Assembly Live Stream (partial)

Madam Speaker, can you please call the House to order?

A quorum being present. The clerk will read the journal of Tuesday, May 5th.

Madam Speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the journal of Tuesday, May 5th, and at the same stand, approved.

Clerk will read. Assembly number 1278 rules at the request of Mr. Bandett. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hoegle to proclaim May 26th, 2026 as School Nurse Day in the State of New York.

Assembly number 1279 rules at the request of Ms. Solange. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 4th through the 10th, 2026 as Maternal Mental Health Awareness Week in the State of New York.

Assembly number 1280 rules at the request of Mr. Slater. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 3rd through the 9th, 2026 as professional municipal clerks week in the state of New York.

Assembly number 1281 rules at the request of Ms. Reyes' legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 6th through the 12th, 2026 as Nurses Week in the state of New York.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Colleagues, as both a nurse and a proud member of this legislative body, it is my distinct honor to introduce this resolution commemorating May 6th through the 12th as National Nurses Week in the state of New York. Every day, nurses across our state serve as the backbone of our health care system. We are the ones who sit at the bedside through the night who listen to patients fears and hopes who advocate fiercely for the vulnerable and who translate complex medical language into compassion and action Nurses are educators, innovators, caregivers, and leaders, often all in the same shift. National Nurses Week is more than just a celebration. It is a recognition of the extraordinary dedication, skill, and resilience that nurses demonstrate, especially in times of crisis. The past few years have reminded us all how crucial nurses are, not just in hospitals, but in schools, community clinics and homes throughout New York. As a nurse legislator, I am deeply aware of the challenges our profession faces, staffing shortages, burnout, and the constant need for investment in education and resources. This week is a call to action to support our nurses, not just in words, but in policies and resources that let them thrive. Today, let us honor the Nurses of New York by recommitting ourselves to advocating for their well-being, their professional growth, and the vital role they play in keeping our communities healthy. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the sponsor for putting forth this excellent resolution, recognizing nurses. I just wanted to recognize my wife, Claudia Bendett, who was a nurse for 30 years at St. Peters Hospital. It's a tremendous occupation, it's a tremendous career, and again all the words that Assemblymember Reyes said ring true to me. Thank you.

recognize the great work of nurses. They are truly our unsung heroes and especially during COVID, as many of us were working from home, they were working double, triple shifts, including my wife, who was a registered nurse and now is a nurse practitioner. So I would think of nothing less than to actually acknowledge the hard-working nurses of this state, especially since I would like to go home tomorrow. Thank you so much.

Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 2026 as Teen Self-Esteem Month in the State of New York.

Assembly number 1283 rules at the request of Mr. Levine. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 2026 as Hepatitis C Awareness Month in the state of New York.

Assembly number 1284 rules at the request of Ms. Rosenthal. legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 2026 as Be Kind to Animals Month in the State of New York.

Assembly No. 1285 rules at the request of Ms. Zinneman legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim August 26, 2026 as Women's Equality Day in the state of New York.

Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim November 2026 as Hospice and Palliative Care Awareness Month in the state of New York.

Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you.

Announce the results. Ayes 122, nays 0.

Page 15, calendar 111. Clerk will read. Assembly number 3536, calendar 111, Mr. Santa Barbara, an act to amend the general business law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 180th day. The clerk will record the vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill helps address a problem we've seen too many times across New York State. an increasing number of trucks striking low clearance bridges and overpasses. We've seen this across the state, we've seen it in the Capital Region, and I've seen it many times in my own district. And many times we've seen the same bridges hit over and over again. The reality is that many drivers today rely much less on signage and heavily on GPS and navigation apps, especially truck drivers that may be traveling through unfamiliar areas or across state lines. The problem is not every GPS system consistently accounts for bridge height restrictions or directs drivers to those safer alternate routes that exist. So this bill recognizes something practical that bridge height information already exists out there These are fixed locations where we have known clearance limits So if GPS systems can warn drivers about traffic, about crashes, about construction, road closures, all in real time, they can also provide low bridge warnings and provide safer alternate routes that avoid low clearance bridges. Every bridge strike can lead to major traffic delays, costly inspections, repairs, damage to vehicles, and safety risks for drivers and the public. Even when warning signs are posted, we continue to see these incidents happen repeatedly over and over again. This bill is about prevention, public safety, and using technology more effectively to help drivers avoid dangerous and costly accidents before they happen. and I encourage my colleagues to support it. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I'm going to tell you all about one bridge that's in my district. It's the Glenville Bridge. It's become a little bit famous. It's been hit so many times in recent years that it has inspired a song, a comic book recently released called The Bridge That Eats Trucks, and even inspired a winner of one of my fifth grade classes, There Ought to Be a Law Contest. It has 14, over 14, I believe, warning signs, and most strikes are attributed to GPS issues. The Glenbridge Road strikes have decreased in recent years with enhanced measures taken by the Department of Transportation. However, in 2021, there were 22 strikes. 2022, 13 strikes. Again, in 2023, 13 strikes. So it's getting a little bit better with signage, but I think that the reason I'm supporting this bill and I thank the sponsors that I think more needs to be done. Each hit costs money to taxpayers, and some have caused serious injuries. So we need to do what we can. I'm very grateful to be able to vote in the affirmative and to have been a sponsor on this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you

Announce the results. Ayes 127, nays 0.

Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. On behalf of our colleague from the 58th Assembly District, Ms. Monique Chandler-Waterman, We have a group of community leaders, clergy, and constituents from her Assembly District that are here advocating for policies to support equity and safety while prioritizing individuals with disabilities with the support of Helen Keller Center for the Blind. Some of these amazing stakeholders include Pastor Guilford Munroes, Minister Gabriel Mitchell, Vernon Peters, Floricia Chang-Agida, Reverend Dr. Charles Gallibreth, Kahari Edwards, Minister Teddy Castor, Pastor Charmaine Byrd, and Pastor Michelle Moda Poisser. Madam Speaker, would you be so kind to extend the cordialities of the floor to Ms. Waterman's guest?

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure local emergency management plans include animal accommodation, preparation, and public communication that considers the needs of persons with vision or hearing impairments. Ms. Walsh. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield? I yield. My questions are going to be primarily focused on the portion of the bill that has to do with information on animal-friendly temporary housing. housing in facilities. That portion of the bill? Okay. We're on the same bill, right? Yeah. Yeah, okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So how does this bill define responsibility for animal sheltering during emergencies, especially given that many emergency shelters are operated by nonprofits rather than by local governments? Well, the plan for the – I understand your question. For this, we're talking about for those individuals that may have animals for disability purposes, whether it's a CNI dog or they're hearing impaired. So we're asking municipalities to use a plethora of resources to make sure that every municipality has an ability to take on individuals with these people with disabilities. So, but not all shelters must be animal friendly. That's not what we're saying in this bill. And so the localities just have to identify which ones that they're going to use. Okay, so this bill doesn't deal with every, like in a case of an emergency, say, I mean, just by example, just say like a flood or something like that. They don't have to consider and plan for everybody who's impacted by the flood and their animals. So like, I have a dog. I have pets too. You have pets too. It's not for all pets. It's for more service animals. It's not for those with exotic pets or this is for service animals. Just for service animals. Okay. And does it specifically limit it in that bill as far as specifically to those individuals? Yes, it does. Okay. And is that on page two, somewhere around the middle of that page? Could you just call the attention to me so I can see that it's limited to that? Because that was one of the questions that I had. So if you're asking for the specific section of the bill, line 38 and 39 specifically say that. Okay. So it does say at line 29 that such plans shall include the identification of temporary housing and other necessary facilities designated as animal-friendly. But what you're saying is that it's just limited to service animals and individuals who have service animals, not every, as you said, every pet. Not every pet. Okay. All right. Very good. And is there a – how would this policy integrate with existing emergency management systems? So we understand that every municipality has their emergency management system. We're asking that every municipality do the diligence to identify facilities in their area that could accommodate them. So there's a whole section in here that will say all the different agencies that someone, that they could reach out to in order to identify those facilities. Police agencies, fire departments, fire companies, management agencies, commercial and volunteer ambulance services, and it goes on to list even handicapped agencies for the elderly and organizations that provide home care services. So there's a wide array of ways that any municipality can reach out to to get information on how to service those individuals with disabilities. And the idea then is that in case of an emergency that the service animal or for the individual with disabilities would be actually with stay with that person in that temporary shelter or anything like that? Yes exactly. So that they could have their right their service animal with them. What we don't want is for people to stay home in an emergency because they cannot go to an emergency facility and then would have to deal with the aftermath of dealing with those individuals. So we want to make sure that they feel included in the beginning of an emergency. Very good. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate your answers to my questions. Thank you.

Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 90th day. The clerk will record the vote.

Thank you Are there any other votes

The bill is passed. Mr. Fall.

On behalf of Mr. Ful, the speaker, and all members, we welcome our representatives from Goldman Sachs here today. We extend privileges to you from the Assembly 4 and hope you enjoy our proceedings today. It's awesome to see small businesses here active in the community, uplifting. You definitely are the foundation of business in all of our communities. So thank you for everything you do every single day, and thank you for joining us today.

Page 28, calendar number 258. Clerk will read. Assembly number 8388, calendar 258, Ms. Jackson, an act to amend the election law. An explanation has been requested.

Yeah, it is. Madam Speaker.

Can we have quiet in the chamber, please? If you're having discussions, take them outside. If you're going to stay in here, take your seats. Thank you, Mr. Slater.

Thank you very much.

Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. A party vote has been requested. Ms. Bolsch.

Mr. Fall.

