April 30, 2026 · Budget Committee · 5,221 words · 6 speakers · 86 segments
. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you All right.
The Joint Budget Committee will come to order. I've never seen such an empty room.
I know.
It's weird.
It's just us.
Yay.
Are we even meeting?
Let's do this.
We are.
Let's do this because I don't know. HOW LONG THAT THE HOUSE HAS. SO WE HAVE THREE BILL DRAFTS, I THINK, THAT WE WERE SHARED BY STAFF AT SOME POINT. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHEN OR WHAT DAY IT IS. BUT LET US START WITH THE ONE THAT I THINK WE'VE MAYBE HAD THE LONGEST, WHICH IS THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS BILL. WE HAVE MR. DERMODY HERE. Yeah, long bill, but everyone has been working really diligently since the fall on coming to a good place on this bill. And I am actually incredibly impressed and grateful for all of the folks who have been working so hard on this to have come to agreement on this. We are facing challenges from HR1 and trying to avoid huge penalties for error rates there, as well as challenges with all of our safety net programs and essentially flat federal funding to continue to provide services that can continue to cost more. And so I think this bill represents a really important step forward for the state in order to better streamline how we administer these services, which will ultimately be better for the state, for the counties, and most importantly for the people who are eligible for and receiving these benefits. So I will just also say that this is an unedited, unrevised draft that folks have. there is still quite a lot of cleanup that will have to be done for the bill so I think people should expect that amendments are going to have to come on the bill it is definitely not all buttoned up specifically we need a number of conforming amendments on the fraud sections chip has to be incorporated as basically a conforming amendment in the bill because when they refer to Medicaid they need to also refer to CHIP. There is some data cleanup that will look mostly like striking and moving some pieces. The legislative declarations have to be reordered. And then also the one thing that I think is actually substantive that still needs a little bit of work is defining the appointments of the working group. And that's not 100 percent buttoned up, but I am confident we will get there. But those are the things that I think people should anticipate will need to be amended. Greg Taggart.
Thank you Madam Chair And I apologize I have not had a chance to read this at all But a question how does this interface then on the fraud side or misuse because we have the extrapolation bill by way of an audit and that going after misuse and fraud
We also set aside dollars in HICFA for them to police misuse and abuse on the IDD side of things. And I just want to make sure we aren't going to have people stumbling over the top of one another and that there is some kind of integration between all of these efforts as compared to each one being siloed. I don't know if Mr. Dermody has a thought about that, but what I would say is that's a reasonable flag to make, but this is work that the counties are already responsible for and supposed to be doing, and what it will do is essentially create this shared service model that one county is going to take on for everyone for fraud. SO IT REALLY SHOULD MAKE EVERYTHING MORE STREAMLINED, LESS STUMBLING. MR. DURMODY, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING?
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. TOM DURMODY, JOINED BUDGET COMMITTEE STAFF. THE HONEST ANSWER IS I DON'T KNOW HOW THOSE TWO WOULD INTERFACE. BUT SPEAKING FROM THE SHARED SERVICES MODEL, MADAM CHAIR IS CORRECT. that the idea is that one county would essentially run point under contract with the departments, with the state for fraud investigations and collections. And that within the bill also there is a requirement for all of the state departments to actually work toward better coordination and streamlining of how they are interacting and working on each of these safety net programs. So I think there are multiple levels of better coordination that should happen that should hopefully address what it is you are drawing attention to, which is ensuring that we're not creating multiple entities doing the same thing and tripping over each other, I think you said.
Yeah.
Any other questions? Concerns? Senator Kirkweire.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I agree with you that there's probably going to need to be some cleanup here. I appreciate you listing off the areas that you fill. I did send this to county departments and the Human Services Association folks as well so that they could look at it. So I think they agree and they want to move forward because they think it's a positive step and they think they're getting to a good spot. So I think, like you said, there's probably going to need to be some amendments, so we all should just face it. I mean, it's a big bill and we all know how that works and we're rushing kind of. So, I mean, you aren't, we are. So, yeah, I think we need to move forward because it has to be done. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd say in addition to the pressures from H.R.1, I feel like H.R.1 is the occasion for this, but the underlying need has been there for at least since I been in the legislature The state just simply gets fewer federal dollars because of how we administer these programs And we had some sort of patchy updates to that system over the last few years The rollout of a single software system as sort of a front end to a rather broken underlying software system is one example of that. I am excited to see this move forward. I've been hoping for something like this for a long time. AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR ALL THE WORK THAT'S BEEN PUT INTO IT.
