And it's a technical change that changes that throughout the bill. You've got to move this in. And then I also move L005 to L004. And ask that it be properly displayed.

And we ask for an aye vote on L-005, which is amending L-004.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the bill sponsors. So we ran a bill for provider rates earlier, and we had put registered mail in there. The problem is people aren't getting through regular mail contractual changes or different changes. So I'm just asking why certified was taken out because certified, you acknowledge receipt of that. So if the bill sponsors could explain that, that would be awesome.

Back to Amendment L-004 as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify, we ask for an aye vote on L-004 as amended. As I mentioned before, it's just changing that seven calendar days. They notify within seven calendar days, and we ask for an aye vote on L-004 as amended.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask again So if there a disciplinary action taken and they don receive it through an email now we taken off certified mail because Dora wanted it off I thought that we weren going with the lobbyist game in here So now people that have disciplinary action get it through snail mail, which can be lost easily, versus certified mail. So again, I'm going to ask why we need to take certified mail off of there when it involves something as important as a disciplinary action.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So this bill does make several changes to the divisions of professions and occupations in the Department of Regulatory Agencies as recommended by their divisions sunset review. It does allow the regulator to delegate authority for certain administrative tasks authorized through the policies of the board or commission at the regulator's discretion. It also extends the amount of time for a licensee who receives a letter of admonition to request a hearing from 20 to 25 days. It gives them a little more time. It also authorizes DPO to send correspondences to licensees electronically and changes the existing fee, as we discussed earlier, for the Legal Defense Fund and adds back in engineer, interns, professional engineers, land surveyor, interns, land surveyors to qualify for licensure by endorsement under certain conditions. And we ask for an aye vote on the bill as amended.

Mr. Sheba, please read the title of House Bill 1235. House Bill 1235 by Representative Ferre, also Senator Dougherty, concerning updates to the medical assistance program.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-1235 in the committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1235, I move amendment L005 to the committee report.

Representative Foray to the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to first apologize to the clerks that I'm bringing these amendments, because I know it's a lot of work for you all, so thank you for bearing with me. This adds transparency to the HICPF enrollment and renewal process. It's just asking to report out on some of the data, So we ensure we know who's enrolling and disenrolling in the timelines with that. And I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L-006 to the committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This was heavily debated. It's around transparency for providers of Medicaid. We want to ensure that the caregivers are getting paid with these agencies and there's not too much overhead and administrative burden. This was the contentious one on Health Committee, and I'm really excited we got to a good place where everyone is comfortable in the amount that they're reporting and the frequency that they're reporting. I have a small amendment on L010 to adjust L6, so I think I have to wait to – I'd like to move L10 to L006 to fix something. I move. Thank you. I move L10 to L06.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This was just a whoopsie miswording to the amendment, and I ask for a yes vote on L-010.

Thank you. I ask for a yes vote on L-006 as amended.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Two more to go. I move L-009 to the committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is an amendment to capture a larger pool of providers for that transparency component we talked about earlier in that amendment, and it cleans up a location and statute, and I ask for a yes vote.

