March 31, 2026 · Budget Committee · 15,900 words · 11 speakers · 345 segments
. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The order, we have potential legislation packet number 17 with four bills to take a look at. We're starting with Ms. Pope.
Tell us about LLS 0855. Thank you, Madam Chair. Emily Pope, JBC staff. This is the bill to implement some cost controls on the adoption and relative guardianship assistance programs. The bill caps monthly subsidy payments for adoption and guardianship at different percentages of the foster care rate, depending on youth age, and removes services from the entitlement. It's estimated that this will save you $8 million in total funds, including $4.7 million general fund. That's compared to a $14.6 million general fund increase for this program that's included in the long bill, and is why we're motivated to implement some cost controls for this program. When you improve the concept of the draft, Rep. Brown asked for more information about the number of families that will be impacted. So there is some information in a memo in your packet on page one. Originally, the department was estimating that not many families would be impacted by this change. When they provided me with data, they are showing that 24% of adoption families and 40% of guardianship families are currently receiving payments that are above these caps. I will note though that part of the reason another reason we explored this option was because Colorado is shown to have a much higher adoption rate than other states. That may be in part because other states have insufficient rates but the highest rate available in Colorado is $522 per month above the next highest state. So we do expect that this bill will impact families in ways that will be painful, but this program has increased by over 100% in the last couple of fiscal years.
Senator Kroegmer, you have a question? Yeah. So what got changed from this bill to the other bill that you needed to work on? If you wouldn't mind. So I don't have to go through and read.
Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. We just had a mistake that I didn't catch until I was preparing my comments for you. So the bill draft that was in your packet yesterday only capped rates, but it didn't have the language around case services. So this bill has been corrected to include that language.
Oh, okay.
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. Move to introduce LLS 0855, subsidy limits and assistance programs for children.
Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. This bill will start in the House and run with the long bill. HOUSE SPONSORS WILL BE BROWN AND SIROTA, AND IN THE SENATE, KIRKMEIER AND AMABLE. AND COSPONSORS WILL BE BRIDGES AND TAGGARD. THANK YOU.
MR MCLEAR MR MCLEAR Mr McClure Thank you, Madam Chair. Andrew McClure, JBC staff. So on page seven of your packet here is the first of two bills that I have for you. So this is just the repeal of the Pay for Success Contracts Program. You may recall that you all approved this for draft during the supplemental process, so this bill is just going to be enacting that transfer of about $1.5 million to the general fund and repealing the fund at the end of FY25-26.
Reptiger. Thank you, Madam Chair. Could you just briefly remind us, supplementals seemed so long ago, and I'm trying to remember what this program was. I'm probably the only one because I'm over the age of 50, so I'm, what do you guys call me? I'm in the geriatric side of things.
We do not call you that. We do not call you that.
I call you Rick.
Certainly. So the Pay for Success Contracts Program was a program that was administered by the Governor's Office. It's been inactive since, I believe, FY22-23. essentially the program was used to pay for successful administration of different kinds of social services, community services, as sort of an incentive program to fund these through private providers.
Thank you.
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. move to introduce LLS 0957, Pay for Success Program repeal.
Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. This bill will start in the House and run with the long bill. House sponsors will be Taggart and Brown, and in the Senate, Bridges and Kirchmeier. Amable and Sirota will co-sponsor.
All right, and the second item I have here for you is just the repeal of the decarbonization tax credits administration fund. This is just that statutory cleanup that I brought to you at the 11th hour a couple days, I guess, back on Friday.
Vice Chair Bridges. Madam Chair, move to introduce LLS0985 repeal decarbonization tax credits admin fund.
Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. This bill will start in the House and run with the long bill. House sponsors will be. Sirota and Taggart, and in the Senate, Bridges and Kirkmeyer, Amable and Brown will co-sponsor.
MR. KURTZ. THANKS, MADAM CHAIR. LLS 26-0978 is the JBC's bill to allow the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing to use extrapolation to do audits when the federal government uses extrapolation to collect money from the state. THE ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL SAVINGS IS ALL BASED ON AUDITING PBT SERVICES, BUT THE BILL WOULD ALLOW EXTRAPOLATION IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE FUTURE, SO THE POTENTIAL SAVINGS IN THE FUTURE IS LARGER.
SENATOR KERKMAYER. DO YOU HAVE THE MEMO FROM BEFORE? Do you have the dollars that go along with? The differences too.
Yes, but do you have the, you're wondering that table that we had that demonstrated what the audits and the extrapolation entailed? The two different methods. The two different methods.
Yeah, that memo.
I don't have that memo with me, but I could go make copies for you if you'd like. Okay. THE ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL SAVINGS, SO BASED ON THE JVC'S ACTION, WE BUILT IN SOME ADDITIONAL COSTS AND SOME SAVINGS. IT WAS A NET SLIGHT INCREASE IN GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES FOR THE LONG BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 26-27 IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT TO DO CLAIM-BY-CLAIM AUDITS. and then if this bill were to pass, it would allow the department to do extrapolation and the projected collections would increase. The increase for fiscal year 26-27 is $6.9 million general fund.
And that's with the case-by-case audit as well? Or that's one or the other?
That is the incremental additional savings from this bill.
On top of what's in the long bill?
Correct.
Can I get the memo?
Okay.
Thank you.
I'll just make copies and come back.
Okay.
Thank you.
Senator Mobley.
Yeah. Because is this trying to get at the ABA stuff, the and NEMT?
Okay.
And so how does it dovetail with what you're doing?
Rep. Brown.
Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator Audley. It is related but not sufficient, if that makes sense. So this is allowing the department to do sort of post-talk reviews in retrospect to some degree. What we're trying to do in our bill is prevent things in advance, right? We're trying to do licensure and make sure that folks are abiding by things on the front end. You really need to obviously have both tools. So this gives the department a few more tools on the back end. Would this be in perpetuity sort of or is it time limited The way that the bill is drafted currently is that it allows extrapolation for audits of pediatric behavioral therapy, non-emergency medical transportation, and then any circumstance where the federal government uses extrapolation to collect money from Colorado. So that last provision would be in perpetuity. If you would like to narrow it, that's an option available to you. You could say just for these PBT audits because that's what the savings is based on or if you want it, just PBT plus the non-emergency medical transportation, you could do that. We did, from the original concept, we did add one new provision to this, and that was to address Senator Kirkmeyer's concerns about wanting somebody to look at the department's methodology and make sure that it was sound and appropriate. And so there's a provision that asks the state auditor to do an audit.
That's good. And there's a question on page five. Is it sufficient to have that audit just go to the Legislative Audit Committee or do you also want that audit to go to the JBC? Senator Kroffler.
So I actually went back and read through the OIG audit. So there's already been an audit done of the department, and there are things that they need to be doing to satisfy the OIG audit, which include provide additional guidance to ABA facilities on, and then there's a list of three things there, documentation, billing, and credentialing requirements. Sounds like the credentialing requirements stuff will probably end up being taken care of in the legislation that Representative Brown is carrying. but then they're also supposed to be periodically performing a statewide post-payment review so I don't know why we need to audit them to tell them to go do a post-payment review and periodically review its prior authorization contractors procedures which gets me right back to the RAC audit and the audit that we did on the department with regard to the RAC audit and the 18 recommendations that came up from that audit which were not good for the department Not good for the state either. Here it is.
Thank you.
So I'm not necessarily looking. I mean, I don't think the answer is for us to be going doing audits on people. I think they need to meet these audit requirements, recommendations as it was. Again, audit was done. So what is the difference between a post-payment review and audit? Excuse me.
Mr. Kurtz. I'm not entirely sure how to address that question. Let me just re-ask it. Okay, go ahead.
Senator Kirkman.
Because now that I see your sheet, now I know exactly the question I want to ask. So I'm not interested in doing an extrapolation audit, and I certainly don't want to give the department the blanket authority that where feds use extrapolation for Colorado that then we're going to use extrapolation. because again what they did with the RAC audit stuff was extrapolation auditing and we got really bad reviews recommendations on that So the claim audit which would review the claims individual claims is that would get us to this periodically perform a statewide post-payment review of the Medicaid ABA payments. Mr. Kurtz.
I don't think it's accurate to say that the RAC audit was using the same type of procedure that we're talking about here when we're talking about extrapolation. With these audits, this extrapolation audit, they're doing a statistical sample. They're using mathematical principles to determine whether that is a statistically relevant sample or not. And then based on that sample, they're extrapolating to the whole. The department says that this methodology typically results in settlements, and compared to a claim-by-claim audit, the providers typically end up paying less. But because the department is able to review a larger volume of claims, I'm sorry, the providers pay less on a per-claim basis. But because the department is able to review a larger number of claims using extrapolation, it results in larger recoveries for the state. I'll just stop there. I don't...
Go ahead.