ALL RIGHT. SENATOR KUKMEIER.
YEAH. I JUST NEED TO SAY, ACTUALLY, THIS SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED A REALLY LONG TIME AGO. THIS IS NOT ABOUT HR1. THIS IS ABOUT ENSURING THAT THERE SHOULD HAVE ALWAYS BEEN BETTER COORDINATION BETWEEN THE STATE DEPARTMENTS AND THE COUNTY DEPARTMENTS, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS IS REALLY GOING TO FINALLY PUSH FORWARD. ALL OF THOSE WORKFORCE STUDIES AND EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN DONE OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST, SINCE 1995, 1993 TIMEFRAME, you know they're a point in time kind of thing it wasn't like the counties were as involved I think this time around the counties are actually going to get to be more involved and will be more involved and I think we'll come to a system that is better coordinated having a CBMS system from its inception that just didn't work right is not a good idea either and I think they'll really work on it I mean that's how we're going to need to figure out how to get this error rate down is how everybody is making sure that it's not just determined at the state level what needs to be in those IT systems, but the people who have to implement them, work with them day in and day out, and make sure that our citizens are being signed up appropriately and determined appropriately for resources and services, that's what's important here, and that's what I think hopefully we will get out of this. And I should say all of this is contingent upon that IT system moving in parallel, which is not this bill but is also happening. And, you know, I've heard no complaints, actually, about the reimagination project. All right.
Anyone else? Rep. Taggart.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The one thing I'm not seeing, and again, I haven't had a chance to read the bill, just looking at the summary right now, is when we have an error rate, that's going to cost us a lot of money if we don't correct it. I would think somewhere in a large bill like this, they should be setting some objectives of where they need to get this to. And if there's a timeline that's necessary, I understand that. But I see statements like established corrective action protocols, But that's very different than saying we're at 10 percent and our objective is to get this down to six and a half or whatever the number is. But I just think it's necessary in a situation like this.
So what the bill does do is establish counties, each individual county is going to enter into a performance-based contract with the state. And then once we have a, it's not a shared model, what are we talking, I'm sorry, blanking on the new word that we're using here, of the shared services model cohorts. So once we move into the 12 or fewer cohorts, then there would be, you know, different performance-based contract, but that's where that is embedded, is that these is clearly outlining what are the expectations. Yeah. of the work to be done. And so, you know, there are short-term measures that the state and county are taking to try and to ensure that we are sharing information as clearly and quickly as possible to address these error rates faster than we have been. But I think the performance-based contract is getting at what you are requesting. It's just not outlining it in statute, specific numbers.
Senator Mobley?
Well, I mean, the bill, as we've talked about, it has some, needs some more, a little more work, so I think I know I would be open to making some changes to put in, maybe in the ledge deck or something, some goals or... I think everyone has the goal of significantly reducing the error rate because more money that the state has to spend is essentially less that we have for anything and everything else that the state and counties are impacted by ultimately anyway. So I think everyone is sufficiently motivated to try and bring our error rate down, and I think the performance-based contracts will outline clearly what are the state and what are the county responsibilities here. But I think putting contracts into statute is usually not advisable.
Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate the performance-based contracts, and I don't know what they're putting in here as a definition. But I will say that standard operating procedures, when you put a performance contract into something, there's an objective. It doesn't have to be specific to 6.5% or 7%, but I truly do believe each one of those 12 performance contracts needs to have an objective. People need to know what they need to get to, even if it's just a minimum number that can be improved upon. But I just want to make sure that that's there. I know it's dangerous for me to say that's a standard practice in business, but it is a standard practice. And I just want to make sure a performance contract has some verbiage on that subject.
So why don't we, we can continue to talk with the state and counties about how they envision these contracts looking and how that matches with what your expectations are about what they should contain. All right.