Thank you. The clerk will record the vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I remember being 17 and becoming a poll worker in Manhattan. And what I do recognize is that the younger you are when you get involved in politics or seeing the process, the more engaged you will more likely be. This bill literally is just saying that if you are a child like my daughter who lives in the Bronx and want to go to school at SUNY Albany for four years, That is, if she still wants to be a part of the process of helping out on elections, being a poll worker, being an election inspector, that she would be able to do so without changing her home registration, voter form rather, to work on those elections. I think we should be encouraging young people to be a part of this process. If you ever go into a poll site, which I hope everyone does, you will see that the poll workers are usually older people. At some point, these people are going to have to retire. We should have a new group of people that's willing, ready, and able to do this work. We are just creating more spaces for poll workers to exist, especially during a time where we don't have as many as we need. So we should be encouraging more groups to be a part of the process and I be voting in the affirmative Thank you Ms Jackson in the affirmative Mr Jacobson to explain his vote Thank you Thank you Madam Speaker to explain my vote I want to first thank and commend the sponsor for introducing this legislation. If anybody in this room, and I'm sure everybody in this room, have spoken to their local elections commissioner, the one thing they're always complaining about is the lack of inspectors. That's their biggest concern, to get enough inspectors. So this is an imaginative way to get to increase the pool. And I think it's a tremendous idea because you have people that are most of the time will be living full time in the community. And they're not going home, so they'll be able to serve on election day or primary day. So this is a great idea to expand the pool. If others think the pool should be expanded in more ways, I'm sure the sponsor would gladly entertain their suggestions. So, again, it's a great bill. I'll be voting in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. as the election law chair, we recognize that it is important to ensure that access to the ballot is something that is open to everyone who want to participate in the franchise. It is important that we safeguard the integrity and the fairness of our elections. And we take all developments as it relates to election law very seriously. and we work very hard as it relates to our responsibility to ensure that folk can participate fully and freely in our democracy. We know that young people have been on the forefront of many of the election changes that we've seen in many decades, including, of course, the United States Voting Rights Act. And so we want to participate and we want to encourage so many young people in order to be engaged in this process. We recognize that we tell young people all the time, if you can see it, you can achieve it, you can be in it. And we want more young people to stand up and see themselves to be included in one of the vanguards of participatory government. And so I am proud to vote in the affirmative on this legislation, and I would like to commend the sponsor for its introduction. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Calendar No. 311. Clerk will read. Assembly No. 1428, Calendar 311, Ms. Forrest. An act to amend the insurance law.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill would require insurers to cover the substitution of a brand name prescription drug when the Federal Food and Drug Administration has declared that there is a supply issue with a generic bill. In light of recent shortages of generic drugs, including that like ADHD medication, it is imperative that insurance providers provide brand-name drugs at the same price as generic during the time of shortage. Drug shortages pose a public health concern as they can impact the availability of essential medication for a wide range of conditions. Ensuring that patients have access to necessary medication at affordable prices is crucial for maintaining public health and preventing unnecessary complication. This bill would ensure that such access by requiring that in the event that FDA recognizes that there is an ongoing supply issue with the generic drug insurers providing coverage for that generic drug in their formulary will also provide coverage for the brand name version of that drug for the duration of the shortage This is a proactive measure that can help safeguard patient health maintain continuity of care and promote cost within the healthcare system Thank you

Madam Speaker, will the sponsor yield for some questions?

Yes.

So I'd like to start by asking the sponsor, how does the FDA shortage list work? Right. So the FDA has listed approximately 30 to 50 drugs per year as effectively in a state of shortage. And so, for example, in 2024, only 15 were short. And so the FDA, in partnership with the manufacturer, actually goes to great lengths to make sure that shortages do not happen. And the FDA has actually been very effective. So, sorry, don't mean to interrupt you, but we're just timed here. So when it comes to the process, how does a drug get added to that list? What qualifies as a shortage for the FDA? Right. So I would say that whatever the drug is, the components of that drug is in shortage. It could be the chemical. It could be the, I don't, the point is the FDA figures that there is a shortage of this generic drug because the manufacturer is not producing that drug at the quantity needed. Okay. I asked that question. I think it's really important for your piece of legislation because it hinges upon what is and is not on that list. And I have some real concerns with relation to that. Who exactly pays for that vector between, say, a generic drug price, call it $15, Let's say that generic is in shortage, and now the non-generic is $600. Many of the drugs, the brand name is much more expensive. Who is going to foot the bill for the difference in that price? Right. This bill is to ensure that patients get the medications that they need so that they can maintain their health. Citizens on private insurance, correct? Because no one who receives public funded insurance will be provided this benefit. No, this does not cover, Medicaid is not part of this. So let's say I have private insurance or a family of four. Whoever it may be, they go to get their script. The generic's not there. Now that generic would cost their health care plan $15. Now it's going to cost $600. Who is it? Is it your understanding of the legislation that the drug company is going to take the hit? Is it the health insurer that's going to take the hit? Is it the business that provides it? Who is going to pay the difference in that vector that they will now have to pay? Well, Mr. Blumenkrantz, it's not my, it's not me. The intention of the bill is to ensure that patients have continuity of care. It's not personal. I just wanted to make that clear. Of course it's not personal. But I think it's important to differentiate between intent and practical application with legislation. So this bill seeks to practically address the affordability How is it practically addressing affordability I asking because who bears that cost will play a significant role in how it will affect drug pricing for everybody in New York Who will not bear the cost is the patient. How can you say that confidently? Because the patient will continue to pay whatever co-pay, the $15. The price of the drug, though, the shortage of the drug, though, that is between the insurer and the manufacturer. So what analysis has been done on whether or not this policy could unintentionally encourage longer shortages? Now, I know as a drug company in New York State, if there's a shortage, I'm going to get to sell my brand name, right? If it is a drug that I can control some of the marketplace for manufacturing, why wouldn't I encourage a shortage? Because now I get to charge $600 for my drug, and it will be covered no matter what. Well, again, this bill is making sure. How is it making sure? I'm trying to get to the crux of how this bill will work. Because right now, and I'd love to understand if you can give me some nuance on this, what I see is a direct or maybe indirect cost for individuals who are on private health insurance. So now my health care plan, let's say I work for a small business, I am in a PEO, or I have my own private insurance through my company, those costs are going to go up a massive amount. So yes, I may have the same co-pay, but now every year my business is paying more. They're going to have to pass that on to customers of whatever business they may run. And that ratepayer may have to split the cost with the individual more. So now I'm paying more for my health insurance, maybe, depending on the drugs that enter that list, twice as much, triple, quadruple, who knows. And I might also be incentivizing big businesses to create artificial shortages because now they get a payday. What safeguards are in place in this bill that it will not do just that? Okay. Let's start from the beginning again. The FDA, for example, in 2024, only has 15 drugs that were on the shortage list. And when it comes down to the cost, patients, the person who is insured, would only pay the co-pay that they would pay for the generic. So this bill would actually, this idea of the generics versus the brand, would actually have a very nominal effect on the insurance company. Again, we're talking about in 2024. How can you say that in good faith? Because what happened in 2024 is not the future. Do you want to hear the answer?

So I asked then if you could please stick directly to answering practical application, not more esoteric of the intent of the bill, because there's a lot of really, really large nuances that really need to be addressed in this piece of legislation. So how are pharmacies, especially locally owned small pharmacies, expected to absorb reimbursement gaps? So I still am not clear on who is going to absorb the cost vector between the generic and the non-generic. Because right now it seems like it will trickle down to hurt the small businesses that provide these drugs or the ratepayers who are currently paying for their own health insurance or it will hurt the general population as that cost is split up between all the members of the pool. So the insurance companies would absorb the cost, and patients, my constituents, will continue to pay the generic copay costs. So for legislative intent of this piece of legislation, it is your understanding that insurance companies will eat this cost? It is my understanding and the intention of this bill that there would be minimal impacts on insurance costs. But of those minimal impacts, it is your understanding that insurance companies will pay them? Yes. Okay. Why does the bill not contain any meaningful cost controls for brand name manufacturers themselves? Why is this going after individuals who are facing the symptoms and not the cause of this crisis? Can you repeat the question for me again? So what I see here is those individuals who can't get their drugs, they're facing the symptom of greater issues that New York State and our nation are facing when it comes to drug shortages. Why do you choose to pinpoint a symptom and not the actual problem when it comes to drug pricing? Okay, so the goal of this bill is to ensure that patients have continuity of care and are still able to access their necessary medication even when there is a shortage. Can I finish the response? Can I ask that you keep it to not the intent of the bill, but the actual practical application? If I wasn't timed, I'd let you go on and on. But I really need to get to a lot of questions. There's a lot of really important parts of this bill that need to be addressed. I can choose to answer the way that I can answer you. And the intention of this bill is to address the shortage of generic drugs to generic drugs. Okay, patients should not have to pay more when there is a time of shortage. If we want to talk about the expensive drugs, honestly, if prescription drugs were more affordable and the difference in price of a brand name versus a generic drug was small, then this bill would not actually be necessary. So we are introducing this bill because of the vast differences in crisis. Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt you. I thought you were dumb. How does making insurance more expensive improve access to care for working-class New York families? Again, if insurance companies are going to eat this cost, they're not just going to write that off. In the underwriting process for insurance, increased costs are passed on to members of the pool. Whether it's that business, whether it's that company, whether it is any particular rate payer, that money just doesn't appear. So my question to you is, how will this not just raise the rates of individuals and give insurance companies an excuse to make New York a less affordable place? and they can point directly to legislation like this, which doesn't necessarily address the crisis when it comes to drugs, but definitely creates a... A large question of what the increase in the cost to New Yorkers on a daily or yearly basis may be. For someone who is concerned about time, you are repeating the same thing, and I'm answering it again and again. In 2024, this only affected 15 drugs. The FDA has made significant improvements since 2003 to address shortages in general. This would have a nominal impact on premiums, insurance premiums. Okay. What analysis has been done to give you the confidence to say there are nominal impacts? Because shortages are actually quite uncommon. Uncommon. They're rare. Again, we went from 200, what was the number? 200. In 2013, we had 251, sorry, in 2011, we had 251 shortages. And now we are down to 2024, where we only have 15. There has been great strides to improve the shortages of drugs. And so now it's actually quite uncommon. And so the hit to insurance premiums would be nominal. Now, I don't know if you remember, in 2020, there was a global pandemic. It halted manufacturing. It disrupted supply chains. it created significant issues for many individuals, especially those who take drugs. Are you telling me that the drug shortage list has always historically gotten smaller, and thus this is a de minimis issue? Or are you telling me as of the moment by which you're giving me data that it is not that big of a deal, so in the future it will never be a big deal? I'm just trying to understand the analysis being done over the course of decades of looking at drug shortages. and the realities on the ground when it comes to American and international manufacturing, when it comes to the FDA removing many of its inspectors, are those being taken into consideration when it comes to the idea that the drug shortage list will always stay a handful of drugs? Again, the intention of this bill is to ensure patient continuity. The voters, the constituents, and their families deserve to have medication available to them because it is medically necessary. Do you understand how drug price negotiations work with PEOs, pharmacies, large scale and small? Are you aware of that process and how it's affected by reimbursement? What I do know about the process is that my constituents, your constituents, refuse to be the brunt of the impact of shortages. So I'm looking out for your constituents and mine to make sure that no matter the negotiations, that they can afford the medication that is required for them. I can guarantee you two things. My constituents do not want higher health insurance premiums year over year, and they do not want a piece of legislation that will guarantee that. Is that a question Mr Blankratz Even if you think it nominal cost to insurers you have agreed there will be cost increases This piece of legislation will create increases for individuals who are purchasing insurance in the private marketplace Was that a question, Mr. Blumenkratz? Do you disagree with that? I do not agree with you. I guess that's all I'm going to do.

