March 23, 2026 · Ohio Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review · 3,764 words · 13 speakers · 101 segments
Committee on Agency Rule Review to order. I'd like to recognize our substitute members for today's hearing. Senator Schaefer is substituting for Senator Ling. Welcome to JCAR. Now would the clerk please call the roll.
Senator Gavron?
Here.
Representative Callender? Here with a stopwatch.
Senator Brenner?
Present.
Senator Schaefer?
Here.
Senator Craig?
Here.
Senator DeMora? Here. Representative Matthews? Here.
Representative Sentucci? Here.
Representative Brennan? Happy to be here. Representative Pigletonio? Here. Quorum is present. Let the record show we have a quorum present. On your iPads, you'll find minutes of the March 2nd, 2026 JCAR meeting. Are there any corrections or additions to the meetings, to the minutes? Seeing none, let the record show the minutes were approved as presented. Director, would you please read the no change agenda? Thank you. The no change agenda for this afternoon includes item one, Architects Board, State Board of Landscape Architect Examiners, two rules. Item two, Board of Nursing, 20 rules. Item three, Department of Administrative Services, Division of Human Resources, one rule. Item four, Department of Health, 17 rules. Item five and six, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, nine rules. Item seven, Emergency Response Commission, four rules. and item 8, the State Racing Commission, 14 rules. That concludes the reading of the no change agenda. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Are there any questions by members about items on the no change agenda? Are there any comments from the public? Great. Seeing none, Director, would you please read the regular agenda? The regular agenda for this afternoon includes item 1, Department of Administrative Services, Division of Human Resources, one rule. Item 2, Department of Agriculture, Markets, four rules. Items 3 and 4, Department of Children and Youth Licensing and Certification, 5 rules. Item 5, Department of Developmental Disabilities, 1 rule. Item 6, Department of Education and Workforce, 1 rule. Item 7, Department of Higher Education, 4 rules. Items 8 and 9, Department of Job and Family Services, Division of Food Stamps, 3 rules. I believe we have some interest from members in Item 9. If you want to move that to the review portion, we can go ahead and do that. Yes, regular agenda item number 9 will be moved to the review portion of today's agenda. Okay, then item 10 is Department of Job and Family Services, Unemployment Compensation, one rule. Item 11, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Watercraft and Waterways, two rules. Items 12 and 13, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Division of Parole and Community Services, six rules. Item 14, Department of Transportation, one rule. Item 15, Industrial Commission, five rules. Item 16 and 17, Liquor Control, Liquor Control Commission, two rules. Items 18 and 19, the Ohio Department of Medicaid, five rules. Item 20, Ohio Housing Finance Agency, one rule. Items 21 and 22, Ohio Public Defender Commission, eight rules. Item 23, pre-qualification and pre-design of public improvements, Ohio Facilities Construction Commission, Public Facilities Construction, two rules. Item 24, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Utilities, ten rules. Item 25, School Employees Retirement System, one rule. To be refiled, Item 26, Industrial Commission, one rule. withdrawn. Item 27, Department of Health, two rules, and item 28, Department of Natural Resources, Divisions of Parks and Watercraft, one rule. This completes the reading of the regular agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions from members about items on the regular agenda?
Madam Chair?
Yes, Representative Fran.
Thank you. I did have questions regarding item 9, but we're going to hold that. but let everybody else go.
That's been moved to the review portion.
Thank you.
Any other questions? Any comments from the public? Great. Those agencies that don't have items on the review portion of the agenda may exit the room at this time. Thank you. All right. On the review portion today, we'd like to call forward representatives from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services regarding regular agenda item number 9, rules 5101, column 4-3-11, and 5101, 4-3-13. Welcome to JCAR.
Good afternoon. I'm Rachel Johanson. I'm policy director at ODJFS.
I'm Hannah Knies. I'm the Bureau Chief of SNAP and TANF policy at ODJFS.