Did the bill that we did last year related to the RAC audit, did it have language in there related to extrapolation, or was that the need for the statutory change to allow for extrapolation? Is that just from, I don't know, statutory ambiguity, or a disallowment of the use of extrapolation.
I'd have to go back and look at how long that provision and statute that prevents the department from using extrapolation has been in existence. I'd have to go back and look at the statutory history on that. But there were a lot of concerns that were being addressed. MS. ROSS IS HERE. DO YOU REMEMBER, MS. ROSS, THE BILL FROM LAST YEAR?
MS. OKAY. MAYBE IRRELEVANT, BUT I STILL WOULD LIKE TO KNOW.
While she's looking that up, Representative Taggart had raised some concerns about wanting to see more outreach and education by the department to the providers and I think Senator Kirkmeyer's comments are getting at that as well based on the OAG findings. I TALKED TO THE DEPARTMENT ABOUT WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AND WHAT THAT WOULD COST. THE RESPONSE I GOT FROM THE DEPARTMENT MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF DOING THAT THEY VIEW IT AS THE PROVIDER RESPONSIBILITY TO UNDERSTAND clear that they are not supportive of doing that They view it as the provider responsibility to understand the claims procedures They talked about all of the resources that are available for free already for providers to educate them. They were really uncomfortable with the idea of implying in the statute that that would be the department's responsibility. That's their response, but if that's a direction that the committee wants to do, you could certainly put funding in the bill asking them to do targeted outreach for these PBT providers, and you could just make up a number.
Senator Kirkpatrick.
Yeah, I'm not going to do that. I'm not in support of that. So I'm just going to start reading through the recommendations, and maybe we need to figure out how we get a bill that actually makes the department do what they need to be doing to meet the recommendations from the OIG audit. Because just simply taking them to court and saying we're not going to refund the $42 million of the federal share isn't really good. because they start off by saying that they recommend, one, that they pay back the 40, that we, the state, pay back $42.6 million of ABA payments that did not comply with federal and state requirements. So auditing, doing an extrapolation audit of the providers isn't going to fix that. Provide additional guidance, not outreach, but additional guidance. In other words, documenting ABA including services that must be provided to support the use of, and they list the code, CPT code 97155, signature requirements and information needed in session notes. So clearly, it's not about outreach. It's about giving appropriate guidance and complete comprehensive guidance to the providers. And it goes on with regard to billing, including what the state agencies considers billable ABA time. Apparently that's lacking for the providers already. And credentialing requirements, again, I believe Representative Brown's bill will help address that. And then it's like periodically perform a statewide post-payment review. I don't understand why they weren't doing that. And periodically review its prior authorization contractors' procedures. Here we are again. Contractors, I don't know if they're going rogue or what's going on or they're just not doing their job, but apparently the department's not doing this job because the auditors from the Fed say they're supposed to be reviewing prior authorization. So the only place where, and I don't know that they need an extrapolation audit for this, is the last recommendation, which says, exercise reasonable diligence to review and determine whether any of the estimated $112.5 million federal share in potentially improper ABA payments complied with federal and state requirements and refund the federal share of any improper payment amount to the federal government. I think they need to go through those, and it doesn't need to be an audit. and they need to go through those estimated 112.5 million potentially improper ABA payments and figure out what we didn't follow. That's what the feds are telling them to do. So I guess I don't understand why an extrapolation audit of the providers is going to fix any of those recommendations. And how are we going to fix those recommendations?
Well, it would address the post-payment part that they said we should do. The claim-by-claim thing would.
Thank you.
Mr. Kurtz. The federal findings are that we owe this large amount of money back to the federal government. In order to, for us to collect the money from the providers, we can't just rely on the federal government's audit. We have to do our own state audit. we can do that on a claim by claim basis but because of the cost involved to do that and the volume of work that's involved the department we wouldn't be able to get to as many claims as we would if we used extrapolation and so we could go through enough of these claims to try to verify or refute the findings of the federal government. We would get our own statistically significant sample through this process and give us the tools to argue with the federal government and maybe seek our own settlement agreement with them. But we're also trying to get money back from the providers so that the recall from the federal government isn't just hitting our general fund. We're trying to get money back from the providers. In order to do that cost effectively, the department is saying that extrapolation would help them. But if you're not comfortable with extrapolation, then the option is the claim-by-claim review. and you've already provided some funding in the long bill for that piece it's just not going to net as much in total or it's not projected to net as much in total recoveries as if they could extrapolate them. Senator Moplin. Thank you Madam Chair. So if we don't run this bill then we
already have in the long bill that we're going to do this claim by claim review. I'm just trying to get the lay of the land here, reading the tea leaves. Mr. Kurtz.
The committee's actions to date was to do both the claim by claim review and the extrapolation. So if you're looking at the memo on page two, it's got an amount there for the claim by claim audits. That's what's in the long bill. And then this bill would be the adding in the additional savings from extrapolation. Well, it's not in this memo, but it was somewhere that was presented to us, I think,
about the number of different states that use extrapolation
and it ranges in size and, you know, red, blue. It's a variety of different states that use the same tool that the federal government uses. And I am open to that though I think I am hearing that the committee in total is not SO I don know if there anything in this bill that people want to hold on to or if it is just altogether a no. But in the meantime, we do have the funding for the audit, the individual audits in the long bill, which will amount to less.
Madam Chair.
Rep Brown.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you, Mr. Kurtz, for this. I appreciate it. I think, from my perspective, I think it's important that we continue to work to give the department the tools that they need to make sure that our claims are appropriate and that we don't have waste, fraud, and abuse. I will be the first to admit that I think that our programs have been mismanaged. HICPA has not done a good job of that, and I think the OIG audit, as Senator Kirkmeyer indicated that, I just want to make sure that we aren't putting all of the blame here on the department because obviously, yes, the department needs to do a better job policing it, but we also need to make sure that they're not being taken advantage of, and if we don't give them the right tools, then that's going to be a problem. So if we can agree to the claim-by-claim auditing of some sort, you know, that's at least a step in the right direction. That sounds like where we're at.
Director Harper, if we scrap the bill so that we're just left with the claim-by-claim audit, what does that do to our number?
It goes up?
Mr. Kurtz?
You are currently counting on $6.9 million in savings from this bill, general fund savings from this bill in 26-27. So if you don't run this bill, then that's $6.9 million more in general fund obligations.
And that's what the committee prefers.
Vice Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I hear a lot from folks about how upset they are with the waste in this department, and I know that there is certainly more that the department itself needs to do to provide guidance, but I think that there is clearly some amount of providers who are taking advantage, and I think going through and making sure that we've identified them and that we get what they have taken inappropriately from us back is something that we need to do alongside the broader changes that are already in process over at HICPF right now. I think to leave these dollars just to not go after this, it seems like, to me, not only a missed opportunity, but allows the continuation of some bad behavior that we ought to put a stop to. So I am strongly in favor of running this bill.
But it takes six.
Rep Tyrant Thank you Madam Chair I trying to catch up as well on the numbers If I heard you Mr Kurtz correctly you said that if we don do this we missing out on 6 million And where I'm lost on that is the maximum with the extrapolation here is basically $5.6 million. So I'm trying to figure out where the $6.9 million is coming from.
Mr. Kurtz. Does that also have to do because we are also going to do some claims review having to do with misuse as well on the IDD side of things? Because we also were concerned about that particular program as well. So I'm just trying to figure out where this 6.9 is coming from. Mr. Kurtz. There's two things. If you're looking at the tables on page two, the claim by claim, the estimate for 2627 is 5.6 million in general fund savings. AND IF YOU GO WITH THE EXTRAPOLATION, IN THAT TABLE IT'S SHOWING UP IN 26-27 AS AN ADDITIONAL 8.3 MILLION IN GENERAL FUND SAVINGS. THERE'S A TYPO IN THESE TABLES. I CAN GET YOU REVISED VERSIONS OF THESE TABLES, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT AFTER CORRECTING FOR THAT TYPO, that the difference between doing the claim-by-claim audit and the projected recoveries if you do the extrapolation is the $6.9 million. And that is coming, you can see that number in the appropriations clause in the bill on page 5 where it's making an adjustment to the 26-27 appropriation and reducing the general fund by $6.9 million. It's on page 5, line 24.
Thank you.
Senator Kirkmeyer.
Thank you.
So if we were to do an extrapolation audit, because I don't know, and let me back up. First of all, did we give them additional funding? Are we giving them additional funding to do a claim-by-claim audit? Yes. And it seems to me a claim-by-claim audit is basically what their job was supposed to be in the first place. They're supposed to be monitoring. I mean, isn't that what the prior authorization contractors supposed to be doing as well? Checking things over as well? And they're supposed to be monitoring and making sure that the payments are meeting federal and state requirements and meeting, doing what, I mean, making sure that all the documentation is present. Who does that? Isn't that having a HICPA?