I'll take the next 15. I do have a few more questions. My next few questions, and I can clarify, are not related to intent, but practical application of the legislation. Blue Cross Blue Shield specifically warned that pharmacies may refuse to dispense these drugs because reimbursements could fall below acquisition costs. For clarity, that means that they literally cannot sell the drug any longer. I have witnessed this happen in the very example that you have provided. My local pharmacy could no longer compete because the reimbursements negotiated with PEOs have squeezed local pharmacies to the nth degree. How does that improve patient access? If the very health insurance companies you're seeking to work with are saying that this could squeeze out the little guy, and my constituent or your constituent cannot sit and know safely that their local pharmacy can still provide their drugs, are you improving access and how? I didn't realize you were asking a question. Repeat the question. Subject matter experts, companies that provide health insurance, small pharmacies, have all had serious issues when it comes to rebates. There are multiple factors as to why that is the case, but one guarantee is that they cannot afford to give the drug to you for more money than they can purchase the drug. How does this bill not make that situation more untenable for small pharmacies and remove access from communities like yours and mine? I depend on a small pharmacy. I go to a local pharmacist. She will struggle when this bill is passed. How do you argue she will not struggle? Yes. So the insurers are going to then absorb the cost. It is a short time. Most drugs are on the list for a short time. What is the average? I don't know. It depends. But the idea is that the patient will not bear the brunt of the cost of the increase to their drugs, their medically necessary drug. With all due respect to the sponsor, how in good faith can you tell me that there will be a cost incurred to insurance companies? And insurance companies will 100% pass these costs onto the rate payers, the companies that work with the rate payers and provide them their insurance. And you're going to tell me there will be no cost. There won't be a cost when they sit at the register, but year over year there will certainly be a cost, and you've admitted to that. Again, in 2024, we were talking about 15 drugs, and there has been a steady decrease in drug shortages since 2013. So if next year it looks more like 2013 and less like 2024, would you reconsider this piece of legislation as a good idea? If that number gets larger you would reconsider this If this became something that wasn just a couple of drugs a year if this was in words hundreds there have been years where they popped up like during the COVID pandemic like other times Like you're saying, in 2013, there was 200 drugs. Some drugs, the cost vector is $5. Some drugs, it's thousands. How are you taking that into account? And what analysis has been done to show that this won't lead to real increases for New Yorkers who are paying for private health insurance. Well, in light of now constraints on supply chain due to a war and also tariffs, maybe there might be future shortages. I cannot predict the future. All I know is now my constituents should not and will not, and also your constituents will not, should not, bear the brunt of increases to their co-pay for medically necessary medication. If generic shortages become financially beneficial to brand name manufacturers, then couldn't or aren't we creating a dangerous incentive structure for companies, a profit motive for generic manufacturers with a piece of legislation like this? So again, the FDA has been working with manufacturers in the past. They've worked well enough to bring a list that was 251 down to 15 in 2024. So I think the process is working in that manufacturers are able to produce the drugs that are necessary for people in most cases. It is quite rare to be on the shortage list now. But the intention of this bill is to ensure that patients who need the medication, they receive it at a cost that is not prohibitive to them. So is it a concern to you or of the real risk to employers, especially small businesses, that they may respond to these added costs by reducing benefits or dropping coverage altogether? How does your bill address what could potentially be severe negative externalities from the passage of this legislation? Again, it is not. It is a nominal impact to premiums. Nominal today, with the list as it stands today. But that list is fluid. It changes. It can change. We could have any... If you look at the world right now, if you look at supply chain disruptions today, would you have pictured them a year ago, two years ago? Can you predict the future and guarantee to me that this list will always stay small? I cannot predict the future. Well, then you certainly can't guarantee to me that this list will continue to go down. You certainly can't guarantee to me that these drug prices, no matter the length of time on the list, will come off eventually. Eventually this won't be an issue anymore. How do you address those negative externalities in your piece of legislation? My job as a legislator in New York State representing the amazing District of 57 is to protect my patients and my constituents as they exist now and they need affordable drugs that will help them with their condition They need affordable drugs and they need affordable insurance. It seems like your argument and your piece of legislation are at odds with those two concepts. Are you willing to sacrifice some individuals who will be stuck in this position for others who will now be guaranteed to be paying more, depending on what this list looks like? Depending on where the FDA is at with what the shortage list looks like? Our constituents that are enrolled in a commercial plan who are receiving insurance will continue to receive the medication that they need at the copay rate that they can afford. Those are the people that this bill seeks to address. So it's silent on the people who will now have to pay more because of legislation like this. And I'm sorry, I will ask a question related to that. If a brand name manufacturer knows insurers are legally required to pay, then what incentive do they have to keep prices down? I ask this question because I can see a world in which predatory company practices, and we've seen this, especially when it comes to drugs, could incentivize keeping production down on a generic because they know that if they can get on this list, it's a very lucrative thing when they're guaranteed a sky-high cost, no matter the cost. Some drugs, they cost millions. Some drugs, they cost $8,000, $9,000 in a generic. Your insurance covers it, but they would traditionally cover a generic instead and they would want to cover a generic instead. How does this bill address that in any capacity? So FDA has been working with manufacturers to make sure that shortages are prevented and resolved. So that conversation is of course going to be ongoing. And I think that I do not foresee that that conversation would stop. So again, this bill is to make sure that patients still get the medication that they need because they require it at the cost that they can actually access the medication. Due to laws passed on a federal level and on a state level, I can no longer go to my same pharmacy went to my whole life to get the same drug because of legislation that has fundamentally transformed what that reimbursement for pharmacies looks like. How is this bill no different than those? How is this bill not going to put those small pharmacies out of business? How is this bill going to increase access if it limits the number of companies that can provide me a drug? Again, this bill, for example, 2024, there were only 15 drugs on the shortage list. This bill would have a nominal impact on the cost of premiums and impact to small pharmacy businesses because, again, we're talking about about a small number of drugs on the shortage list. How does an insurance pool work for a private insurer, for a company that is currently utilizing private insurance and providing it to employees? How does that pool work, especially for pharmaceuticals? Are you asking me an industry question? I'm asking you a question directly related to the bill because your bill affects how those pools function. So I'm asking how they work because maybe I'm misunderstanding them because I certainly see where the cost can be non-nominal in particular pools of insurance. We're talking about drugs. That is only 15 on a list. But also it was $230 one year. No, that was in 2013. Okay. Where $250. You want me to answer the question? I would love you to. How do they insurance pools work? In 2013, the list was 251. Now the list is only 15. So the FDA has been working on drug shortages. We're talking about drug shortages. The bill seeks to ensure that patients get the medication that they need during times of shortages. that typically do not last long. How long do they last? As I have told you multiple times, that this bill is addressing shortages that historically have lessened over time. Again, I cannot predict the future, but what I can do as a legislator in the state of New York and a nurse is to ensure that patients get the medication they need when they need it at a cost that is affordable to them. So you said how many drugs were on in 2024, the list? Fifteen. Okay. This year there's 70. So I ask you. In 2026, after tariffs and after wars have been started. On May 6th, 70 drugs on that list. Okay. So you said it's de minimis. I know there are a lot of drugs, but it is not steadily going down. The world does not move in a linear direction. There are things that go on in the world that affect global supply chains. We have moved much of our global supply of pharmaceuticals, especially generics, to countries like China and like India. If we enter a global conflict, if it went from 70 to 7,000, what will this look like for your constituents, for my constituents, for New Yorkers? This bill is tethered to that list. And that list, in my understanding, and you can correct me if I am wrong, will change. And if it changes to a number that's so significant, then drug access may be off the table for many in private insurance in New York. Am I wrong or am I right, depending on the size and scale of the list? So if your question is, when businesses are struggling, that I should let people die, the answer is no. If your question is while we are being engaged in warfare due to one presidential actor and my constituents need medication Should I let people die No This bill is to its intention is to make sure that while there are shortages that people will receive the medication they need at a cost that they can afford

Mr. Gandolfo.

The Republican conference will generally be opposed to this bill. However, anyone who wishes to vote in the affirmative may do so at their desk. Ms. Lunsford. This will be a party vote in the affirmative. If anybody seeks to vote in the negative, they may push their button at their seat.

The clerk will record the vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. At a time when New Yorkers are drowning under the weight of health care costs, I had the teachers and teachers from my district in my community in my office saying, we received a raise, but health insurance costs for us went up so much it feels like it was nothing at all to us. Those are the kinds of concerns that people from my community have had. When we see that number creep up and up on our insurance bill every year as families, that's a real concern. In the private industry, I've worked in the insurance business. I've sold health insurance. I've gone over it with companies. And I received the emails, this legislation has passed, and it will materially change our cost structure. It will change our underwriting. It'll change how much we'll charge the customer. You might, as a business, need to change how much you charge your employee, how much they're going to pay and you're going to pay. These are consequential decisions about affordability. And in a time when affordability is at top of mind to every New Yorker, taking a closer look at legislation like this, it is elastic. Today, it's 70. Before, it was 14. 2013, it was 200. COVID, the number was large as could be. Supply chains get disrupted. This world is uncertain. These costs to our constituent fundamentally uncertain and certainly not de minimis. I think we need to take a closer look at creating guardrails in legislation like this because the costs can be exponential. exponential to that family who is struggling to get by. And yes, we can guarantee the copay may stay the same, but we cannot guarantee the trickle-down effects of legislation like this.