Vice Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to introduce LLS 0425 County Administration Public Assistance Programs. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. This bill will start in the House. House sponsors will be Sirota and Brown. Senate sponsors will be Kirkmeyer and...
You've been working on this, right? I mean, I love it, but you've been working on it.
So, sure. Amabile. Okay.
CO-SPONSORS BRIDGES AND TAGGARD. OK. THIS IS A BILL I WOULD LOVE TO RUN, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM SOMEONE. I MEAN, I DON'T, I'M, EITHER WAY, I'M OKAY WITH IF SENATOR BRIDGES WOULD LIKE TO BE THE PRIME SPONSOR, IT'S FINE.
YOU GOT IT. OK.
NEXT UP WE HAVE TWO OTHER BILLS DO YOU ALL WANT TO TAKE UP THE PART ENRICHMENT OR THE MEDICAID COMMITTEE NEXT CAN WE DO THE MEDICAID COMMITTEE NEXT SURE Next up we have two other bills Do you all want to take up the part enrichment or the Medicaid committee next Can we do the Medicaid committee next Sure I don have that
I don't have the printout of that. I don't either. I only have the electronic. Do you have that one? No, I don't have it here. Okay. Thanks.
Why don't you take this?
Because I would like to run this one. So if you want to take it, I'll have fun. I want to do this one. Yes. You take county admin.
Okay, can we correct the record on the county admin bill? Senate sponsors will be Kirkmeyer and Bridges, and Senator Amable will co-sponsor. Okay.
Can I ask a quick question on that one? Is that going to the committee of reference? So is it going to Health and Human Services Committees, or is it going to where?
Well, typically JVC bills get assigned to approves, but that would be at the discretion of my speaker and the president as to where they assign them.
Okay. I just want to. I got to ask the question. That's why I'm asking. Okay. Okay.
All right. Senator Mobley.
So I'll just say that this was pretty rushed and not a lot of, I know people haven't had a chance to provide a lot of input. So for example, it has 10 members on this commission, and that is the six JBC members plus two members from the House, two members from each of the House and Senate health committees. and I know there was some consternation about 10, but I honestly don't know how to make the number smaller if all of the JBC members want to be on this commission, which I sense that they do. So I think 10 is okay. I think that's workable. I don't expect that everybody will be there for every meeting, and in the first meeting we can establish guidelines for how we're going to have quorum, if there are things we need, when and if there are things we need to vote on. And so I know that was the one thing that bubbled up that people were concerned about. There are probably other things, but I think this captures kind of what it is we want to work on, which is the most important thing. And it also does say that we will, and this was something I had a question about, actually, is that we will pick a facilitator to help us. And it does say that we have to issue an RFP. And is there a way around that? Or is that, like, I'm not exactly sure what that, it's some kind of request for a proposal.
Mr. Kurtz.
Mr. Kurtz, there does seem to be a different language that I have seen in other bills, previous one included, that does address when our procurement process doesn align with the timeline that we have Madam Chair it a little beyond my expertise
I would need to talk with Ledge Council.
My understanding is the way this has been done in the past has been there's an RFP, but then the commission would select the contractor. But if you have someone in mind, that would help us with estimating the cost. And there may be other options. I know there are, you can make exceptions to the procurement code under certain conditions. I'm just not an expert in what those conditions are. Yeah.
So, Senator Mabla.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't think we have anybody in mind, but I think that there is a list out there that has two or three or so people on it. And so I think we just, in our very first meeting, would solicit, or even before then, solicit them to give us a proposal, and then in our first meeting would choose. But I don't want to have to go through some lengthy procurement process.
So, Mr. Faust.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Jake Baust from the Office of Legislative Legal Services. I think, you know, to Mr. Kurtz's point, given that legislative council staff is the one who's seemingly administering this and is certainly has far more experience in sort of organizing these types of commissions and what their procedures are, I'd like to confirm with them as well. I think if you have sort of specific parameters in terms of the type of person or entity who you would like to facilitate it, if you would like to supplement the bill to sort of describe the qualifying factors of someone so that you can more efficiently achieve the solicitation and sort of get who you need and whether or not there needs to be an RFP or not. Again, I'd have to check with LCS in terms of what they normally do, but be open to seeing what we can do to help you all get this moving as soon as possible.