So with a prior authorization review, they're usually focused on questions of medical necessity. And so they're looking at is the service appropriate for the conditions that are present in the diagnosis. That the focus rather than was the claim submitted correctly DID IT INCLUDE ALL THE REQUIRED elements were the services provided by accredited people questions like that which are more the questions
that are at issue here with this particular audit well actually it's It's probably more than that. Because I guess I'm just trying to figure out how you go after providers when you didn't give them good billing guidance. And when you don't require, they don't know exactly what they're supposed to be giving, or you don't ever say to them, look, we checked over your claim, you didn't have this documentation, you didn't have these session notes, this person wasn't credentialed, I mean, those types of things, and give them feedback in advance. That's what they're supposed to be doing. AND THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW AN AUDIT NECESSARILY FIXED THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW WHY WE HAVE TO TELL THEM, WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM MORE MONEY TO DO A CLAIM BY CLAIM, BECAUSE THEY SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THOSE CLAIMS IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO IF WE WERE TO DO AN EXTRAPOLATION AUDIT OR ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN, WHAT PORTION, WHERE WOULD THE EXTRAPOLATION AUDIT OCCUR FOR THE ABA STUFF?
MR. KURTZ. The contractor that the department hires to do the extrapolation audit would look at a statistically significant sample of claims for the pediatric behavioral therapy or ABA. And based on that, they would estimate the number of improper claims and the percentage OF THE CLAIMS THAT WERE IMPROPER. AND THEN THE DEPARTMENT WOULD, AND THEY WOULD DO THAT ON A PROVIDER BY PROVIDER BASIS AND THEN THE DEPARTMENT WOULD SEEK COLLECTIONS FROM THOSE PROVIDERS. THE PROVIDER WOULD THEN NEED TO EITHER PAY HICCUFF THE AMOUNT IDENTIFIED THROUGH THAT AUDIT or the provider could try to contest it or try to reach a settlement and in that process the provider could go back through their own claims they could do their own audit they could use a extrapolation method or they could use a claim by claim method depending how they wanted to do it and then they could contest the findings of HICPEF if they wanted to.
Okay, Senator Kroekmaier.
So first of all, with regard to this, I mean, I understand what you're saying, but here's the thing. If we were to do an extrapolation audit on the portion of the claims only for the applied behavioral analysis folks, the ABA, and we can get rid of all this other stuff, not the non-emergent, not the where they're just, We're just going to say, yeah, they can do an extrapolation audit at any point when the feds do an extrapolation audit. I don't want that. And then what I want is I want the same provisions put in that were put on with regard to the RAC audit stuff, which is, I mean, we had the kind of what I call predatory auditing that was happening, and we were clawing back, and we were ending up in a bunch of lawsuits that wasn't saving us money. That ends up costing us money. Because if we have a lawsuit because we try to claw back money because the department didn't give the appropriate guidance guidance or didn't follow the rules themselves. That's not on the provider, that's on the department. But there were other things with regard to the percentage that the contractor. So I think we need to go look at the RAC audit bill that we did. There is other things where the percentage that the provider gets or the auditor, contract auditor gets to keep. I want to know what that is. I want to know, I want to make sure that they aren't getting paid whether or not the claim is made. So in other words, part of the issue in the RAC audit stuff was that the contractor was getting paid and we weren't necessarily collecting any money. That doesn't even make sense, but apparently that's what was happening. So I think we need to look at some of the provisions that were in that RAC audit bill to make sure that we put the same guardrails on this extrapolation audit of providers. And I think it just needs to be for ABA at this point. Why do you want to take the NEMT out?
It was doing it.
There was definitely waste, fraud, and abuse in NEMT. Right.
Yep.
In NEMT.
Okay.
And then so we also know that we were charging or telling people, telling one section of the state a billable hour equal. Yes. Those things happened too, but also there was a lot of fraud.
Yeah.
Okay. I'm okay with doing an EMT as well.
You're right.
You want to remove the and anything else. And anything else. Because, you know, I mean, here's the thing. It seems kind of weird to me that we would have to put in here that recovery audit contractors shall not use an extrapolation on it. I mean, we make sure that that prohibition continues. I think that was for us who had worked on the RAC bill, the RAC audit bill, to ensure that these weren't the same things. and to make that clear. It could come out.
Rep. Brown?
Yeah, I was gonna ask about any of these.
Okay, Vice-Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
If the only way to get this through is to take it out,
then let's take it out. But like I also would really, I think giving the department the tools it needs to crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse is something that I am strongly supportive of across all of the payments that we make to providers.
Ms. Ross. And Senator Kirkmire, just to be clear, you wanted to remove C and D on page 5.
I was just going to have the summary. Yeah, I do. I mean, there's, God, they're just supposed to be doing this kind of stuff. I mean, anyways, yeah. But.
What is this?
That's just in the legislative declaration. Okay, so I'm willing to budge on that we provide, they do an extrapolation audit, type audit on NEMT and on the pediatric behavioral therapy including the applied behavioral analysis But it needs to have those guard rules And I understand this may not run then with the long bill because I think there going to need to be some more work on it Similar to like I don think it needs to take as long as what we did with regard to the RAC audit but I think there are things in there that we can pull out of that bill, like I was saying about what is the percentage, make sure that they're not predatory, make sure that payments to the contractor don't happen unless we actually recover money. You know, because we were paying the contractor before we recovered any money. kind of thing. So, and I can't remember everything that was in that bill at this time.
Well, I would just say that my concern is, I know there are folks out there asking for us to delay. However, this, as Mr. Kurtz pointed out, does impact $6 million that we are balancing on now. And I think the idea out there is to get us to delay to not do it at all. And I think that we can probably come to some agreement on those parameters. I don't know how long Ms. Ross feels like she would need to work some of these things in that maybe were part of the RAC audit bill. Does it sound difficult?
She's going to work on it today. So, yeah, so we are going to do an extrapolation audit.
So that should alleviate the issue that we're having with the general fund. but just on those two areas as identified. I don't think we need to go broader than that at this point because I think quite frankly, my confidence in this department is pretty low and after what we went through on the RAC audit and that audit of the department took like two years. It came back with 18 recommendations that were not good and then it took us a whole heck of a lot of arguing and discussion to get to a bill that the department wanted to just keep fighting us on. So I understand. I'm trying to get there with an extrapolation audit on, as we talked about the claims and such, with regard to NEMT and the pediatric behavior therapy ABA stuff. And if we can add in those guard rules that we put in the bill that we had regarding the RAC audit and trying to clean that up, then I think we might be good to go.
Ms. Ross.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
So remove the OSA audit requiring the state auditor removing subparagraph D from the bill. I don't think that was what they were discussing.
They're just wanting to.
I got the first half. Sorry. So, no, I think we probably, I can.
I had heard you mention.
You're okay. But after the State Department audits a provider, the state auditors often, offices required to conduct an examination. Yeah, I think the state auditor should still have to conduct the examination.
Yes? That's fine.
I thought you didn't like that section. At the beginning of the conversation.
No.
Oh, I'm sorry.
That's okay. No. I'm good with the state auditor making sure that the department is following through appropriately on the extrapolation audit. That's what that's saying to me. Is that correct?
Correct.
And then the last portion. And that it should not just go to the legislative audit committee, but it should also come to the joint budget committee, please. And do you want to leave in subparagraph C, the RAC? SHALL NOT USE IT OR DO YOU, DO WE NEED TO HAVE THAT IN? SINCE WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT IN THAT EVERY TIME THE FEDS DO AN EXTRAPOLATION AUDIT WE'RE DOING ONE TOO? SEEMS LIKE IF THEY AREN ALLOWED TO USE EXTRAPOLATION AND THEY NEED THIS BILL TO USE EXTRAPOLATION AND WE DIDN GIVE THEM THE AUTHORITY WE ONLY KEPT IT TO PBT AND NEMT THAT NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RAC AUDIT my my perception It was just for us It like a feel better I think you correct Madam Chair Okay.
So if you want it, we could have it, but it doesn't seem necessary.
Rep Taggart.
Madam Chair, I think I would take it a step further. I think it conflicts with the rest of the bill. I think it sends a mixed message. We either do or we don't.
Okay, so Ms. Ross, C out. Mr. Kurtz.
Just one thing I wanted to clarify. This is not a contingency fee-based audit. This is a fixed price audit. So there is no incentive for the auditor to collect more or less in payments because it's not going to affect the payment to the auditor. But if you would like that written in the statute, we can put that in the statute.
That would be great because that would solve a whole bunch of problems that we had with the, I'm sorry, Madam Chair.
Senator Crickfire.
It might be appropriate because that would solve maybe some of the problems that we had with the RAC audit process where they incentivized the contractor to go try and get as much as they possibly could and paid them before we even got any money back kind of thing.
Senator Imobley.
But I don't know. Let's look at it and look at what was in the RAC audit bill and see what needs to happen. Because they're going to contract with somebody to do something, right?
Senator Imobley.