It is, thank you, Madam Speaker. It is during these times I am so grateful that my district trusted that a nurse can be a legislator. A nurse can step up and refocus the state in terms of what the priorities are, which is making sure that people remain whole. The purpose of this bill is to make sure that no matter what tariffs are running what roars are going what pandemics are roaring outside that people will continue to maintain safety and access to the care that they need in their communities at a price that they can afford People yell about gas prices going up 50 cents. Imagine you with an insulin or an ADHD pill or Tylenol, ibuprofen that goes up at a price that you cannot afford. No, I say that this bill is coming at a timely moment where we need it the most. When we need it the most in times of insecurity. And so I am a proud, not only sponsor, but I'm going to vote yes on this bill to make sure that my constituents and your constituents get the stuff that they need when they need it. When they need it, when they're sick, or to make sure they stay well. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to say at any level of understanding when there's learning how to plug a fan in for the first time, there's a level of education that needs to be had on that specific process of trying to learn how to use the fan for the first time. Whether it be making a cup of coffee for the first time, there's a level of education when it comes to that. So I tend to enlist in learning from someone that I consider an expert. In regards to this bill, I think I would listen to someone who comes from the world that I consider that person an expert. in that field. This bill, I think, addresses a need that people have. I can't personally speak on what I would do in a specific situation, but I can refer to an expert, which is what I would do, in consulting with the sponsor. And respecting the sponsor as an expert, I think I'd vote in the affirmative for this. Thank you.

Ayes 98, nos 42.

Assembly number 3055, calendar 353, Mr. R. Carroll, an act to amend the general business law and the banking law.

Thank you Madam Speaker This bill would prohibit reporting agencies from making any consumer report containing information regarding the late payment of cashless tolls Mr Durso Thank you Madam Speaker Would the sponsor yield for some questions Will the sponsor yield? I do.

Thank you, Mr. Carroll. So you can explain to me why this bill is needed. Well, we know, I am sure yourself, like myself, have received an inordinate amount of calls from constituents who have not been properly told of payments for cashless tolls because of issues and flaws with the state's cashless tolling system. So can you give maybe, because I haven't received that many calls, so can you tell me maybe do you have a gist of where they're specifically coming from those calls? Well, look, I can only tell you what I've received in my district, and most of those people are using bridges in New York City or the surrounding counties. And I've had a number of constituents where they had not been timely told of the amount of tolls they had been racking up, and then had been hit with massive penalties, where we had to talk to the Thruway Authority and the other tolling agencies. And, of course, it was not because they did not want to pay the tolls that they were incurring. And so we want to make sure that when that happens, that a credit agency isn't reported, that we're not reporting to credit agencies that they're delinquent in paying those tolls. Understood. So now, would this bill just be specifically for New York City, or is this a statewide bill? This is a statewide bill. So have you received any calls or hearing about any issues when it comes to, as you said, late payments because of tolls on the thruway or any other areas? Or is it mostly considered from the New York City area? You know, I believe the majority are from the New York City or the surrounding counties because, of course, that's where most of my constituents are doing their driving. But I don't have a pinpoint of it's the Verrazano Bridge is the real problem or the Gothels Bridge or is it the thruway. I don't have that information. Do you think a lot of this is focused around the areas that have been implemented with congestion pricing by any chance? I don't believe it's specifically connected to congestion pricing. Maybe not specifically, but do you find that some of your constituents that are calling your office, the reason why they are getting these tolls that they normally wouldn't incur and is now leading to fines is because of the institution of congestion pricing in that area? I don't. I think that we have received a number of complaints prior to the implementation of congestion pricing. There may be some individuals who, right at the beginning of congestion pricing, were unaware that there was a new tolling structure. But I believe most of that people have figured out that you now are told as you enter Manhattan below 60th Street. Got it. So now with that being said, so this would essentially say that if you get a late payment, right, because of a toll that you either went through, didn't realize you were going through, and because obviously it picks up your license plate, you'll get sent something in the mail, correct? That's correct. And just saying it just can't be reported to credit agencies. That's correct. Okay. Now, you do not want that reported to credit agencies because, as you said, it's hurting those people with their credit, right, that are incurring these fines because of something they didn't know about, essentially. And that's current law. There's the public authorities law that also says that your late payment of tolls should not be. used against you to credit reporting agencies. So then what does this bill do differently? I think this is bringing... We're creating parity and clarity with the public authorities law. In what regard? So please explain to me, and I apologize. So the public authorities law is stating that credit agencies cannot use late payments on tolls, right, for your credit history, right, to affect your credit history. So what are we doing with this? So, I don't believe this bill is duplicative, but I think it is clarifying. And so currently, in the public authorities law, this bill would align with the prohibition in the public authority law, which prohibits public authorities operating cashless tolling facilities from reporting late cashless toll payments to consumer reporting agencies. And the reason that you're doing that correct is because you're saying if someone didn't know or realize that they were getting this toll or fine, they really shouldn't be responsible for it. What we are trying to do is to make sure that New Yorkers, who oftentimes when they are making late payments for tolls, that their credit reports are not being destroyed or harmed because of that. And that is because I think there has consistently been a flaw in the cashless tolling system that has allowed individuals to rack up large amounts of tolls, get large amounts of fines and late payments unbeknownst to themselves. And I don't think you would be shocked that sometimes state agencies are not always following the letter of the law or always not clear in what they are supposed to do. And so what we're doing right here, right now, is making it a bright line rule that they are not going to report late payments for tolls throughout the state of New York. And I think that's something we can all agree on. Yes, but I do have a question for you in this regard. So obviously New York State may have an issue getting that information to you in a proper time, right, sharing that information. But does this bill do anything to the other penalties that incur when you don't pay tolls on time or have late payments on tolls? So in other words, what we're doing is protecting people from being reported to credit agencies, correct? We're not changing the fine or fee structure of any tolls. Understood. But why do you want good credit? We don't want someone's credit getting destroyed, right? Because of what reasons? Well, there are lots of reasons why you'd want good credit. To take out a mortgage, to take out a loan, whether you're renting an apartment, taking out a credit card. There are a number of reasons why you would want your credit to be... It's going to affect somebody's life. Yes. It's going to affect your day-to-day life. I'm assuming that's your intention of the bill. Exactly. But it doesn't change currently in New York State if you have late fees, you're not paying your tolls. Your registration could be suspended through the DMV. You can actually be charged with a misdemeanor. Vehicle could be impounded. If you can't get to work, that's destroying someone's life if you don't have a car. If you were charged with a misdemeanor, right, technically that could destroy your life, affect your life. I don't see any of that language in this bill. Look this bill is narrowly focused to make sure because of an issue that I think is habitual which I believe many members have experienced from complaints from their constituents that there is a problem with the delivery of the tolls, the late payment, and because of that we don't want that to affect the creditworthiness of an individual. We understand that it's important, and I want to be very clear. It's important people pay the tolls that they have incurred, and that if they are timely told of those tolls, that they should timely pay them. We are not looking to allow people to be scofflaws. Understood. But whose job is it to get those bills out to those who have used those tolls in a timely manner? I believe it's the Thruway Authority and the other authorities that toll the bridges and tunnels. The reason why I apologize, I didn't mean to interrupt. So if we're protecting the residents, right, from the bridge and toll authority or whoever, through a authority from because they're not doing their job correctly. Why don't we just hold them accountable instead? Why are we letting people right possibly not all? Of course, listen, people make mistakes all the time. We understand that. But what we're doing is credit worthiness and something being held against your credit is, again, somewhat of a punishment. Correct? Because if I decide every day I don't want to pay the tolls, right, and I don't have a – it's not going to affect me in any other way. It's not going to affect my credit. There's no punishment. There's nothing holding anything against me. Well, there are other ways. I mean, the Thruway Authority, the Triborough Bridge Authority, the MTA, have other means, as you've suggested before, to come after you if you continuously don't pay. Right. So why only creditworthiness, then? Well, I think we're talking about because we believe, I believe, that there is a unique issue here, that there are an inordinate amount of New Yorkers who are not being, in a timely way, being told about the tolls that they owe. And then suddenly they are being saddled and hit with large fines and hits on their credit worthiness. That's what we're trying to fix here. We, of course, as the legislature, do not run the Thruway Authority, the MTA, or the Triborough Bridge Authority. And so the only thing that we can do is protect consumers, protect New Yorkers. This is a way to protect consumers and New Yorkers who are not looking to not pay their bills. It's that unbeknownst to them, they have incurred tolls, and then suddenly they are hit with a deluge of you owe thousands of dollars in tolls, you owe thousands of — there's a specific constituent I can think of who suddenly was hit with a $1,500 bill when you compounded late fees, interest, and the tolls. And he got that all at once, and this was a senior. That was unfair to him. We're trying to solve that issue. Hopefully we can work with our other partners in government to make sure that these different authorities are more timely sending out notices for the tolls for individuals who don't have EZPass. because, of course, that's the issue here, is that this almost exclusively happens with individuals who don't have EZPass, which, as you probably know, disproportionately are people who are elderly, unemployed, low-income, because they do not have the means or the ability to kind of connect an account maybe directly to an EZPass reader. Understood And I am all for protecting the consumer our residents our constituents that we all represent I just look at it as the overarching issue right which you alluded to which is that the whether it the Bridge to Toll Authority it the Thruway Authority what you're saying is not doing their job and getting those bills out to those residents in a timely manner so that they don't have to pay those fines. So my question is, if we, and as you said, we don't control the MTA, we don't control, but we can legislate. I've heard that a million times in this chamber. We can legislate. Why aren't we legislating that as opposed to letting people get away with something that they, some people it's going to help, some people just let them get away with it. Why aren't we holding the authorities accountable as opposed to saying it's going to affect your credit worthiness? I don't see any legislation in here to do that. So I think holding public authorities accountable is important, and doing oversight is deeply important, and I think we should do that. And I think if you have a recommendation for a bill that would better hold them accountable to make sure they send out bills in a timely fashion, in a more orderly fashion, and make sure that they adopt the best practices so that those come out regularly and that fines do not seem to be done in a way that is, you know, kind of on the fly or in a way that is not uniform. I think that would be a great idea, and I'm sure there would be lots of people in this chamber who would like to look at ideas and figure out ways to do that. Can we do that together? You can be the first co-sponsor if I write the bill. Harold Durso sounds fantastic. That sounds phenomenal. I look forward to sending that over to your office. That's true, too. You're going to get us in trouble. That's okay. I live in that world. So as you said, just so I have it clear, this is statewide. So in other words, if someone is going on to the New York State Thruway, they do not live in New York City. Let's say they're coming from Long Island or they're coming from Westchester and they're traveling to Albany, and they drive through a toll booth and they do not have an E-ZPass, or let's say they do have an E-ZPass, and they just decide to not pay, right? Because this is going to cover both. This is not only going to cover those, our seniors, those that are not as financially stable as others. This is going to cover those that do have an E-ZPass. So I have an E-ZPass. I travel from Long Island. If I decide to not pay my bill, right, this is not going to affect my credit. That is correct. So how is it fair? So if we're sitting here wanting to protect those residents, as you said, our seniors, our disadvantaged, right, that they get – it doesn't affect their credit worthiness. But someone like myself, who hasn't hooked into my credit card or my checking account, could just stop that. I don't – I'm going to take my checking account off it or I'm going to hold my checking account. It's not going to affect my credit worthiness. How is that fair to someone like me comparing it to someone else? So I think we're trying to create a – first thing, we're bringing – this isn't duplicative, but we're bringing this into compliance with other law to make it very clear that the late payment or non-payment of a cashless toll is not going to affect your creditworthiness. It does not seem like it would be practicable or possible to kind of differentiate between each different type of driver and how their license plate was read, whether they had an E-ZPass connected to it or not. And so I think this one scenario is fairest and is the most implementable and also complies with current law Thank you Mr Carroll I appreciate your time Thank you Madam Speaker, on the bill quickly.