representative for a thank you madam chair last but not least I move amendment L008 to the bill to the committee report we're still on the committee report Thank you, Madam Chair. Withdraw this amendment. To the committee report. Thank you, Madam Chair. We did a lot in health committee, and I think that this is an important topic to be covering. This is a broad Medicaid bill to fix a lot of challenges, and I ask for a yes vote on the committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to come up here. I was in committee for this bill Basically what this summarizes here is that it requires non medical transportation brokers beginning December 1st 2026 to submit a specific annual data to HICPF on a ride volume cancellation cost by procedure, procedure code, call center performance, member grievances and provider network actions, which HICPUF must then conclude in its SMART Act presentation. And we all remember the SMART Act hearings. We're in there for most of the day, if not a couple days or three days, depending on the committee that we're in. But this bill prohibits HICPUF from using multiple procedure payments reductions, compound billing methodologies, or substantially similar reimbursement policies for outpatient therapy services. I apologize, English is my second language. Directs the Medical Services Board to adopt rules by January 1st, 2027, to implement federal Medicaid community engagement requirements, broadens jail-based reimbursements for medication assistance treatment from OIPOI treatment programs to any appropriately licensed provider, requires home and community-based service agencies to submit NHCPUB to publish annual medical loss ratio information, and repeals the state medical assistance and services advisory council. Now, in my opinion, there is potential here in this bill. There is very much good potential, and I do agree with most of everything that's happened right here. The key message is if this bill is passed, the bill makes targeted charges to mitigate transportation, outpatient therapy reimbursements, jail-based medical assistance treatment, and HCBS reporting while directing implementation of federal community engagement rules and repealing one advisory council. There's work to be done here. I agree, but this bill has potential. I will leave it up to see what goes on here on the amendments. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We were just talking with the bill sponsors. I got to give it up to the representative from Jeffco. She works on her bills so diligently and so hard, and she does not stop and truly is like a mentor to me about bills because it is unbelievable the work she puts into health care policy. I, as a health care provider, won't do it, but she is really trying to provide transparency and accountability to the state of Colorado and clean up some of the fraud and abuse that we have seen. And so a shout out to the rep from Jeffco for all of her hard work. The one thing in the bill that's still giving me a lot of heartburn, I was talking to some providers about, is on page four where it says outpatient therapy services means professional services provided by an occupational therapist, physical therapist, or speech language pathologist in a setting other than a hospital. So for people that don't know health care, a lot of patients, including my son, had to go to speech, OT, and PT all in the same day. And so if they're going to cut those costs or the State Department is going to come in and make changes, then that is going to really affect patients that need all three. It's going to affect provider. Provider rates are being cut in the state. So we just all want to be on the same page. So it goes on to say, State Department plans to implement, apply, or enforce a new multiple procedure patient reduction, which is what that means. If patients are getting to multiple disciplinaries like OTPT and speech, for outpatient therapy services provided...

Yes.

It is to the committee report because I'm going to add an amendment.

And the amendments that were offered in the committee. Under the medical assistance program, the State Department must provide notice to the impacted providers of the forthcoming change at least six months prior to implementing the change to ensure adequate time for providers to prepare. But it just does not seem like enough time. So I am going to offer amendment. I'd like to move amendment L011 to the committee report. I move L011 to the committee report and ask for it to be displayed.

Thank you. And talking to providers, we would just like to prepare and hold at least one stakeholder meeting to discuss the implementation, application, and enforcement of the new multiple procedure payment reduction for outpatient therapy services. The stakeholder process must include a discussion regarding the metrics the State Department plans to use in implementing the changes. I think that that is fair for the providers involved to just distinguish what is happening so that they can relay all of that to the patients that are going to be involved as well. And I would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. What's one more amendment? I have a yes for this vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask for a yes vote on the committee report.

Thank you Madam Chair. I move L-008 to the bill for my final amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is just wording to make sure that we are federally compliant with the new H.R. 1 rules, so I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So this bill does about seven different things. It's super nerdy, and I know you guys all are really excited about it. It talks about transparency for non-emergency medical transport. It talks about stakeholder engagement and giving a longer runway for multiple procedure payment reductions. It matches federal language requirements. It reviews provider rates in a more efficient way. It reimburses jail settings for the opioid treatment. and includes transparency around provider agency reimbursements, and it repeals the state medical assistance and service advisory council. This might seem like nothing to some of you all, but it's a lot to a lot of people, and I hope that you know that I did a lot of work to try to get us here, and I hope that I have bipartisan support on this bill, and I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee rise and report.

Thank you.

Madam Speaker, your Committee of the Whole begs leave to report as under consideration the following attached bills being the second reading thereof and makes the following recommendations. They're on House bills 1195 is amended, 1233 is amended, 1235 is amended, 1324 is amended, passed on second reading, order engrossed in place on the calendar for third reading final passage. Senate Bill 128 is amended. Pass on second reading. Order revised and placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage.

Yes.

No, ma'am.

Representative Titone. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members of the Finance Committee, please join us at 1.30. We're going to hear three bills. Senate Bill 113, Senate Bill 144, and House Bill 1276. Please be on time. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Tuesday, April 14, 2026.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House stand in recess until later today.