I think the reason he brought that up, though, is because you said, I don't want to pay if there's no recovery. And I think that if it's not a contingent, then we still have to pay even if they don't recover anything. We're just paying for a contract. This is how these contracts work. The only place where we have contingency fees is the RAC audit, and that was part of why the RAC audits were so problematic.
Rep Taggart.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm thinking out loud here, so if I'm off base, just tell me I'm off base. I just wonder if also in the contract, pick a period of 60 days or 90 days, if by way of extrapolation, worse, the contractor is seeing some common themes of potential education or guidance that could help. I'm not saying that we pause, but that there is a formal review with the department that here are three or four themes that we're seeing by way of extrapolations that you folks may want to take an immediate action to try to improve upon. Does that make sense? Is that something that one would put in statute, or is it something we would spell out?
It was probably in the contract.
Yeah.
If you want to say in a legislative declaration, these are the things that are important to us, I don't know.
I just feel like putting that in statute is a little far. I'm more concerned that it be in the contract or asking about it being in the contract. Because I think that also touches on what Senator Kirkmeyer, if there are some common themes that we need to improve upon, we should do that.
Senator Mobley I guess I just thought we had gotten at the NEMT I thought we had you know ferreted out the fraud Is that not true?
I don't know.
There's been a lot of reporting about it. And so have we not discovered and shut down the people who were doing it fraudulently? We have to recover claims. And we haven't done that. They have done some, but I don't think they're done. But I just wonder, how does this add? Presumably they're already working away on whatever it is you need to do when you uncover massive fraud like that. But if they're not doing anything, I just think it feels a little bit like closing the barn door after the cow gets out, but I could be completely wrong. This is obviously not my subject matter. But there's still some chickens. Even the pigs and the chickens.
Mr. Kurtz.
The department has taken actions against several providers. They have ranged from legal actions by the FBI to just claims recoveries. There has been a sea change, I think, in the way the department is administering. NEMT and their controls on those payments but as Madam Chair said there
are still payments that occurred that were not proper payments and so the
department believes that there are additional recoveries that could be had but their resources to go claim by claim are limited, and if they have that ability to do extrapolation, that they could get more in recoveries.
Okay. So, Ms. Ross, do you feel like you have what you need to look at some guardrails to ensure we're not creating incentives for a contractor to abuse providers? That's essentially what is asked for.
Yes, I think I'm going to take a peruse through Senate Bill 314, which I believe is the bill from last year, and I will read through it and see what sort of guardrails I can come up with to make sure that I'm accomplishing your goal. Thank you.
Okay. I'll try to review it. at some point too. Do we need any motion on that or we're good to just keep working? Okay. So we're just going to bring back a new draft to you?
Yes, please.
Okay. And we'll keep for now the 6.9 million in your balancing. Thank you. 6.9 million you said, Mr. Kurtz?
All right.
Director Harper, do we have any more bill drafts?
Thank you, Madam Chair. The ones that I'm aware of are the tabled items. Which are?
Oh, capital and cash fund transfers.
Capital cash funds transfers, the bill associated with the WINS agreement, the unclaimed, the P3 bill, which was discussed yesterday, and the prior authorization. authorization bill that has been lingering the behavioral health prior authorization.
I think I heard from Rep Brown that's a no-go, correct?
Let's just, it's off the table.
Which bill was that about? We look forward to striking anything.
We're hesitant to remove things.
We can be fickle people. Okay. All right. Then if you don't have any other bill drafts for us, we will stand in, I don't know how long folks would like to break to have a bite, but maybe like do you feel like we could be back at 1245?
Okay.
Okay. Let's say one. Fine. The Joint Budget Committee will stand in recess until one. 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. THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE WILL COME BACK TO ORDER. WE HAVE A FEW MORE DECISIONS TO MAKE REP TAGGERT WOULD YOU LIKE TO BEGIN Um Rep Taggart would you like to begin
And maybe Mr. Kurtz, if you want to join us. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think everybody knows over these last 12, 14, 16 hours, we have been working on a potential program for Cover All Colorado. And I believe we have agreement on two concepts for Cover All Colorado, two triggers, so to speak, for the program to make sure we can continue to afford this for this population of children and pregnant women. Actually, there are two components of a trigger, and there's one additional bullet having to do with it. The first one is that enrollment will be starting on July 1st held to individuals on the children's side that are 18 years and younger. So the 19-year-olds will no longer be a part of the program. Secondly, there will be two triggers on a potential cap. The first one has to do with the number of enrollees. The projection that the department and Mr. Kurtz, you gave to us, was that the projection was that we would potentially get to 25,000 children. But with the 18-year-old cutoff, your numbers also indicated that that would drop that projection by 2000. So if at any point in the fiscal year of 26-27, we hit 25,000, that caps the program at that point at that 25,000. Or the other approach is utilization. and utilization, Mr. Kurtz, you pointed out to us that basically at the $25,000, that would yield potentially utilization for the whole year of $96.2 million. General fund. I'm sorry?
General fund.
General fund.
I'm sorry.
Yes, general fund. Well, it's all, with the children, it's all general. there's some match in the chip and the pregnant. There are two lines that there is some federal match on. Right, right. This one's for the children. I mean to interrupt. I just want to be clear. We're only talking about the general fund number. So what we would do there is basically break the $96 million into a quarter calculation. So 96 divided by 4 if my math is right is million So if at the end of the first quarter September 30th if we were at $24 million plus 5% to have a buffer, so we have a buffer a little bit in the enrollee count, but we also have a buffer then for the $24 million. That would also trigger a cap, but the department is indicating to us that it would take them a period of time after the close of the quarter to make that calculation. and I think I was hearing somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 days. So let's assume that the final numbers come on December, basically right around December 1st, and it's 24 million plus the 5% buffer. If it was over that, that would again create the trigger. but we wouldn't put that trigger in place until the first of the following month. So in that particular case, the example I just gave, that would be January 1. And unless I miss something, that's...
Rep Brown. Thank you. I'm sorry, I don't mean to step on your toes. I think the only other thing that I would add that I think is essential is that we have some sort of RFI associated with this to help us figure out sort of what is driving not only the increased utilization on a per-member, per-month basis, but also the increases in the actual enrollment based, you know, based on the projections that you have laid out, Mr. Kurtz. So I think that's an important part of that as well. And then the other element of this is, and I believe, Mr. Kurtz, you have this worksheet that indicates that come January 1st, there are some significant changes in the benefits, and those would go into effect January 1st. The one open area on that that Senator Kirkmeyer and I, with Director Ferrandino, were asking questions, and I don't know if we've gotten an answer as of yet, in the governor's comeback package, it indicated that they needed $250,000 of software improvements to do a cap. On your calculation, it's $3 million, and we just asked the director, what is it, because that's a pretty significant delta between $250,000 and $3 million. So I don't know if the department's Back to you or since Director Ferrandino went over to have that conversation, but we just asked, could we hone in on that, whatever that number is? because obviously the lower that is, the more substantial those benefits are in terms of helping curb the costs of this particular program.
Mr. Chair.
Real quick. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. Real quick, for the calculation of that dollar amount, I think it's important that we take into account seasonality. so I know that there's some recognition of seasonality adjustments in the CHIP population might be the closest group to look at or if we can pull out just kids in Medicaid writ large, I think that would be helpful just to make sure that the number in a lot more kids go into the doctor's office for colds in the winter than they do in the summer. And so there's a seasonality to those costs that I want to make sure is captured. And I apologize. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I apologize for that because that did come up in our conversation.
And so that figure would have to be based on historical seasonality in addition to the 5% buffer. I don't know exactly what that means.
Mr. Kurtz.
THE SYSTEM COSTS, THE ORIGINAL REQUEST HAD 250,000 IN FISCAL YEAR 25-26, BUT THEN IT HAD AMOUNTS IN 26-27 AND 27-28. AND THE SUM OF THOSE THREE AMOUNTS WAS THE 3 MILLION. MY ASSUMPTION AND MY RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT THEY WERE STILL GOING TO NEED THE SAME TOTAL AMOUNT FOR THE SYSTEM COSTS, but because of the changes in the timing of when they were implementing this from their original request, the changes from their original request, they would need all of the money in fiscal year 26-27. And so that explains the difference between my recommendation and their request. In total, it's the same dollar amount, but the spread by fiscal year is different, and that $250,000 figure you quoted was only the amount for $25,000, $26,000.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
That's a big help. The other component I didn't say of this is that this total approach would only last until June 30th of 2027 because of the fact that at that point, more of the benefits are going to kick in. And we just need to, as a JBC, we need to go back after this. Again, about this time next year, we'll have a lot more information. But I think it's dangerous to go beyond that because we just, we don't know what the benefit, what we'll have a much better idea of what the changes and benefits are doing to the program. And I think we, rather than say this is going to go for three years, let's take a pause, recalculate and go, if everybody's okay with that. I getting nods yes I think we would do it anyway Mr Kurtz For the if the number of children is going to exceed 25
my understanding is that the trigger then is that there would be an enrollment freeze. If the expenditures...