So I appreciate the sponsor answering the questions. Once again, this is about fairness and I understand we all want to stick up for our residents, constituents. I think it just proves two things. One is that congestion pricing, once again, is a complete and utter failure. and two is that we want to make laws and regulations for everybody to keep them safe and protect our residents, but some of these agencies, we could be sitting here doing a bill right now, holding them accountable, and instead of doing that, what we're doing is going the opposite way and making sure people don't have to pay the bills and the things that they should be accountable for. So I look forward to the sponsor of my bill. Thank you, Masby.

Thank you, Madam Spicer. Madam Speaker, will the sponsor please yield? Will the sponsor yield? Madam Speaker, I think I'm going to get some more bill ideas. I yield.

And if you do, I'd like you to be my co-sponsor, please. So I like the intent of your bill without a doubt. I don't know that I'm going to vote for your bill along the lines of what Mr. Dursa said. So I want to ask you a few different questions. So I don't know that if I would agree that most of these problems happen with people who don't have EZPass. I will say that this issue is a tremendous issue in my office, probably one where I get the most phone calls, and it's the most egregious as far as fines. I mean, we literally have people calling with tens, twenties, and thirty thousands of dollars worth of bills and worth of fines that it could be arguable that maybe they did or didn't know about it, but now we have to do something about it. But what you're talking about here is the late payment of cashless tolls. So in New York State, New York City, the only company that I'm aware of that collects cashless tolls would be E-ZPass. Can we agree on that? I believe that's correct. And from the legislation I've looked into, E-ZPass is kind of the authority or body that sets those fines and fees. Would that be correct? I believe that's correct. Okay. So then the authority itself, which would be the MTA, the Thruway Authority, whatever, really has nothing to do with the fines and fees that are set by EZPass. I believe, and we're happy to get back to you if this is incorrect, but I believe that the MTA, the Thruway Authority, and the Triborough Bridge Authority, they themselves have a board that set the tolling limits for the bridges, tunnels, and roads that they operate. And so I don't believe they cede all of that authority to EZPass, which I believe is the operator of the system and is the purveyor of the bills and late fees, etc. And they may have a contract that allows them to take on some of the risk or to take on different things to go out and figure out how to collect payments, especially from those who maybe have late payments or penalties. So I'm going to agree with that, but I'm going to break it down a little bit because you said the tolling structure. You did not mention the fine and fee structure. So the authorities 100% have the ability to create this is a $20 toll versus a $15 toll. But they do not create this is a $50 fine or a $20 penalty. That's pretty much set by E-ZPass. Okay. So, again, you know, this bill is specifically around late payment and around making sure that it doesn't hurt the credit worthiness of an individual when they make a late payment. If you also have an idea for different oversight of regulation, I'm sure there are members in this body who would be interested in discussing that, but that's, of course, not what this bill does. I understand, but I'm trying to get there to what this bill does, and you did not answer my question of saying that EZPass has the control of generating these fees and fines, because you're saying tolls, fees and fines that generate the need of a credit worthiness report. So it is a huge, huge problem. But as a legislature, we are allowing this to happen. So I know that you want to go with the late payment, and you're also assuming that it's the Thruway Authority, from what I heard, that they're the ones sending out these bills late. When I get my EZPass statement, it does not say New York State Thruway Authority. It does not say MTA. It says EZPass. So this bill is really not doing anything to fix the problem that you're trying to solve. Well, we're trying to solve a very specific problem. I think you are identifying a different problem. We're trying to make sure that New Yorkers who have not paid their tolls in a timely manner, of which I believe many of them haven't paid those tolls in a timely manner because they have not been received and sent to them in a timely manner, that that does not hurt their credit ratings. You are discussing an entirely different subject, which is how the tolling fee and fine structure and the timeliness of those tolls, fees, are sent to individuals, whether they are EZPass holders or not. And that's a different area. It may have lots of merit, and it's something that I'm sure other legislation could, in theory, address. I agree that it's a different area, but I'm only discussing it simply because you discussed it. And by your discussing it, that kind of puts it out there. I don't believe this is a court of law where I've opened up.

So once again, the only reason I'm discussing it is simply because I believe you discussed it. And as we're talking to this particular bill, I'd like to know how the things you discussed, right, are determined. Like, what is the fee? I understand you don't want the credit report to go. I'm not disagreeing with that. But I'm talking about how you discussed that the thruway authority or the authority determines these fees. And I'm saying they're not. So I am talking about what you're talking about. Look, this bill has a narrow focus to talk about the creditworthiness and making sure whether it be a state authority or EZPass does not report to credit agencies the late payment of a toll or a fee. I'd also like to note that I do believe the Thruway Authority, the MTA, the Triborough Bridge Authority have the ability to levy late fees and other fines if they so see fit. But that is not germane or what this bill is about This is a bill that is narrowly focused to making sure that late payments to EZPass or any other entity that would request a toll or a late fee from a driver does not impact somebody credit report or credit worthiness So once again, I'm kind of agreeing with you. However, these are the things that you spoke about, and I want clarification on the things that you spoke about with this bill. Let's just, you know, as far as E-ZPass, you're talking about the payment of cashless tolls. It is determined by E-ZPass. If my constituents then wanted to speak to E-ZPass so they could determine how they can pay their bill in a timely manner so they don't have to worry about a credit worthiness issue, is there a number that a consumer can call E-ZPass? The bill doesn't speak to that. nor do I personally know right now the best way an individual constituent can contact EZPass. I do know, and I have a wonderful staff, they have consistently worked with, whether it be EZPass or one of the bridge and tunnel and road authorities, to deal with issues around late payment fees and fines. And so, though the bureaucracy is very difficult, I do believe there are avenues, but this is not what the bill is about or speaks to in any way, shape, or form. And I recommend that if there is an issue there, that different members look into it, research, and draft such legislation if they see fit. Okay, so once again, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm discussing it because you discussed it. And I will answer those questions that I asked about the possibility of having an authority or someone call a credit agency and say that this person is deficient in their payment. There is no number that a New York State consumer can call for E-ZPass. I can't even call, as a New York State legislator, a number for New York State E-ZPass. If we do happen to get through to someone, the only thing that they are interested in doing, and I'll give you an example that has happened in my office, someone has a $30,000 fine on top of whatever their tolls are, the only thing they want to know is not were they right or wrong in making the assessment of that toll. The only thing they will give to us is, I'll tell you what, they only have to pay $15,000, here's how you pay. So really what I'm trying to point out about your bill is it's the cart before the horse. I think what you need to do is fix the problem so legislation like yours would not be necessary. Because if consumers, my constituents and yours and everyone's, had the ability to reach out to any cashless toll company to discuss why they have these huge fines, please let me pay them so you don't have to report me to a credit agency, we would all be better off. I don't believe there was a question there. Well, do you agree with me? Now there's a question. I do believe there is a way, and I feel your frustration with adjudicating large fines and fees that constituents face oftentimes unbeknownst to them because of improper notice of those large tolls to those constituents. And I think this bill does address one of the primary issues which is an unnecessary hit to that individual credit report There may be other issues that we can solve with future pieces of legislation and it sounds like you would be very interested in working towards that goal, and I recommend that, and I'm sure there are others who would also be interested in working on those issues. Thank you, Mr. Carroll. If I may, on the bill, Madam Speaker?

So the sponsor just used the term unnecessary, and I'm going to qualify that by saying And that's exactly what I think of this particular piece of legislation. Because he is correct in identifying a problem. There is no doubt that this problem exists. But this legislation does not do anything to remedy that problem in any way, size, shape, or form. All this legislation does is allow it to continue, allow it to get worse. It is our job as legislators to make sure problems like this do not occur in our constituents' lives. And the only way to do that is to regulate in E-ZPass, because they are the problem, to talk to the through-way authorities, the MTAs, whatever it is, and to create legislation so this doesn't happen. This body has given a blank check to E-ZPass to charge whatever fine or fee they want to charge on whatever the toll is. It could be a $10 toll with a $50 processing fee. It could be a $20 toll with a $100 processing fee. There is no rhyme, reason, or regulation as to how these fees that are causing these credit reports to happen are governed, decided, or determined. That's our job. So the reason I don't like this bill is because it doesn't solve the problem. This bill is a waste of my time. So I'm going to be voting no, and I would suggest that everyone else vote no.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for just a couple questions? Will the sponsor yield? I do.