Brett Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, just at the outset when I was reading this bill, I think we're calling it a facilitator here. Bill calls it a technical advisor. I do think that having technical expertise is really important, but I think it's clear what we're talking about is someone who would actually facilitate the meetings. So we might need a little bit more specificity about maybe it is just calling them something different, but it is also spelling out their role a little bit better.
Well, I think, didn't I read, aren't they also responsible for helping us produce a report? So I would think technical expertise is actually important.
I agree with that. Yes.
Yes. I agree with that, but I also think that it's technical advisor sounds, doesn't sound like someone who's facilitating a meeting or writing a report, but maybe not.
Senator Kirkmayer.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So first of all, I don't know that the legislative branch has to follow the procurement rules that are set out for the executive department. I know the governor's office does not have to do that. That's true. So I'm not saying we shouldn't follow some process. But there is a process by which you can get like three bids can be submitted and then you can review from that We can review from that point So I would say that would be the process that we should follow because it is a type of procurement process but it lets us to, I mean, literally you can just get three bids and then start looking through it. I think that there does need to be the technical expertise. I think there needs to be knowledge of the health care policy finance department, and they have to have experience in facilitating groups or whatever. All those things. I would also say I know we have written this into other task forces, but, you know, I just want to be also clear. I have no vision of who this actually is, but I think it would be important to me to feel as though it were an unbiased party in terms of, you know, the work and the outcome here. Yeah.
So, Senator Mobley.
I am happy to get some language around what the qualifications are, you know, based on the conversation we're having so that we can put that in the bill. And I think if we want to change what we call the person, I'm totally good if we don't want to call them a technical advisor or if we want to say facilitator and technical advisor. Whatever. Is that? A person who will provide technical expertise and facilitation. And facilitation, however that can get. Well, it doesn't have to be a person, an entity. Whoever we're contracting with can be multiple people, I guess.
Rep Taggart.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wonder if we need two individuals because at the end of this process, and right now it's falling on the technical advisor, there has to be a report. and none of us are going to have the time because it says the commission is responsible for the reports and the commission is legislators. We're not going to be able to write a report. And so I wonder if one person can be that technical advisor and can also lead the charge on the report and another person be that facilitator.
Well, I mean, I'll just say that that can be part of what we require IS THAT THEY SOLICATE THE MEETING. YES, AND AT THE END THEY PRODUCE A REPORT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING THEM TO DO. I GUESS THOUGH MAYBE WE JUST WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE MAKING CLEAR THAT THIS ULTIMATELY COULD BE TWO DIFFERENT CONTRACTS, I SUPPOSE, IF IT NEEDED TO BE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ENTITY IS GOING TO BE PROVIDING THIS SUPPORT, BUT MAYBE WE FELT LIKE ONE PERSON IS BETTER AT THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT, ONE PERSON IS BETTER AT JUST FACILITATING ALL OF THIS. I DON'T KNOW.
SENATOR KIRKMEIER.
THEY CAN SUBCONTRACT WITH EACH OTHER, WHATEVER. IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A PROCESS. WE'RE GOING TO SOLICIT AT LEAST THREE BIDS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT TYPICALLY THE PROCESS HAS TO SAY. AND I KNOW IN THIS PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE IT'S USUALLY UNDER A CERTAIN DOLLAR AMOUNT. IN THIS CASE I DON'T THINK WE CAN WAIVE THAT OURSELVES BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THIS PROCESS SPECIFICALLY. three bids solicited, and I think we should put in statute about technical expertise, experience, knowledge of the department, and then in the solicitation of the bids, there will be a paragraph or two that says here's what our expectation is, and yes, there will be the expectation that whoever, if it's an entity, if it's an individual who has people that support them or whatever, they will have the responsibility to draft the report that we have to approve, basically. And then I would also add the issue about conflicts of interest or independence so that, you know, it's not... Someone who works for a pharmaceutical company or something like that. Nobody who's making money off this system.
So, Senator Mobley.