Cap, not freeze. Cap. Cap. Okay. If the expenditures are expected to exceed one quarter of the full year in any quarter, plus 5%, what is the, what are we triggering on at that point? Is that also an enrollment cap? Okay.
Okay. And one of the reasons-
Rep Taggart. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the reasons why there's the delay to the month after we do that calculation is we're going to have to match it up at that point with what enrollment is at that point. I'D RATHER US NOT BE SPECULATING. I'D RATHER IT JUST BE WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS AT THAT POINT.
MR. PERTS.
IN ORDER TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SEASONALITY, I'M WONDERING IF IT WOULD BE A REASONABLE APPROACH TO HAVE THE STATUTE SAY THAT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 26-27, THE DEPARTMENT WILL PREPARE A QUARTERLY FORECAST FOR THIS POPULATION BASED ON THE ACTUALS FOR THAT QUARTER. AND IF THAT PROJECTION SHOWS THAT FOR THE YEAR, THE DEPARTMENT EXPECTS TO EXCEED 25,000 ENROLLEES OR A QUARTER OR THE 96,000 OR MILLION OF EXPENDITURES, THEN THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE CAP. AND WE COULD ALSO HAVE THEM SEND THAT FORECAST TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE SO THAT YOU'RE SEEING THOSE AS THEY COME IN.
I WONDER, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS, DIRECTOR FARINGINO IS GOING BACK TO THE DEPARTMENT TO TALK ABOUT ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION OF WHAT YOU HAVE OUTLINED. And can the committee be somewhat flexible in the way that Mr. Kurtz is going to work to draft this based on what you, the contours of what you have proposed, Rep Taggart, but with some flexibility around how they come up with, yes, how they implement it to make sure that it is workable and able to incorporate seasonality and all of that.
So. I'm fine. I'm fine.
Senator Kurt Meyer. Sure. Sure. I think, I mean, this is for a year, so we're trying to figure it out. I think the other thing is it's not $96 million for the full fiscal year. It's the $96 million plus the reduction on the benefit side. It actually goes down by $12 million. So it's almost like for the first half it's at $48 million, and the second half it would be $42 million. Right? Because we still are doing the reduction. Right, but the calculation is based on the higher amount. It doesn't take into account the averaging of what going to take place in the second half of the year if that makes sense Because quite honestly the trigger the chances of the trigger happening from a utilization after January 1 starts to drop pretty significantly because you guys have outlined $12 million worth of benefit reduction. So if the utilization side is going to trigger, it's either going to trigger in the first quarter or in the second quarter. After that, I doubt that it's going to trigger. I could be wrong, but I doubt that it will.
Brett Brown. Yeah, I think that's right. I think I'm comfortable with using the projections that we currently have. and then I would like to see, I think the cuts that we have made obviously will affect utilization going forward and I think that will be to our benefit, but I think that in order to calculate this cap or the potential trigger, I think it's important for us to use the existing projections. Thank you.
Okay. Okay. So if Mr. Kurtz, you can implement that in the bill draft that you are already working on. I think that's what the committee would like you to bring back. Okay. Do we need a vote on who's draft? We already went to draft. But should we just vote on these changes?
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. So moved.
All right. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. Oh, wait.
Mr. Kurtz, I think we were hoping to do the rest of the decisions we have on Medicaid.
All right. Vice Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So first of all, looking at an exemption from the Medicaid across the board reduction and the reduction to 85% of Medicaid for the NICU and maternal codes. PBT is different. The way we want to take the cuts we've already made to PBT and not put any additional cuts on them. So excluding PBT from the provider rate cut.
I'm sorry, so we're going to exempt the NICU and maternal codes from the 85% or across the board?
Both, from both.
That you haven't voted on yet?
We're about to.
Okay. And then are we going to deal with the PBT separately or is that part of this motion?
You can just do it all.
Thank you.
Yeah, so I'll go ahead and move it all together. SO I MOVE THAT WE EXEMPT PBT AND THE NICU AND MATERNAL CARE CODES FROM THE across cut that I propose here in just a second and that PBT and that the maternal and NICU codes are also exempt from the 85 reduction and that we make a 2% across-the-board cut to Medicaid provider rates.
Senator Kerkmeyer.
So we're clear that, I mean, so PBT is not getting any more cuts. Just what was done in supplementals. So we would, does that sound, okay.
Oh, and, yeah. Oh, that's right. How about, and then, yeah. Would you like to describe it? DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE REST SINCE WE'VE DONE IT AND THEN JUST DO THE HOURS? SO THIS IS GETTING MESSY.
YEAH, IT IS.
LET'S JUST DO IT ONE AT A TIME, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT. MOVE A 2% PROVIDER CUT TO MEDICAID. ACROSS THE BOARD. ACROSS THE BOARD. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS? THAT PASSES ON A VOTE OF 6-0. MOVE TO EXEMPT NICU AND MEDICAID, SORRY, NICU AND MATERNAL CARE CODES FROM THAT ACROSS THE BOARD AND THE 85% CUT. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. Move to exempt PBT from any additional cuts beyond what it is that was done during supplementals. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. Senator Kirkmire.
I would move to change the soft cap hours for the family caregivers that it would be phased in at 84 hours for the first six months of the fiscal year. Then it would drop to 70 hours for the second half of the fiscal year and eventually landing at 56 hours on July 1 of the next fiscal year.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So that's. Thank you, Madam Chair. So that's 86 on July 1, 70 on January 1, 56 the following July 1. All right. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. Okay. Okay. Are we missing anything else in Medicaid, Mr. Kurtz?
Oh, well. Oh, yeah, the RFI. Yes, and the working group.
Oh, yeah, that's right.
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to set aside half a million dollars for a working group that will be in legislation produced, I believe, by this committee following the long bill.
Great working. Yeah, to.
yeah, fix Medicaid is maybe too much of a statement.
Senator Amable. I'm sorry, did I hear working group in legislation or because we feel like we have to or I was hoping that we would do something that was more just, I don't know what the mechanism would be, but set up by this body and not run a bill. And maybe we don't need legislation, but I think what we do want is to set some funds aside in the case that we need some kind of a...
person to help organize and coordinate the work to be done as well as if there is any research needed. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. My understanding. You use the word consultant. Yeah, my understanding on this is that because it's Medicaid that there is federal matching dollars similar to the study that was presented to us from Medicaid, that we'd be able to pull down federal dollars to match whatever it is that we bring to this. I don't know that we can spend half a million dollars as a committee without a bill. I think there's probably some mechanism in law preventing us from just spending the money.
I'm sure we can, and we have, and we just did.
I defer to Pierce's not here, so can we just say we're going to have a working group and that we have half a million dollars to use without putting a bill towards that?
Are we the working group?
Well, I think we would decide on what that working group is. in consultation with our colleagues because they would be very upset if they were left out of this. And they should, by all means, be thoroughly involved. Mr. Kurtz, does that, you got, okay.
Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of six to zero. And then you have an RFI?
Yeah, thank you. We've had a couple of conversations, I know, with the department and some different stakeholders. And I think what I have is an RFI related to infant and early childhood mental health, and specifically the RFI would request that the departments of HICPF, Early Childhood Education, Public Health and Environment, and the Division of Insurance work together to submit a report to us concerning infant childhood mental health screenings, and it would engage with representatives from Melissa's departments to identify where data exists. And specifically, the report would include aggregated data from the last five years on the number of children in Colorado age five and under who have received mental health screenings and or have been referred to mental health services. and I'll give you the language, Mr. Kurtz. I realize I'm just reading this off, but just so folks understand, the number of children in Colorado age five and under with diagnosed mental health conditions, number of children age five and under who have received mental health services, and the number of prescriptions for psychotropic medications that have been made for kids under five, the rates of expulsions and suspensions, preschool and kindergarten settings. So the task here is really about disaggregating data for sort of our youngest kids related to early childhood mental health. And we would be tasking the departments to come back with some information about that.
All right. Are there any objections to that? Rep Taggart?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wondering I don want to overcomplicate the group but that also during the time period that we get we the practitioners the professionals get an idea of the potential of any kind of IDD situation Is that a part of this
I think, you know, Rob Taggart,
I don't specifically have anything that mentions IDD specifically, but I do know that this, right, I'm sure that the kinds of services that we're talking about here are specifically important for folks with IDD. If there's specific language you would like to include related to IDD, I can certainly modify the RFI if that would be helpful.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Obviously, Representative Brown, the extremes of IDD would be seen by that, but if there's a, I don't know how to qualify it, if there is some intellectual disability that comes through that screening as well, I think it would be helpful. But I think the full manifestation, parents would probably know by then for sure, but just a thought. Okay. Thank you.