At the face of this piece of legislation, I would agree. It's very interesting and timely. I just was dealing with a constituent in my office who got, we were working on tolls that they had received that was not their vehicle in which they were driving. It was on a bridge down in New York City. And lo and behold, in walks a notice from the collection agency. So I guess my question would be, in your research and working with some of your constituents, what's the time frame that we typically see that the collection agencies are getting involved right now with our cashless tolls? You know, I don't have a specific answer to that. Okay, and the reason I ask that question is, you know, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, I think it's more of a systemic issue that we have. When we're looking at this, and some of the frustration is being able to get to the authority in which we need to to help our constituents, or them being able to get. So when the credit agency forwards the collection questionnaire or, you know, collection notice to the residents, do you know typically how long or how many of those actually end up on someone's credit report? Do we have that data? The question you asking is when a credit when a debt collector is used by whether it be EZPass or the Thruway Authority or any other entity that has not gotten a toll how often that debt collector then reports that debt to a credit agency that decides your credit score Is that the question Absolutely, yes. I do not have that answer for you.

Thank you to the sponsor for answering my questions. And at face value, I like this bill, but I really believe we are attempting to put a Band-Aid on a more systemic issue that we have. The constituent that I mentioned was not in New York City. She wasn't even on the New York State Thruway. and it happened to be the vehicle of her deceased husband that the license plate came up on down in New York City. And then our office was in the process of working with the Thruway Authority on that to ensure that that got taken off because those tolls and those late fees that were showing up were not hers. and in walked the letter to the collection agency. Now, I've been told by the Thruway Authority that it has been taken care of and they will get in touch with the collection agency. But I think what we need to do, and we have the power in this house here, to put forward legislation that would take a look at or get some of the information on how many of these late fees are getting turned over to collections and what impact is that having on folks' credit as we talk about it here today versus the frustration in the way in which the system may or may not be working. And, you know, I thank the sponsor for bringing this forward. I think we need to do a better job in correcting the systemic issue rather than just putting a Band-Aid on a very small piece of a system that is truly broken in my mind. Thank you.

On the bill? On the bill. This bill, though not expansive, solves a clear problem. And that problem is to make sure that New Yorkers, who unbeknownst to them, who have not paid their cashless tolling bills or penalties, do not have their credit report destroyed by credit agencies and by debt collectors. This is a common sense, simple bill. Other reforms may be needed, but I hope my colleagues in the chamber realize the utility of this and vote in the affirmative. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This act shall take effect immediately.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will, generally speaking, be in the negative on this legislation, but affirmative votes may be cast at the seats right now. Thank you.

The majority conference will generally be in the affirmative on this common sense bill, and if anyone would like to deviate from that, they are welcome to by pushing the button at their desk. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to take a moment to thank the sponsor of this bill. Like my colleague from 8133, I've had very similar situations where people have been receiving tolls that were truly not theirs, not even ones they hadn't noticed, but were truly misassigned to them. And the situation we were finding ourselves in is that by the time we were able to contact the Thruway Authority and work through it, that these were being sent to collections. To the extent that this bill will allow us to have more time to address these issues of truly erroneous tolls that have been sent to people who were nowhere near where the toll was collected, I think that this is going to go a long way towards making easier a problem that can very quickly spin out of control. I think also the bill that I passed yesterday with regards to assessing how many people may be working in our state agencies may help us get better in touch with those who are or are not at their desks at these authorities. Thank you very much. Have a great day. Thank you, Ms. Lunsford, in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. To explain my vote, I think today's debate on this legislation is indicative of a larger problem we have with the cashless tolls across the state. Certainly, we've heard our colleagues talk about constituents getting tolls for places they never were. But I think indicative is a larger failure for New Yorkers to understand why they're getting the bills and the tolls they're being sent. Certainly, when you get 19 pieces of mail for trips across the thruway by each tolling location, rather than a collective trip or over a billing month, that shows that there is massive inefficiency and ineffectiveness. So I think while I'm voting for this bill, I think it's important, whether it's the sponsor of this legislation or any other member of this body, to really focus on how can we actually make the cashless tolling and billing process work the way it's intended to ensure fairness for all New Yorkers. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Jensen in the affirmative. Mr. Riley to explain his vote.

How do you vote, Mr. Riley?

Thank you, Mr. Riley, in the affirmative. Ms. Bailey, to explain her vote.

Thank you, Ms. Bailey, in the affirmative. Mr. Tenousis to explain his vote.

Thank you, Mr. Tenusis. In the affirmative, Mr. Durso to explain his vote.

Thank you, Mr. Durso, in the affirmative.

Ayes 120, nos 20. The bill is passed. Ms. Lunsford.

Thank you. Page 34, calendar number 359. Clerk will read.

New York's Address Confidentiality Program provides eligible individuals with a substitute PO box to protect their real address, which state and local agencies must accept. Court documents could be sent to the Secretary of State for confidential forwarding. The program serves victims of domestic violence, stalking, sexual offenses, human trafficking, and certain reproductive health care-related individuals and their families. Mandating police training on ACP protocols is essential to providing and protecting victims' safety, prevent accidental disclosure of confidential addresses, and ensuring legal compliance and maintaining consistent implementation across jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, would you ask the sponsor to yield, please?

Yes, I will.

Good afternoon. I listened to your explanation. So this bill complements Section, I think it's 108, of the executive law? Yes, it does. Okay. And Section 108 of the executive law deals with the ACP, excuse me, CAP, Confidential Address Program, CAP. ACP. ACP? Address Confidentiality Program. Oh, I'm going to be saying this wrong the whole time then. So, in Section 108 of the executive law, the Secretary of State of New York State is allowed to administer the rules, regulations, and how the ACP is administered. Is that correct? That's correct. But do we know also I noticed when I read Section 108 it discusses that each year a report is supposed to be delivered to the legislature regarding this program I'm aware of the program. I wasn't aware of that portion. Do we know how many people are in this program? I can't speak to that because we haven't seen a report. Yeah, I have not either, but like I said, I just learned of that, and I was hoping, I think it even says it's supposed to be done by county, so that would be interesting, and I'll follow up with that later. Why is this statute necessary? So what the bill does and why we feel it's necessary is, you know, oftentimes you will find that survivors of domestic violence are in situations and we've seen situations. situations, personally, I've had staff on my team who have fallen victim to having their address in a situation be put on documents that shouldn't have been put on documents and be put at risk. And so for that reason, we found it necessary to make sure that this piece of legislation goes into already crafted police training to ensure that officers are trained on the protocols of this program to ensure the situations like that don't happen again for survivors. Were those documents you talked about, were those generated by a police agency? I can't recall specifically, but if I'm not mistaken, they could have been court documents. Thank you. Is there any other profession or job function or civil service position that is covered by this? Is it just police officers? Yes. So was there a specific problem with a police department or agency or particular officer that caused this? No. Okay, so there's no documented failures of the system? Well, I just kind of highlighted one of those instances that happened personally to one of my staff members. And so, I mean, and in talking with other police, with other law enforcement organizations, we found and we've seen that generally roughly a little over 10,000 people from what we know and from what we've been told are sometimes affected by this. Okay. And also, let me take that back, not are affected by this, but are engaged in this program. Okay, so that was like my first question. Sure. many people are in the program, so we think it's around 10,000 people in New York State. I don't know if you... So one of my first questions was how many people, so we can surmise it's around 10,000? Roughly. I don't have an exact number, but that's what we were told when we were in communication with law enforcement organizations on this bill. Will this apply to all police officers in New York State? Yes, all local and state police officers. And I kind of alluded to it earlier, but this doesn't apply to letter carriers or postal employees, does it? No. I noticed the fiscal note is TBD, to be determined. I guess getting down to, I don't know if this is germane to the bill, but does New York State pay the postage? I know how the system works, but when it goes to that special PO box and then gets forwarded, it's just part of the original postage, correct? I'm not sure because that doesn't speak specifically to this bill, so I'm not sure. I didn't think so either. It was just one of my curiosity things as I started thinking about it. So we're... You're directing police agencies across the state to be trained and awareness in this. Is there any training syllabus or a lesson plan or something that we need to use? So, from what I understand, this bill specifically, this training is going to be implemented already into existing training that law enforcement officers already receive. All right. One of the tenets of training is look for an issue, conduct the training, watch the training, and then assess the training. Is there any way we're going to be able to assess if this training was successful? So what I can tell you is the bill will mandate that the Division of Criminal Justice Services confirm compliance with training requirements, ensuring accountability across all state and local police departments. And regular reports will also provide transparency and allow for adjustments if certain departments struggle with this implementation. Okay, so you have talked to DCJS about this? Excuse me? Have you talked, sounds like you have talked to DCJS about this? Well that is what this bill will do, so, you know, and that is what DCJS will be responsible for. Okay, so they don't know this is coming. When it gets passed and signed, it will show up and it's a law to impact them. Like most pieces of legislation that we pass through this House. Thank you. Is there a better way we could have implemented this? I'm sorry? Is there a better way we could implement what the goal of this is, maybe by talking to DCJS first? I'm not sure I understand your question. So I think the goal and the intent here is to ensure that all law enforcement has the information that they need to be able to ensure that this program is being implemented and being used in the appropriate way. Thank you very much. Sure.