Are there any questions from members? Yes, Representative Brennan.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for being here, ladies. Appreciate it very much. I've learned, although my mom was on food stamps when I was a kid, I've learned a lot about SNAP over the last few weeks, and just hoping that we still might find what, in my opinion, would be a better way. So I just had a couple questions today. My first is, it seems, and I don't want to rehash a lot of what we've talked about already, so I'll try to be as brief as I can. It seems to me that the key difference is how states interpret the relationship between the two SNAP, two separate SNAP provisions. One, of course, the general work registration rules that apply roughly to ages 16 to 59, and the ABAWD, able-bodied adults without dependents, three-month time limit rules that now apply to ages 18 to 64. Federal law, from what I can gather, treats these as separate tests. even though some exemptions overlap. Ohio tied ABAWD exemptions to whether someone is subject to general work requirements while other states did not, for instance, North Carolina. So I'm just going to read to you what I learned regarding North Carolina. North Carolina explicitly treats the two rule systems separately. According to the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services guidance, general work registration applies to ages 16 to 59. ABAWD time limit rule applies ages 18 to 64 But the exemptions are evaluated independently meaning a person can be exempt from one rule but still subject to the other For example someone 60 to 64 is automatically exempt from general work registration but may still qualify for ABAWD exemptions
like disability, treatment participation, or caregiving. So the state still screens for those exemptions rather than eliminate them due to age and therefore not leave someone who turns 60 sort of out in the cold simply because of their birthday.
So can you just kind of explain, given what North Carolina is doing, why we could not do the same thing here in the state of Ohio? And I know North Carolina is not the only state that's interpreting it this way. It just seems to me that would be the more humane way of dealing with this situation. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. To the co-chairs and to Representative Brennan, it is correct in my understanding as well that North Carolina is interpreting it that way. It's not really to us a question about the philosophical position, but more of a legal position. Because the 60 to 64-year-olds are exempt from the general work requirements under the Section D1, and only the D2 exemptions moved over to the ABA, the able-bodied adult work requirement, we do not believe that we are able to do anything differently than what is put forward in our rules, recognizing that North Carolina did take that position, but we do not feel comfortable doing so. I don't know if you have anything to add to that.
And again, I'm unfamiliar with North Carolina's policy as a whole, but it sounds like you're saying they have always separated the general work requirement exemptions from the ABA work requirement exemptions. And that's not how we have historically handled that here in Ohio. We have used kind of a funnel. You would be prior to July 4th of 2025 when HR1 went into effect, you would be screened for the general work requirement exemptions. And then if you were not exempt from the general work requirement, you would be screened for the ABA or ABOD work requirement exemptions. Under HR1, those things are no longer in alignment. Those age ranges had been in alignment historically. and HR1 separated those. So that's, again, to Rachel's point, why we chose to go in this direction.
Follow-up? Follow-up? Thank you. So the USDA has given guidance that supports North Carolina's style and approach. If I can just read this to you. The best federal support is USDA's current SNAP work requirements page, which says SNAP has two sets of work requirements. the general work requirements and the ABAWD work requirements. It explains the general rule applies to people ages 16 to 59, while ABAW rules are separate. That matters because the North Carolina reading treats ABAWD exemption analysis as its own screening step for people subject to the ABAWD time limit, rather than saying that once someone ages out of the general work requirement at 60, they automatically lose the incorporated exemptions. USDA's framing of the two systems as distinct is consistent with that approach. There's also a pretty important clue in USDA's One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 implementation materials that says FNS specifically issued an ABAW exemptions implementation memorandum. The fact that FNS separated ABAWD exemptions from other implementation topics suggests USDA viewed the expanded ABAWD age range and the exceptions structure as something states needed to implement directly, not just through the general work registration rules. So can you once again help me out with that? Why we're interpreting, continue to interpret it differently?
To the co-chairs and the representative, we actually, again, not having that in front of me and not seeing it, but from what it sounds like, I agree with that, and I think that actually aligns with what we're doing, separating out the general work requirement from the ABA exemptions and screening them on their face for that age group. That is, we are continuing to screen for the ABA exemptions for that age population. May I continue?
Follow up. Thank you. We were here about three weeks ago, and the committee unanimously voted to determine that the rules violated a J-car prong in that case. You refi- Wait, wait. Well, I should say that we gave you another, you know, we gave you three weeks to review in hopes of making some changes.
You're correct. Thank you. If I may.
The chair recognizes Senator Callender.
Yeah.
Representative Callender.
Hopefully it was foreshadowing. There it goes, Green. The Senate has this fancy stuff. I think we covered it, but I wanted to point out on the record that we did not make such a vote last time. That's inaccurate. Also, while we're looking at issues, this is Ohio, not North Carolina, not the other states. And so J. Carr looks at Ohio law and statute. And what we're dealing with here is a potential interpretation of a federal standard under Ohio laws. So they've said they aren't super familiar with specifics of other states, so I'd ask the chair to keep us confined to things that we have jurisdiction over and make sure that the comments and questions are accurate.
Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize.
But the point is, you refiled the rules with no changes, only 10 days later. Can you describe what steps were taken, what stakeholders were consulted, and what the decision process was to not make any changes in response to the committee's concern three weeks ago?
Thank you to the co-chairs and to Representative Brennan. In this situation, timing is very important. USDA has been extremely clear with us that the bill was effective in July of 2025 and that we would be responsible for running the program under the provisions of the federal law In this situation we did after the JCAR meeting approach USDA and ask for additional clarification which we had done before in the hopes that, you know, if they have a thought, to your point, they would let us know that, and we did not hear back from them on that in that time frame, but we need to have these rules in place as quickly as possible, so that would be the reason for that.
One final question. This is a quickie, Madam Chair, if I may, and then I'll make a motion.
I have questions as well.
Yes, ma'am.
Good to share.
One final question.
Okay, thank you.
So where specifically does federal law or guidance require Ohio to deny exemptions, such as unemployment, caregiving, or participation treatment programs to individuals ages 60 to 64?
To the co-chair, to representative, H.R. 1 says that anyone who is granted an exemption to the general work requirement under D.2 of 7 U.S.C. 2015 can also be granted an exemption to the able-bodied adult work requirement. However, people 60 to 64 are exempted from the general work requirement under D1 and not D2.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Can you just explain what could happen if this rule is not implemented as you've drafted it?
Madam Co-Chair, thank you. that we if this doesn't go through as we have drafted it we believe that we would be out of compliance with federal law and we would then be subject to a management evaluation finding from FNS our federal partners at USDA and our state quality control process also looks at state law and how we are state rule and how we are implementing the program so we would be at a risk of quality control errors which would drive up our payment accuracy rate which could then and potentially lead us to cost sharing of SNAP benefits. And I know we heard a lot about North Carolina,
but have other states interpreted these provisions of H.R. 1 the same way you have?
Senator Gaviron, we have undergone a look at all 49 other states to try to nail down exactly what their policies and their rules say. Some states are behind us because they had waivers that are expiring and for other reasons that they haven't moved forward with any rules yet. We found about 17 states in that category that is of unclarity. About 15 states are taking the same interpretation as we are, and then the remainder are taking a different interpretation.
Thank you.
And the chair recognizes co-chair Callender.
Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. I just want to kind of summarize. So in essence, there's two approaches stakes have taken. It sounds like some of the folks on this committee wish you would take the other one than you did. But the one you did is, if I may summarize and correct me if I'm wrong, the safer approach to avoid a potential clawback situation or audit finding, which would throw us out of compliance, which would be very, very costly to the state of Ohio, thus really reducing the benefit dollars available. You've chosen to take that route to avoid the risk. And it's my understanding that by going that route, if the feds end up when they do their audits allowing the more generous interpretation, let's say, that some of the states have done, you can easily switch to that interpretation and come back with a rule that complies on that level. But had you started with that, and the audits and feds go your direction and you went the other direction, we wouldn't be able to alter without having significant financial repercussions to the state and the recipients. Is that accurate?
That is correct.
Thank you very much. We appreciate all the time you've put in. I know you've met with our office and most of the offices here multiple times. We really appreciate that response
to the extra time we gave you. Madam Chair, may I respond with a question?
Just a moment. Are there any other questions? Yes, Chair recognizes Senator Brenner.
Thank you very much. So you said that there are 15 other states that are doing it like we're doing it. Do you have some of those states as to who they are or all 15 of those that you could give the committee? I do, if you'll give me just a second.
It's a bit of a mixture. Here it is. Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York State, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, and Wyoming.
Follow-up? So based on that, it's kind of a mixed bag. It's not really a Republican or Democrat. It's just the way the various states are interpreting it's based on what you just read, based on the states. Thank you.
Are there any other comments? Yes, Representative Bickle Antonio.
Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. It sounds like the majority of states have actually not adopted a rule at all. If I'm doing the math correctly, I think you said 18, 17 have not adopted a rule at all. Can you tell me is what I remember from our conversation that we had in the office is that your staff are already trained on what you're recommended or what you're submitting as far as a changed rule goes and that your platforms are updated to meet that new process. So if Ohio does what a majority of the states do and doesn't adopt any rule, I guess, can you talk about how that would play out?