I think it's a broad, like it's bigger than obviously than just folks with IDD, but I think it's a very excellent point, and hopefully we can have conversations with the department about how to reflect that appropriately.
Okay. Any objections to the RFI? That passes on a vote of 6-0. Anybody have anything else for Mr. Kurtz?
No.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kurtz.
You have something for us. Two points of clarification. I was looking back through my notes and I realized you want the changes for the coverall Coloradans children to be in effect for 26-27.
What about the provision that's limiting the age to 18? Is that just 26-27 or is that ongoing?
Okay. And then my second point of clarification is I've received two lists of codes from the advocates related to NICU and maternal. THE INITIAL ONE WAS JUST EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT CODES. THE SECOND ONE INCLUDED SOME SCANNING CODES LIKE RADIOLOGY AND THAT SORT OF THING. DO YOU KNOW WHICH SET OF CODES YOU'RE TRYING TO TARGET? TO THE DOLLAR AMOUNT YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE WORKING TOWARD? VICE CHAIR BRIDGES?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Could you let us know the dollar amount of both of those options, and then we can respond at that point.
Okay. Will do.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kurtz. I think it sounded like we needed a clarification on the motion that we made on higher ed yesterday. Two, actually, if Mr. Kemp might be able to join us. And then also Mr Brackey to address where we needed to land on the on that additional the ability for DOC to work through a contract with another private Thank you. Thank you. 3% and 5%. 5% for the needs. For the big four years. The smaller four years. Maybe five and five. So CU and CSU essentially in mind. And that way we're drawing a line based on some criteria. Well let me go on. Sure. That movie has some criteria Thank you. I will stand in a brief recess. Oh yeah, the way we gave the money back. Yes that makes more sense because that the way it was taken out in equally the same increments so it would not make sense to go back at a different method than it came out I know that they're not ever going to do it. No, I know they're not. They don't. They want to be at 4%. I don't know. Okay. I don't think that's fair. Well, we can have a conversation. Sure. That's fine. All right. First, Mr. Kim, we made a motion yesterday regarding funding for the institutions. And I think what the committee thought we were voting on was to restore the reductions that were made. And I guess at least me, my assumption was that we would restore what was cut from each institution. but there seems to be a lack of clarity on what we did. So Mr. Kem, would you clarify what you think we did and then we may need to clarify what we would like you to do.
Thank you, Madam Chair, Alfredo Kem, JBC staff. Yes, so at figure setting, I made a recommendation to the committee that was basically included in my comeback, but I made one modification. FOLLOWING FIGURE SETTING, I WAS ADVISED THAT THE COMMITTEE OR THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO RUN EVEN A BUDGET NEUTRAL FUNDING SITUATION THROUGH THE FUNDING MODEL AND REASSESS THE STATE FUNDING FOR INSTITUTIONS. THEREFORE, I MADE THAT MODIFICATION. SINCE THEN, OF COURSE, I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM INSTITUTIONS. I've extended some questions to the Office of Legislative Legal Services because in my reading, I think, as I read prior to figure setting, it did not suggest that exactly. So I went back, looked at it more closely, and I do feel it requires CCHE to submit a recommendation for funding based on the model. But I don't believe the statute specifically requires the committee to make its decisions on that basis. And, yes, my preference from the very beginning was to simply restore the base from fiscal year 2526. So I would return and say, committee, I would recommend that you adjust that portion of that decision yesterday that would simply restore the base funding from fiscal year 2526 rather than running a funding formula adjustment for 2627.
Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. Oh. Move to restore funding for 25, 26 levels, not put the additional money in through the formula.
Rep Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope I heard that correctly. My understanding was that the removal last year was just over a million dollars for every school. It didn't go. through the formula. Right. It was $1,054,000, if I remember correctly, or something close to that. And to me, if you're going to take it out, the exact, each school exactly the same, it needs to go back in initially the same way. Because otherwise, those schools, the smaller schools in particular, or they got hit with that million dollars might get $600,000 back, and that's not fair.
Senator Mobley. Is that what you were? Yep.
Okay. But that's, Senator Kirkmaier, that wouldn't be base funding. Because there's a different way that it's done if you go through base funding, right? That was through the formula. It was just a flat, it was just a flat deduction. So whatever they reduced is what they're going to get restored back to, correct?
Mr. Kim. Is that how you're saying? Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kirkman, that is my preferred recommendation to the committee. However, I was informed that we needed to do a funding formula adjustment, which I don't believe is actually necessary. So I'm recommending the committee just modify that decision so we just return to the base funding. It restores appropriations as they were a year ago, basically.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
There's a delta in this of $3 million, because last night when we did this, we moved basically, based on your calculations, $14 million. and we took away $11 million last, we didn't take it away. I want that to be very clear out there. We didn't take it away, but $11 million was taken away. But we approved last night $14 million. So are you going to have two different approaches or are you going to do it, just take 14 and divide it
by the number of institutions and do the same way,
PLUS IT UP FROM WHAT TOOK PLACE THIS FALL.
MR. KIMM. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Rep. Tigard, I think first I should clarify the motion to remove, eliminate the financial aid funding for private and proprietary institutions of about $14.2 million. Right, right. I think I had understood that motion as simply a savings THAT WOULD BE TAKEN. WAS IT ALSO INTENDED THAT THAT AMOUNT THEN BE USED AS ADDITIONAL STATE FUNDING FOR INSTITUTIONS? IS AND COMMITIES SO YEAH, I AM NOT CLEAR THEN ON THAT PIECE.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. NO, THE FUNDING INCREASE FOR INSTITUTIONS THIS YEAR is solely a restoration of what was cut from last year during the executive orders and restored in exactly the way it was cut by the executive orders. No additional funding. Rep Taggart.
Thank you, Madam Chair, but that's not what we said last night. What we said last night, and it was Madam Chair who said, IF WE GOING TO DO THIS LET MOVE THE ENTIRE 14 MILLION BACK TO THE SCHOOLS Let move the entire million back to the schools No no no no I didn say that What I said was we should reduce the entire $14 million ongoing. I didn't say that we should put it all into the schools. I'm sure I didn't say that. I just said, why would we leave a lingering amount there THAT WOULD BE DIVIDED UP IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE... BUT IF WE DON'T GIVE IT TO THE SCHOOLS, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THE $3 MILLION? NOT SPEND ANOTHER $3 MILLION OF GENERAL FUND THAT WE DON'T HAVE. OH, OH, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT PART OF IT. OKAY.
I'M OKAY WITH THAT.
THAT'S FAIR. THAT'S FAIR. THAT WAS ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT WE WERE GOING TO MAKE THE SCHOOLS WHOLE and that these cuts were going to be ongoing, irregardless of what happens to, oh, I used that word. It's fine. Irrespective. Regardless of what happens, you know, with higher ed funding going forward. I'm good with that. I just, I didn't pick up on that last night. I'm sorry.
Okay. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. Renew my motion. Paid back exactly as it was taken away.
ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT? THAT PASSES ON A VOTE OF 6 TO 0. THANK YOU. HOPEFULLY CRYSTAL CLEAR.
VICE CHAIR BRIDGES. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. WE IN A HEATED EXCHANGE LAST NIGHT DECIDED TO COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE FIVE AND THE THREE AND GIVE JUST COMMUNITY COLLEGES 5%. I'm uncomfortable with there being sort of a random reason why we are doing that. And also was uncomfortable giving 4% to our four-year schools. So I would propose that we instead keep all in-state tuition at 3%, out-of-state at 5%, percent except that institutions that have 25 percent or more or fewer of sorry who who's out of state population makes up more than 25 percent of their student body that those folks would be limited to three and anyone under that would go to five for in-state in other words if IF 75% OF YOUR STUDENT BODY OR MORE IS IN-STATE, THEN YOU CAN RAISE TUITION TO 5%, WHICH COVERS OUR COMMUNITY COLLEGES, METRO, CMC, FOLKS LIKE THAT. IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN 25% OF YOUR STUDENTS OUT-OF-STATE, THAT YOU WOULD BE LIMITED TO DO A 3% TUITION INCREASE. FOR IN-STATE. FOR IN-STATE. BUT YOU WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO DO 5% FOR OUT-OF-STATE. THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT IT'S BEEN 3%. That is the conversation that we have had all year. The only folks that I heard of that said they really need that 5% were the communities. And I think that what I heard last night from folks like Metro is that they feel like if communities are at 5%, they serve a similar population by providing four-year degrees. I think Mesa's in a similar spot. So I would propose that 25% threshold. So folks that have, again, 25% or more out of state at 3%, 25% or less, 5%.