On the bill for A8263B-Boy, let me first off be clear. Protecting victims and confidential information is a priority for everybody. and no one in this chamber is going to question the importance of confidentiality for the special protected classes covered under Section 108 of the executive law. But my question before us today is whether the goal is worthwhile. The question is whether this bill is even necessary, is it effective, and will it be responsive in its current form? First, I'd like to ask, what's the problem we're specifically solving? There was no instances of law enforcement failure in the ACP program. Law enforcement officers already receive training and are very sensitive in areas like domestic violence, victim protection, and privacy concerns in general. There's no evidence that a lack of this specific mandated training caused any problems. But another thing we need to talk about is the cost I notice this bill in the language says all state police officers So that's going to include everybody in CPL classified as a police officer. A forest ranger in the Adirondacks who guards trees is going to have to learn about this. Bridge and tunnel authority officers are going to have to learn about this. Police officers that have no really public facing except in their specific trained duty are all going to have to be trained for this. And this is going to impact police departments across the state. It's time, and it's just one more burden. And it's also that the legislature is basically circumventing the process. We have the DCJS, Department of Criminal Justice Services, which has as a sub-agency the Municipal Police Training Council. They are tasked with training all police officers in New York State to a standard. And all we have to do is ask MPTC to look into this. Is this worthy? and they will say, yes, this is a good idea for detectives, anybody who might be dealing with domestic violence cases. And if we ask them, does a forest stranger need this, I'm pretty sure they would say no. I think there's a better way to address this than just sweeping statewide legislation. You know, there was no input from Sheriff's Association, police chiefs, rank-and-file officers. those are the people who serve on MPTC, Municipal Police Training Council. That's an asset that we created that we should use. You don't need to create a law that is really going to be, you know, I'll never say ignored, but it won't have the same priority coming from here with only one specific job function affected by it. You know, had we thought about it and engaged MPTC, they would have said something like, you know who does have access to these confidential documents? Court officers, probation officers, parole officers, corrections officers, everybody in the system. We could have tailored it specifically. That's why this just feels like a flex of the legislature against police officers, because that's exactly what it is. It doesn't mention letter carriers who are actually handling the mail. And it just seems like this could have been done in a better way. The good intentions alone that come out of here don't always make great policy, and we owe it to our constituents to do things necessary, that are effective, and fiscally responsible. I would encourage my colleagues in the room to think about that, all the missing parts and pieces of this legislation, and maybe we can get a C print from the B print. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 180th day. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Zakara to explain his vote.

Thank you, Mr. Zaccaro and the affirmative. Ms. Walsh to explain her vote.

Thank you, Ms. Walsh, in the affirmative. Mr. Molitor to explain his vote.

Mr. Molitor in the negative.

Announce the results. Ayes 134, nays 6. The bill is passed. Page 17, calendar number 128. Clerk will read. Assembly number 4713A, calendar 128, Mr. Saez, an act to amend the public service law. An explanation has been requested. Mr. Saez.

Thank you. Mr. Paul Massano.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

On the bill.

Mr. Palmisano, if you could speak to the bell.

Thank you. Ms. Walsh.

Will the sponsor yield? The sponsor yield.

to talk to. I mean, similar to the earlier debate we had with EZPass and the complaints we all hear of somebody doesn't pick up the phone or you can't access. And as I said earlier, you know, when we spoke of nominal costs, we feel it's nominal because it exists in most cases, but it doesn't exist in every place. And we also made it clear that if there's an undue burden for smaller communities where the services the lack of availability is an issue there a process to allow an exemption You know so for me I look at this as a necessity as very often a life device that many people would be very thankful that they have the opportunity when there's a major storm, there's an outrage going on in their lives, in their businesses, in their communities, their families, that they have access to someone they can call to at least get the process of repair going. And so that leads me beautifully into the other remaining question that I have for you, which is the expectation is not only that there would be, under this bill, that there would be a live person answering the phone to have that conversation with the customer, but that that person would also be getting the ball rolling. I think, I don't want to just paraphrase what you said, but get the ball rolling to get the problem solved or it repaired.

It's true.

In many circumstances, communities have individuals that have certain functions, but they have multiple functions. So I think anybody that, you know, especially serves a smaller community, a village, a region where you have multiple small communities, you know, the motive has been with this body and government is to consolidate and utilize individuals, you know, to have multiple tasks. Because not often would you have an outage involving water or steam or electric or, you know, So therefore, it's not all these situations occurring at one time. So I see the possibility, and it probably does exist, where a small village or town has someone who's prepared to answer calls involving water, gas, electric, and other necessities.

Well, the expectation is once the call is made, you know, we have existing policy and laws as to when a utility company must, within 30 hours, make a repair or replace or remove a tree or restore energy. There's legislation involving customers who may have handicapping conditions or medical conditions that are put on a priority list. So all that is in place. This assures that you can pick up the phone, that the utility company has a posted number where anyone, whether they're senior citizens or whomever, has access to that phone that everybody knows how to utilize. Not everybody knows how to use the Internet and WhatsApp and every other method that in today's times we utilize.

sections of the law or policy. But that's not this bill.

Very well Thank you so much You welcome Madam Speaker on the bill On the bill So I think the part about the bill again a very well bill that I find troubling is the staffing requirement and the fiscal impact

Thank you. Ms. Bailey?

Of course. The sponsor yields.

Well, that process is a normal process that in many case law and many agencies that exists in law that allows individuals, in this case municipalities, if they feel legislation is burdensome and highly unlikely to achieve or there's stumbling blocks in assuring the compliance, that they have a right to submit a request to be excluded from this legislation.

So they would, then they would petition to the PSC?

Correct.

you know, then that exists. If they have that mechanism in place, as I said earlier, this doesn't restrict that there must be one person handling a toll-free number for a specific whether water bill or gas bill or other related matters.

Many offices have multiple numbers and you know through my office I have six numbers in my office that people can call different numbers and they all come to the same source. So if it comes to the same source and you have an individual there, it doesn't matter

Correct.

Correct, and I appreciate that.

On the bill.

Thank you. Mr. Gray?

Will the sponsor yield? Of course.

We said earlier gas companies, electric, steam, water, cable, telecom. Telecom. So how does this work if the telecom lines are down? How does this work if they're mandated to have a call center or essentially adequate staffing and a toll-free number? How does it work if we don't have telecom services? Well, if telecom, you know, would be able to hook up, as I said earlier, in small communities or villages to a uniform center or individual that will include all these various departments or agencies or needs.

Again, they can't call anybody.

But this bill doesn't call, doesn't really include outage at call centers.

Yes.

Correct.

How does the toll-free number work?

Correct what?

What was your last question?

Correct.

If there's an outage that it's still reporting requirements, So there might be an outage in one area that doesn't mean to be in tax service.

If there's an outage in one area, it doesn't mean it's an outage throughout a region or an area. So there'll be adequate follow-up, you know, what I would assume from neighboring, you know, companies or groups that would be responsible.

Yeah, if there's no way, you know, that's a good point. If there's nobody to answer a call, it's usually a bigger problem. I mean, and there's, you know, we have in place, you know, larger municipalities and agencies and services that generally would be a backup to that. That would have access to the 1-800 number.

So you familiar with the New York Code Rules and Regulations Part 105 correct Yes Okay and that requires the Public Service Commission requires an emergency response plan

What is...

Sure. So you're familiar with the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Part 105 that requires an electrical emergency response plan, correct?

Correct.

Correct? You're familiar with that? You're familiar with that, right?

Okay.

Is that correct? I mean they're already covering it. It requires communications? Yes, it requires

petition the Public Service Commission for an exemption, correct? Correct. Okay,

only applicable to a municipality and not smaller, as been pointed out earlier, or smaller organizations that may not have the operational capacity to surge up like this?

So generally, the only what we feel, you know, available exemptions that really qualify are small villages and municipalities because they're not hooked up unless they have shared services and they work, as we advised earlier, with other small regional villages or towns.

Okay? So there are small providers that are out there. There are internet providers and other things that are qualified under this bill to have a 24-7-800 phone bank, right? So who's going to pay for these? And I know this question has been asked again, and I just want to make sure I'm clear. Who's going to pay for these additional costs that these operators are going to be required.

you know, and this is from someone that agrees we should hold utility companies, you know, responsible for cost-effectiveness. And I think all of us share, you know, in support and initiatives to try to keep the cost of utilities down. But at the same time, when we talk, in my opinion, nominal costs versus, you know, potentially life-saving methods, you know, I still err on the side of let's make sure, although we're fighting to keep costs down, let's not, you know, degrade the need for safety that all of us deserve when there's an outage. Well, I mean, they're already filing plans. They're already PSC approved. So we already have the capabilities to address these situations that are being monitored by the Public Service Commission as we speak.

Correct. And in many cases, we're not going to have telecom services, so an 800 number doesn't mean anything.

Which goes to my point, there's many points of communication that are already taking place, and they're already PSC approved. So if one system isn't working, there's another system in the plans that are already filed. But we'll go on because we're just not going to agree on that point. So I hear you mention nominal costs over and over, and I respect that remark. but it says the capacity to adequately address a surge in phone call volume. What does adequately mean and what does a surge, how is a surge defined?

And adequate, you know, in my opinion, is keeping the same standard,

Okay, so if you have a, I'll just last thing. So if we have a small city, 20,000, 25,000 people, there's a outage and there's 1,000 calls. 1,000 calls don't get answered at the same time because there's not enough people to answer those calls with an 800 number if they have telecom services. So how does, I mean, what is the effectiveness of this? Is the program working or is it not working at that point?

So you have a cell phone, I assume?

Do you pay long-distance charges right now on any calls that you make?

Long distance? Is there such thing as long distance calls anymore?

What's that again? I'm sorry?

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, on the bill, sorry.

But there's, PSE already recovers, already covers most of the planned out, most of the outages that we have and have planned responses for that.

Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 90th day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Republican conference will generally be in the negative on this piece of legislation, but affirmative votes may be cast now at the seat. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. the majority conference will support this legislation. For those that would like to vote differently, they could do so here in the chamber.

Okay.

Yes, Mr. Speaker on the bill. This is a common sense, consumer-focused measure that strengthens communication, improves emergency response, and ensures no New Yorker is left in the dark. It is a low burden, high impact that most utility companies already have call centers. this standardizes and strengthens existing practices and it has no fiscal impact on the state. Isn't it necessary utility companies have numbers? And I say some do, but not all meet these standards. The bill ensures consistency. This is common sense. this is recognizing that also in addition to firing the need to keep utility costs down doesn mean we stop looking at utility companies and any other form of companies from doing what they contracted to do So when they serve the public, the public deserves to have an opportunity to make a call to that utility company. And when there's an emergency and it impacts our families and our constituents, we hope that they have a 1-800 number because their home is damaged, their family may be seriously harmed, there's a tree on their down wires, there's serious interruption in their electricity, and someone may be on emergency medication or emergency equipment that deserves and needs electric care. So I urge my colleagues that we say nominal, but the need for life-saving devices and equality and equity in service is crucial. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Thank you. Thank you.

Ayes 99, nays 39.