I wonder if we're comfortable finalizing this with what we've just added. I have one other issue, but I don't want to derail the conversation about the facilitator, if we're still talking about that. I think we're done with that. I think that the commission should choose its own chair. I don't think, just to stick up for the House for a minute, the way that this bill is written, it gives the chair the ability of the President of the Senate to appoint the chair. And I think there may be a situation. You may want, I think you want the House to have some equal share in this. And so I don't know that I particularly agree with the layout of the leadership of this and who's doing that appointing. Well, what if we just said that the commission could choose its own chair and vice chair, but that they should be from, one should be from one chamber and one should be from the other? That's fine. Do something like that.
Okay.
Well, there are six of us. We have a majority vote there? Yeah. Okay. Does that sound okay? Don't dilute the vote. Yeah, great. Okay.
All right, so provided those little tweaks to the language, is everyone okay with introducing?
Yes.
Okay, Mr. Kurtz.
Madam Chair, I wanted to point out two differences in this draft versus the one that was previously distributed. The first one is that on page 5, lines 9 through 11, This draft adds, notwithstanding the section of law that passed in House Bill 1331 this year, members of the commission are entitled to per diem and travel expenses. And then the second change is on page 7, lines 11 through 18, we added the appropriations clause. Legislative council staff is estimating that this is going to cost about $272,000. The budget committee had set aside $500,000, so that estimate is coming in a little below what you had previously estimated. You can always...
Does this include the facilitator?
This includes the contract cost for the facilitator. So they're estimating about $200,000 for the facilitator, $44,000 for Ledge Council support, and $28,000 per diem for the members.
Rep. Brown, and also just a flag for everyone. We are rising and reporting, so the House is going to have to go back in just a second.
One thing that I wanted to ask about was I think that we should have explicit language in here that the agencies shall provide us with data as necessary. I think they will, but I think it's kind of important that we make sure that HICPF actually does the things that we want. And then second I would say that some of the experts that may come to testify may actually be from out of state And I know that sounds a little bit weird but lots of states have Medicaid programs and are dealing with similar problems And so we may want to provide some sort of budget so that we can at least we can have some folks come in to Colorado and share their experience with us Maybe there are other state Medicaid agencies or maybe they're national experts of some sort. Does that sound okay?
Sounds right, Rep Tiger.
Can't they come on? Well, I suppose they could, but I don't know.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Given we have put a half a million dollars aside, I would encourage us to put a dollar figure pretty close to that. Because just to make absolutely certain we don't have a whoops situation, that the facilitator costs more money than we expected it to do, that, as Representative Brown just raised, there may be people that come in that can help us. I just, I shouldn't say that on the mic as a Republican, but I...
Well, yeah, could we maybe just then appropriate what we have set aside and put language that any unexpended dollars would revert to the general fund?
I like that. from the five, whatever is being appropriated, and we will all ensure that we are fiscally responsible in setting up this commission? Yes.
Okay. All right. So with those changes outlined, is everyone good here? All right. Vice Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Move to introduce LLS 1020, establishing commission on Medicaid. All right. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of six to zero. So this bill will start in the Senate. Senators Amable and Bridges. And in the House, Brown and Taggart, Sirota and Kirkmeyer will co-sponsor.
Mr. Baus. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just real quickly, that was quite a bit of add-ons with some subjectivity with it. I'm just wondering how you would like to proceed if you want to just introduce as is and then have Ms. Fowler prepare amendments or are you comfortable with, I mean there were some open-ended questions about how we would write the subject matter expertise, the technical, like how would you like to proceed just because I think there was quite a bit of breadth there.
Senator Krookmeyer?
I WOULD SAY TAKE YOUR BEST STAB AT MAKING CHANGES PRIOR TO GETTING IT FILLED, AND THEN WE ALL UNDERSTAND THERE MAY BE ANEMBITS. YES. WE'RE GOOD. GREAT. THANKS FOR JUST CLARIFYING THAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. GREAT. ALL RIGHT.
APOLOGIES. WE ARE NOT GETTING TO THE HOME SCHOOL ENRICHMENT BILL. WE WILL HAVE TO RECONVENE TO TALK ABOUT THAT ONE BECAUSE WE HAVE GOT TO GO BACK TO DO A RISING REPORT. SO THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL LATER. Thank you.
Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. .