So I move that as the replacement footnote I agree with the vice chair motion I think this helps protect the institutions that don have the ability to raise tuition from out students
and protects our Colorado kids who will be challenged by a 4% or 5% tuition increase. Are there any objections? That passes. No. Okay. That fails on a vote of 3 to 0. Sorry, 3 to 3 with Amabile, Kirkmeyer, and Taggart objecting. So in-state students will have the potential to have higher tuition. All right. Anywhere. All right. We, no, no, no. Mr. Bracke. Okay. We left it in sort of an awkward place, whatever day that was we last spoke, I don't even know, about how to address DOC being able to move forward with a contract, a new contract at some point in time. Mr. Vice Chair, would you like to move a proposal that would create two lines?
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. motion to change the existing line item called payments to in-state private prisons at a rate of 77.16 per inmate per day to payments to Bent County Correctional Facility and Crowley County Correctional Facility at a rate of 77.16 per inmate per day. Along with another motion. Could be the same motion. Continuing motion to create a payments to other in-state, I'll send this to you, Mr. Brackey. Motion to create a payments to other in-state private prisons at a rate of 1.5X, so 115.74 per day with an appropriation of one dollar general fund. Motion to add a footnote roughly consisting of, so use your interpretive skills. If the standard caseload methodology used by JBC staff for FY2627 prison caseload funding, updated using the June 2026 DCJ prison caseload forecast, indicates the need for at least 200 beds of additional capacity by the end of FY2627 beyond the in-state and private prison caseload beds funded in the FY2627 long bill, DOC shall submit a 1331 emergency supplemental request for additional contracted private prison beds. The submitted 1331 shall include these calculations.
Senator Mobley. I thought I heard you say 1.5, and I think you meant to say 1.15?
No. Okay, can you explain that to me?
Sorry, I wasn't in on this decision, and so I'm just asking a question. Well, this would be implementing what we talked about with Mr. Brackey about how to address the... Right, but I thought I heard a number that didn't sound quite right near the beginning of what was just read. Mr. Brackey.
Because I think it was we go ahead One and a half times the current rate to allow them basically to negotiate up to this higher rate But one and a half times the current rate where does that leave us
Mr. Bracky. What is that? 115.74 per day. Okay. Got it. I wasn't on this either. This is Mr. Bracky's idea.
No.
Madam Chair.
Vice Chair Bridges. So, Madam Chair, this is, this is, so yesterday we said that we would accept a 1331 request from DOC should this become necessary, and that in the case that it becomes necessary, we would accept that as a 1331, even though we sort of, we're setting aside the money because we think it's likely, which would indicate it's probably not a 1331 because we see it coming. We're setting the money aside. So that is a JBC joke, and the folks who are always here got that one. So I think this is the administration's way of ensuring that it is an accepted 1331, that they have the ability to negotiate the beds that they need should this become necessary based on the projected count. My understanding is that they at least workshopped this with Mr. Brackey, not to say that this is Mr. Brackey's proposal, but they did workshop it with Mr. Brackey. And failing an alternative proposal from you, Mr. Brackey, I'm inclined to just go ahead and move forward with this. But if you have modifications or changes, I think we have a demonstrated preference on this committee to decide with what you would think is best going forward, not necessarily what the department's request is. Mr. Brackey.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think just two quick points. the establishment of the new line item is to deal with the statutory issue. And it creates that line item so that 1331 request for an overexpenditure has somewhere to go. The second piece of this, and I think this is important, is to establish some understanding of why there's a differential rate, which is it's my understanding that there's some upfront capital costs, and recouping those costs through the higher rate is the reason for the difference. I think it's important to acknowledge that on the mic that so it doesn't seem arbitrary. Like there's a reason for it, which is presumably the capital cost and the need to recoup those. So just wanted to establish that. No other notes for me.
Great. All right. Are there any objections to that motion? That passes on a vote of six to zero. Okay. Okay. Do we think we can wrap up the capital now? Let's try. Do we have a compensation number?
No. No.
When are we going to get this?
We're working on it today.
Do we know where we're at on the overview?
I think based on what we were looking at, we should be able to put back control meters and do some walks that we had forgotten we shouldn't have cut off. on the capital list.
Do you want five minutes?
The Joint Budget Committee will stand in a five-minute recess. 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. All right. The Joint Budget Committee will come back to order. Ms. Yule, we are on capital construction. And I think you had sent us some further information from the architect. Is that correct? State architect asking for some other projects.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Andrea Ewell, JBC staff. What I sent you this morning was a response from the state architect to something I asked her last week, which was looking at the DOC's state penitentiary project and the SIMHIP campus utility infrastructure upgrade project. Since those are capital renewal, I asked her if those were rated against controlled maintenance, like where would they fall scoring-wise, and she just responded this morning that the SIMHIP campus utility project would score as a level, like a score six on level one, and the state penitentiary project would score two. So those like just in consideration with controlled maintenance might be something to think about. And then apparently the School for the Deaf and the Blind also reached out and asked that if the West Hall is not moving forward, if you would consider funding $1.5 million for them to just purchase two modular classrooms instead for the blind school. But that's the extent of the information I have about that.
Okay. Vice Chair Bridges.
We had, well, I'll just say, we had discussed drawing a line for controlled maintenance at scores of 1 through 4 and that would have given us a million savings I would like us to actually fund controlled maintenance level one as well as the electronic security system replacement, which was for $748,289. That was number four on the CDC list. I would like to put that project back in above the line as well. And so my hope would be that we could attempt to fund these things and then Director Harper will let us know where we are in terms of our balance. But it would be the hope that we are actually able to fund our controlled maintenance. as well as those two projects. And then I don't know if anybody else wants to take up these pleas from the state architect.
Senator Amable.
So I want to do as much as we can do, but I'm not sure what that is because we don't know how much we have. But I also, and I'm sure I have it in my piles of paper, but I never saw the list of the projects that were on the controlled maintenance list where we were drawing a different line. I think Rep Taggart's got one. I mean, does everybody else have a copy? Maybe I can just share with somebody. Do you have a copy? And if anyone, for anyone listening at home, these projects are all listed out in the State Architects Annual Report from December 25 on the State Architects website. So, yeah, yes, okay.
So we had drawn the line under the CU under number two.
Oh, hard building? Okay.
Well, I mean, we could drop the line to number four or we could just add in,
we could drop the line to under number four.
Are we going to add back in so these $6 million?
Yeah.
Vice Chair Bridges, thoughts?
I move to drop the line to below number four, which would include the electronic security system replacement and fill fund all of control maintenance level one. And it also includes the SimHip and Clark. Okay.
All right. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of six to zero. Madam Chair? Vice Chair Bridges? Ms. Ewell, this is a bill.
Is there a bill that you'll bring back to us after this?
Ms. Ewell?
Yes, there is. We just have to change the numbers.
SO WE CAN HAVE IT REDRAFTED AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. OKAY. SENATOR IMOBLAY. Okay. All right. Then I think we're good for the time being on that. We also have IT capital that we haven't done yet. Vice Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
What's in balancing for IT capital?
Have you been assuming that we would do all projects down to eight? or what's the assumption been in our numbers so far? Mr. McClure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Andrew McClure, JBC staff. Based on the motion you all took, whenever it was, you drew the line below Project 9.
Vice Chair Bridget. Thank you, Madam Chair. So we've all we've been assuming that we drew it under nine.
Yeah.
I think if we can stick with that, then we should go ahead and stick with that. Okay. Did you move that? I mean, I think we've already. Yeah, we don't have to move it. That's already the plan.
Senator Perclare?
But then we were looking at on the benefit management system, refinancing 1.8 million.
Oh, yes.
Healthy school notes. There was a question of, hello, Mr. Durney.
You've worked up the number. You discovered the number in this reimagining CBMS, or benefits management system. What would be attributable to SNAP that there could be a refinance of general fund instead using the healthy school meals for all dollars? Thank you, Madam Chair. Tom Dermody, Joint Budget Committee staff. That $1.8 million is a figure for all line items associated with NAP administration that got an increase for the current fiscal year. So that is inclusive of CBMS, but also the county admin line and a couple other smaller line items. That's for that total amount in the 25-26 base effectively or the 26-27 base that would qualify for that HSMA refinance. specific to CBMS, that refinance is roughly, let me, I had it. It's roughly $653,000 in terms of just for the CBMS. but there is that additional $1.2 million that's qualified across those other line items that could be refinanced with HSMA funding. I would assume to be transparent and compliant, it wouldn't be appropriate to do that whole refinance of $1.8 million in this particular CBMS project,
BUT I'M ASKING YOU.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
WITHIN THAT PROJECT, NO. BUT I THINK IT'S EASY. I'VE IDENTIFIED THE LINE ITEMS. IT EASY ENOUGH TO MAKE THAT REFINANCE ACROSS ALL OF THOSE LINE ITEMS TO ACHIEVE THAT 1 MILLION IN SAVINGS IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT to make that refinance across all of those line items to achieve that 1 million in savings Is that what you want Yeah Okay so shall we start with this I guess at least this item
I just think we should do the refinance. Okay.
WELL, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?
NO.
ADVICE CHAIR BRIDGES, DO YOU WANT?