Assemblymember 6561B, calendar 165, Mr. Weprin, an act to amend the insurance law.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill amends Section 3216, 3221, and 4303 of the insurance law to require insurance coverage for image-guided breast biopsies for breast cancer detection. As we all know, breast cancer is one of the most prevalent and deadly forms of cancer. Every year, over 16,000 New Yorkers are diagnosed with breast cancer, and about 2,500 die from the disease. It is estimated that one in eight women will develop breast cancer during their lifetimes. Breast cancer is also one of the most treatable cancers if caught early. It is essential to find breast cancer early and in its most curable stage and be able to act on those findings

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield, please? Will the sponsor yield? Yes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So can you just describe what an image-guided breast biopsy is? How is it performed? Give me a minute, please. Sure. Image-guided breast biopsies are a type of needle biopsy in which an imaging modality is used to more accurately perform a biopsy of abnormal breast tissue. This image could be done through a mammogram, ultrasound, or MRI. And this bill, thank you, this bill would say that regardless of the modality that's used to assist the needle in the biopsy, that it would be paid for for the patient and that there would be, Is there no copay on this either? No copay. No copay. And does this include only private health insurance plans? Yes, only private health insurance plans. So in other words, companies and some larger companies, some smaller companies too, that self-insure, this mandate would not apply to them, correct? That's correct. Okay. And I noted that, I mean, this chamber, this body has done a lot of work in recent years to approve a number of different coverages that will impact private health insurance plans in the space and surrounding breast cancer specifically. and the research that I was doing covers screening and diagnostic imaging, including diagnostic mammograms, breast ultrasounds, or MRIs upon the recommendation of a physician, coverage of baseline mammograms for covered persons age 35 to 39, annual mammograms for persons age 40 and older, coverage for mammograms at any age for a covered person who has prior history of breast cancer, breast cancer risk assessments, genetic testing, and medications to reduce the risk of breast cancer. So why do we need to take this additional step and approve this additional image-guided biopsy to the list of things that we already mandate that private insurance plans provide? Well, it clarifies it and codifies it because it is such a problem, and early screening clearly will save lives. Do you have any data or information about the number of these image-guided biopsies that are performed each year in New York or anything along that line of how prevalent is this test? My understanding is preferable to a more invasive biopsy, but we can get you those statistics. So a more invasive biopsy would be something that didn involve a needle necessarily or it would be an unguided needle or it would be an actual incision and removal in the area of where the suspected tumor is I think that's correct. Okay, thank you. And what is the likely increased cost to health care plans for covering this additional mandated procedure? Well, in many cases, they're already covering it, so we don't expect it to be a substantial increase. Okay. And I apologize if you've already gone over this. I just wasn't clear. For an image-guided breast biopsy to be covered under this legislation, would there need to be a recommendation from the treating physician or is there prior approval that's going to be required or no? Yeah, as a preventative service, it should be covered and all of the above. Okay, so we'll be without the need for any prior insurance approval. It will be just allowed if the treating physician wants it, then it will occur. That is correct. Without co-pay. Thank you so much. I was interested to see that there is an independent volunteer panel of national experts in disease prevention, and it's probably, you pronounce it like an acronym, but it's USPSTF, which is the United States Preventive Services Task Force. This procedure, this service that would be mandated under this legislation, is not on that list of insurance-covered services formally recommended by USPSTF. So there are some that oppose this bill that are pointing that out as a reason for not approving this bill or not approving this procedure. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to address that concern. Just tell me. If there's abnormal screening, they recommend follow-up evaluation and additional testing, including biopsies. So if there's an abnormal screening, they recommend follow-up. My understanding is it's recommended if there's an abnormal screening. So, again, we want to get as much, you know, pre-screening as possible in light of the fact that this is very treatable if it's discovered early. Thank you very much, Mr. Weperin. I appreciate your answers to my questions. Mr. Speaker, on the bill. On the bill. So I am the daughter of a breast cancer survivor. My mom lived another 35 years plus years after her breast cancer diagnosis, and I'm the sister of a current breast cancer patient. So I feel like this, for me, this bill hits very close to home for me. I will be supporting it, but I also think that in fairness, I want to talk a little bit about what the impact of a yes vote on the vote. this bill has on the insurance industry, because it would take me probably half of my remaining time to just list all of the groups that are opposed to this bill. And I want to, in fairness to them, talk a little bit about what their concerns are. The New York Health Plan Association, HPA, they claim that while the bill is well intended, it will increase the cost of health insurance for New Yorkers. Here's how it does that, okay? So this bill, as we established during debate, applies to private health insurance plans. So it mandates benefit, its mandated benefit bills pertain only to fully insured policies. So if you are with a very big company or maybe a smaller company that self-insures, this bill does not impact you as an employee. Large companies self-insure around roughly 50 to 55 percent is the estimate that I saw of the commercial market in New York is covered under a self-insured plan. So and really this exemption of not being subject to state mandated benefits is a key reason that they do self-insure because it ends up being less expensive for them. So as more employers self-insure in reaction to the passage of bills like this, the state laws affect an increasingly smaller portion of the marketplace, and that then falls largely on small and medium-sized employers that are relying on private health insurance plans rather than being self-insured. So that's kind of how the – if you follow the dollar, that's what the impact is. As we as legislature approve more mandated coverage on these private insurance plans, it ends up costing the remaining companies and places that are utilizing private health insurance plans. It jacks up the rates. And I remember that. One of my past lives, I handled HR and benefits for our family business. And I remember with great concern every year when we would get the estimate of how much the insurance was going to be going up on a yearly basis. And it was always concerning to us, especially as a small employer. I mean, we had about 50 employees at the time. Now the company has well over 200. and self-insurers, actually. But at the time, we were utilizing private insurance plans, and we would get notice that there would be a 13% increase in a given year or a 17% increase in a given year. So, I mean, that's the concern of some of the opposition to the bill. The Business Council, probably largely for the same reasons, National Federation of Independent Business, or NFIB, the Capital Region Chamber, Northeast Dairy Food and Suppliers Associations, the Food Industry Alliance, the Associated Builders and Contractors of Empire State, Upstate United. I mean, it goes on. I could, like I said, I could name a few more. But that's the concern. I think that as far as that organization that I mentioned, that independent volunteer panel, the USPSTF, they haven't listed these types of image-guided biopsies to their list of recommended. recommended treatments or interventions but we have already as a state in previous legislation already gone beyond what USPSTF has recommended We done it before and I won read the list out again, but we've done a lot of work in this space surrounding breast cancer. And I think a lot of the reason why we do is that we know that statistically one in eight women in their lifetimes are going to deal with a breast cancer diagnosis. And the idea that we could use image-guided needle biopsy and do something that's less invasive, that is going to provide better upfront diagnostics and therefore better, more timely, and more efficacious treatment, that's something that we all want to see for our loved ones. I know I certainly wanted to see it for mine, and I'm sure you do for yours as well. So while there is a concern that this is going to raise insurance rates, I think that I would rather see us do that work in trying to reduce insurance rates somewhere else, because I plan to support this bill.

I appreciate it. Thank you to the sponsor. Thank you.

The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Weprin to explain his vote.

Mr. Weprin, in the affirmative. Mr. Dias, the explainer's vote.

Thank you, Mr. Dias, in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

The bill is passed.

Thank you, Mr. Fall. Page 12, calendar number 79.

An explanation has been requested. Mr. Fall.

Mr. Gandolfo.

I yield.

Thank you, sir. So first, why do we need this bill? Is there any evidence that consumers are filing complaints that they don't know exactly what their interior motor vehicle components are made out of?

Okay, would the interior carpeting fall under that as well, being interactive?

Okay. Is this information currently provided or available through any current materials that a manufacturer might supply, like an owner's manual, spec sheet?

these vehicles in some kind of flyer promotion and say, we're offering this car with this package, would they then have to denote what the interactive materials are made out of if they're promoting some kind of upgraded interior?

Okay, so that would apply to, you know, let's say Mazda, Volkswagen. On their website, they would have to denote what everything is made out of.

Okay. Now, would there be any requirement for a physical label inside of the vehicle?

Okay, and I ask because if we're looking in Section 3, if you go down the line 27, It says label means any tag, label, or other writing that is attached to or accompanies an automotive product. What was that?

Yeah, which would be in the marketing material. Okay, so that would accompany the vehicle. It doesn't necessarily have to be attached, but if there is a tag attached, it would have to include the composition.

It wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing for anyone. Right, if everything is tagged up. Yeah, it's not a great look. Now, there's some exceptions in here. If it's genuine leather, it can say the manufacturer can promote it as being leather.

Is that correct?

I've seen some manufacturers use the term leatherette. Where does that fall under here? Are they still permitted to use that term?

Okay, so if it's some kind of resin material, then, because the leatherette, and I looked up what it is, it's some kind of resin PVC matchup. they would then, I guess, would weather it be implying that it's weather?

Yeah, the bill doesn't speak.

And that's on line 47, right?

Okay. And now, in terms of, let's say there's a mixed material seating surface, you have leather or some kind of artificial leather with a suede center part. Would they have to break down the composition of each component of that seat? Does that make sense? Like, have you ever seen the seats with the leather liners, and then the middle is either a suede or a cloth?

Okay. So in each their own, the seat would be, you know, the outer portion is 100% genuine leather, the inner portion is suede made of whatever material.

Okay. And how is the composition determined? Is it by weight of the material in the fabric or whatever interactive surface, or is it surface area?

Okay, so they have some leeway there? Okay, and just to clarify one more time, this would not involve physical stitched in or glued on tags.

Okay, that answers all my questions. Thank you, Mr. Fall. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The clerk will record the vote.

The bill is passed.

Madam Speaker, do you have, do we have further housekeeping or resolutions? We do not have any housekeeping. We have a bunch of resolutions, but let us first wish our majority floor counsel, John Knight, a happy birthday.

We have a number of resolutions before the House. Without objection, these resolutions will be taken up together on the resolutions. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Opposed?

The resolutions are adopted. Mr. Fall.

Ms. Clark, for the purpose of an announcement.

Immediately following session. Immediate majority conference, speaker's conference room after the adjournment of session.

Thank you. 10 a.m. tomorrow on Mr. False Motion, the House stands adjourned.