Co-chairs, Representative, I think to Rachel's point, I think it's important to note why some of the states haven't adopted a rule yet, and that is because they are under federal waivers from the ABOD time limit So depending on employment there are other factors They could submit a waiver to not have to meet those time limits So I think that's at least part of that population of states. And I think to your question, what would happen if nothing happened with these rules, we would be out of compliance federally. A part of those management evaluations from FNS is being in compliance with the policies as well as the system, the training, and the casework. And then also, again, to the QC piece, it could lead to an overpayment. If the QC reviewers are looking at our state policies and reviewing based on state policies, they could find the casework in error, which would lead to then a higher payment accuracy rate and cost sharing of benefits down the line.
May I have a follow-up?
Thank you.
I guess I'm trying to understand if staff has already been trained, then why is there a concern about mistakes in case work?
The QC reviewers, sorry, representative, the QC reviewers look at state policy and they are separate, and I'm not going to do a great job of explaining this piece, but the QC side is separate from what the policy and the case work is doing. They're a group of independent reviewers. So when they go in to look at the casework that's been done, if our caseworkers are trained and that's not supported by state policy, the QC reviewers have to look at state policy when they're looking at the casework to determine whether it's done correctly or there's an error.
Okay. Follow-up? No?
Not now.
Okay. Representative Brennan.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I spent a lot of time away from my family this weekend scouring the Internet to try to find some type of federal guidance that was a silver bullet. And I fail in that endeavor, I fear. I'm just so concerned that when I talk to my seniors, and by the way 60 and above are still defined as seniors under SNAP. I'm just afraid that this rule is going to lead to folks in that age demographic not being able to provide for themselves. I'm concerned that since this interpretation is a result of when a simple birthday can move someone from eligible to not eligible, this rule itself could increase the error rates. And any thoughts on that?
Could you elaborate on the concern about birth dates?
Yeah, I'll read it again. I'm concerned that since this interpretation is, in my mind, an absurd result of when a simple birthday can move someone from eligible to not eligible, the rule itself and how you've trained counties will increase the error rate. I'd like to remind the representative that in JCAR, we don't get to say whether or not we like a rule.
We are very limited in our scope as to whether or not it exceeds statutory authority or contradicts legislative intent. So I'd like to keep all remarks based on the JCAR prompt.
I guess I would say I would correct my statement. and I'm emotional, and say the interpretation that is. So based on that, Madam Chair, I move that J. Carr recommend that rules 5105, 4-3-11, and 5101, 4-3-13 be invalidated because the rules implement a federal law in a manner more stringent or burdensome than what federal law requires. Thank you.
The chair recognizes co-chair Callender.
Thank you. It's nice that someone recognizes 60 through 64-year-olds that will shortly be term-limited and unemployed. Does having served in this body count as a disability? I want to, again, thank you all for the work you've done on this because it is a challenging position, and I think most people would like to take the more generous approach. It does seem non-logical, logic's not necessarily in our jurisdiction here, but I want to especially thank you for taking the time to consider the impact of taking what might have been the more popular approach now for short term, knowing that in the long term with an audit finding there could be a callback and it would be devastating to a significant number of people receiving SNAP benefits that those dollars would be greatly reduced and you're taking the approach that protects that. And while that's not specifically within the JCAR issue, I think most of us appreciate that tactic on how to deal with a decision like that, although either probably would have been safe under JCAR's prongs. I just wanted to state my appreciation for the time and effort that you all have put in.
The chair recognizes Senator Schaefer.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the table to the invalidation motion.
The motion is in order. Would the clerk please call the roll? Senator Gavron?
Yes.
Representative Calendar?
Yes.
Senator Brenner?
Yes.
Senator Schaefer?
Yes.
Senator Craig?
Yes.
Senator Mora?
No.
Representative Matthews?
Yes.
Representative Santucci?
Yes.
Representative Brennan?
No.
Representative Pickle Antonio?
No.
With sufficient votes, the motion is tabled. The next JCAR meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 13, 2026 at 1.30 p.m. In this room, the Finan Hearing Room. Is there a motion to adjourn? Vote for adjourn. We are hereby adjourned.