MR. DERMODY. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. JUST FOR CLARITY, THIS REFINANCE WOULD HAPPEN IN THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR HUMAN SERVICES FOR THOSE LINE ITEMS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THAT APPROPRIATION EXISTS. IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN FOR THE CAPITAL OR THE IT CAPITAL APPROPRIATION.
THIS IS EVEN EASIER.
THIS IS ACTUALLY FROM A MECHANICAL POINT OF VIEW RELATIVELY EASY TO ACCOMPLISH BECAUSE WE KNOW THE LINE ITEMS INTO WHICH THOSE INCREASES HAPPENED 425-26. WE KNOW THE ROUGH PROPORTION OF THAT INCREASE ATTRIBUTABLE TO SNAP ADMINISTRATION AND THAT'S THAT 1.8 MILLION THAT WE'RE ABLE TO SHIFT FROM GENERAL FUND IN THOSE LINE ITEMS TO HSMA.
AND HOW IS THAT IMPLEMENTED? BECAUSE I ASSUME THAT REQUIRES SOME TRANSFER FROM HEALTHY SCHOOL MEALS FOR ALL INTO HUMAN SERVICES.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
STATUTE ALREADY PROVIDES FOR APPROPRIATIONS FROM HSMA TO HUMAN SERVICES FOR THE PURPOSES OF SNAP ADMINISTRATION. THIS IS EFFECTIVELY JUST IN 2627 SAYING BECAUSE OF THE SORT OF THE OFFSET IN STATUTE where we are able to, the supplement but not supplant language is for July 1, 25 going forward. The use of HSMA for SNAP admin is starting in July 1 of 26. So we can refinance in those line items that amount because those changes happened IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR AFTER JULY 1 OF 25. WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR IN TERMS OF THAT REFINANCE, BUT STARTING IN 26-27, THAT REFINANCE CAN OCCUR FOR THOSE 25-26 INCREASES.
AND HOW MUCH OF THAT 1.8 MILLION IS... HOW MUCH OF THAT 1.8 MILLION IS DUE TO ONE-TIME COSTS, AND WOULD THERE BE GENERAL FUND IN THERE THAT WE WOULD BE REFINANCING THAT IS GOING TO BE SOME KIND OF ONGOING COST? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE 1.8 MILLION ENCAPSULATES
APART FROM THIS IT PROJECT.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THAT 1.8 MILLION, IN TERMS OF WHAT I WAS ABLE TO FIND, IS FOR THOSE INCREASES WERE ON AN ONGOING BASIS. THOSE WERE EFFECTIVELY BASE BUILDING INCREASES IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR. SO THAT REFINANCE IN 26-27 WOULD BE ONGOING. It would be an additional 1.8 million of HSMA funding for SNAP administration on top of the already approved and identified swap that has happened from the changes on the federal share. So it would be an additional 1.8 of HSMA in an ongoing fashion.
IT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL 1.8, EVEN THOUGH 600,000 IS FOR THIS IT PROJECT?
MADAM CHAIR THAT 600 IT NOT FOR THIS IT PROJECT IT FOR PROJECTS THAT WERE APPROVED Madam Chair that it not for this IT project it for projects that were approved maintenance and upkeep that was approved for CBMS in the current fiscal year associated with SNAP administration. But that wouldn't be ongoing because if there are IT projects for something that is going to go away, eventually after we've reimagined thank you madam chair I would need to go back and look at the 25 26 decisions that were baked in not baked that were accounted for in um building the 26 27 base I know there was some element of ongoing operations and development for CBMS. I think there was also some specific time-limited adjustments, development associated with implementing, I think, some AI solutions. I'd have to go back and look at what that time frame looks like for those specific projects. One, and I think a complicating factor would be how those interact with the reimagining of CBMS and whatever CBMS turns into in the ongoing years. For now, I can say that at least for 2627, that CBMS portion, even if it's just a one-time, is roughly 653,000. Those other increases, the remaining 1.2, those were definitely ongoing because that's a base building for county admin. That was about $1.1 million in county admin base building, $1 million in county admin base building, and then some other ongoing administrative base building allocations.
SO JUST FOR THE CPMS PORTION, IT'S ABOUT 653,000. FOR THE TOTALITY OF SNAP ADMIN ADJUSTMENTS FROM LAST YEAR, IT'S 1.8. I'LL JUST SAY I FEEL NERVOUS ABOUT ONGOING REFINANCING. JUST GIVEN OUR LACK OF CLARITY ON WHERE THIS PROGRAM WILL ULTIMATELY END UP, There are so many variables at play right now. We've never had the program fully implemented. We've never had a good grasp on how much will come in. There have been so many changes at the federal and state level to tax policy that have altered these things. Food prices may go up. I just, given the instability of it all, and then what if it brings in more and we have to go back to the voters to ask, and who knows what happens then if it brought in more and the voters rejected being able to keep that. That would require some rate adjustment. Anyway, just given the lack of clarity, I feel nervous about refinancing ongoing costs. Or we just refinance the $600,000 at least for the IT for one time.
Okay.
I think we should do it all just one time But then it just general fund that we have to find again next year Right, but anything we are refinancing, I'm saying that is an ongoing cost is, if we refinance it once, then it's just more that we have to find next year. Can we start with 600?
Sure.
Okay.
Vice Chair Bridges.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Move to refinance $600,000. Further discussion.
Mr. Dermody.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just as a point of clarification, do you want that to be a flat amount or the amount in the CBMS line? Because it's about $50,000 more.
The amount in the CBMS line.
The right amount.
All right. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. So I was not clear on, did we move the IT capital already and vote on it, Mr. McClure?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, you moved it and voted on it through Project No. 9 on this. drawing the line below project number nine in that general funded list. You did all have questions about the HRIS system. I sent you
all of what I had from the Joint Technology Committee and from
DPA. Okay.
All right. So we're done with that. Great. Okay. Okay. So I think we're just waiting for some clarification on total comp, in particular after Senator Kirkmeyer asked some important questions about the split between the rest of the state and judicial, and trying to make sure that we are landing at a correct number for our state employees. So, Senator Kerkmeyer.
Yeah, I just want to say, because I'm sure people are listening who are not necessarily in the room, but there needs to be consistency. And honestly, I don't care which branch you're in, legislative, judicial, or executive branch, there needs to be consistency throughout. AND I DON'T THINK ONE AGENCY IN A DIFFERENT BRANCH SHOULD GET TO HAVE A MUCH HIGHER STEP INCREASE OR STEP LIKE INCREASE, WHATEVER WE'RE CALLING IT THESE DAYS. SO JUST SAYING, WHEN IT COMES BACK, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS CONSISTENCY ACROSS ALL THREE BRANCHES AND THAT WE AREN'T JUST OVERDOING IT IN ONE AREA. SO JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE. AND WE CAN CONTROL THAT. control that. So I don't know why any agency or department would think that they can have a different step plan or merit planner, whatever they call it. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just so everyone knows, I think we're waiting on some agreement on numbers around total comp from all the various different folks involved before I think we can do really anything else. I think we've done everything we can, mostly. Do we have anything left, Director Harper?
I have a bill that I cannot ready in just a couple minutes, the reserve adjustment bill.
Yeah, let's do that.
All right, we'll stand in a brief recess. 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. not for the rest of today but I do want to make sure that it is clear for those listening that we are making a we will be when we come back considering a motion this is the motion I move to re the motion is not being made at this moment This is the motion I will make in the morning when we have quorum and can vote on it but this is just so folks know. So when I say I move, it's just reading what I will do. I move to reconsider the JBC's previous action on range adjustments and step-like increases to employee compensation. The committee's previous action was to fund a .6% step-like adjustment and to not fund a range movement for state employees. Instead, I moved to fund a 1% salary range adjustment and a 1% step-like adjustment for state employee compensation. Finally, I moved to allow staff to work with the governor's office and DPA to develop estimates by department. That will be the motion tomorrow. My expectation is that it will pass. For full transparency, we are attempting to get... all of the numbers together and have agreement between DPA, OSPB and most importantly our staff on what exactly this cost will be. The initial estimates is that it does not vary by more than a million, potentially a little bit more, but that is not a major difference between what we will receive, what we will see in the budget for this motion versus where we currently are. Just so that no one is freaking out thinking that this is like a hundred million dollar cost or savings. This is an adjustment to the motion, but not a major adjustment to the bottom line in the budget. Is my understanding. We'll see once they have agreement on the numbers. Okay. Great. All right. Now the Joint Budget Committee will stand in recess. 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 THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE WILL COME BACK TO ORDER NO? ANYONE? Can anyone hear me? The staff can. We are broadcasting. We are live. Okay. So I just wanted to bring us back to order to let folks know that we may reconvene at 8 a.m. tomorrow morning as the Joint Budget Committee. There you go. All right. Anything else? Is that sufficient? All right. The Joint Budget Committee will stand and recess again. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. .