PA Senate Banking and Insurance — 2026-06-30

Baker. Here. Boscola. Here. Flynn. Here. Kim. Proxy. Martin. Proxy. Phillips Hill. Here. Robinson. Here. Rothman. Here. Streep. Here. Vogel. Here. Anthony Williams. Proxy. Here. Y'all. Here. Kim Ward. Proxy. Gabbard. Here.

Senate Bill 738, sponsored by me and Senator Street, creates a new chapter under the state's Older Adult Protective Services Act. The legislation requires financial institutions to report and empowers them to hold or prevent suspicious financial transactions. Similar laws have been adopted in more than 20 states as an effective tool to prevent vulnerable seniors from losing their life savings. For much of last year, my office worked in conjunction with Senator Street, House Democrats and Republicans, the Attorney General Sunday, and the administration to come to a bipartisan agreement. It is my sincere hope following this vote today, the administration will be willing to join us at the table and finish the work on a bipartisan and bicameral solution that ensures that seniors can retire with dignity and financial security. I urge my colleagues for an affirmative vote.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. One, I thank you and all those who worked on this bill. Look, it's important that folks who've worked their entire lives not be robbed of their savings when the banks already suspect that there's some level of fraud. Preying on a senior because someone's told them and convinced them that their grandchild is a prisoner in a foreign country and they're going to send all their money away. Clearly that person is moving from a, wants to move from a position of concern and love, but obviously they, but it's clear to the bank that they're being taken advantage of This legislation is prudent and allows Pennsylvania to enjoy the same protections that so many other states do Mr Chairman I thank you for your partnership in advancing this legislation and ask for an affirmative vote

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. According to the CDC, only a third of adults aged 45 to 49 should be screened for colorectal cancer or tested. The current tests covered by insurance can be invasive and uncomfortable, resulting in people being less willing to be tested at all. This number fortunately increases by the age of 50 to slightly above 70%. However, this means a fairly large amount of the population is not tested. My amendment updates the legislation to reflect the most recent guidance on approved testing by creating a definition of approved medical guidelines. These guidelines include the American Cancer Society guidance issued in May 2026, National Cancer Network Guidance issued June 2025 recent guidance from 2023 by the CMS for testing in Medicare This guidance outlines coverage for blood testing stool RNA testing as well as the proper and important use of cell DNA testing as a screening method Ultimately, this amendment allows more testing options, which will help to increase the number of people being tested. And as the American Cancer Society continues to emphasize, the best screening test is the one a patient actually completes. Colonoscopy remains the gold standard, but providing additional evidence-based screening options can help reduce barriers and encourage more Pennsylvanians to get screened and ultimately save lives. If you have any questions, I'd love to answer them.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, first I want to thank all those who have worked on this bill and talk about how, and I understand clearly how important this is. My first skepticism is that all of you have conspired with my wife to make me think about this issue, and she's encouraged me to get these screenings done as I'm now 52 years old and probably have not done as much screening as I should have. secondly there have been concerns that have been raised while I do think we should vote I will encourage an affirmative vote at this time both the amendment and the bill as amended want to raise the issues that were raised to me first there are concerns that people not get blood work not be encouraged to get blood tests in lieu of colonoscopies which have been noted on the gold standard and there are folks who say we need to, as a body, to consider whether we would inadvertently do something that would cause people to do that. It has been raised to me that while the blood tests are very effective at testing for cancer, the presence of cancer are less effective at testing for pre-cancerous polyps and therefore may not have the preventive value that they said. That being said, given the information that's been presented about the Cancer Society, I think it's prudent that we proceed because this legislation is important. But I think it's important that this committee have a mechanism, either a hearing or some other mechanism as deemed by the chair where formal information can be presented by those who have concerns before we have a final floor vote With that I urge a yes vote on this amendment and a

additional discussion on the amendment? Senator Baker. Thank you, and thank you for the work. I think it's very concerning when we start seeing young people just had a young man in in our community at age 35 die of colorectal cancer and and so I think what ever we can do not just for people who are reaching 45 to 50 but but ensuring that we are screening and and helping save the lives I I mean, this young man, it was healthy and all of it and just devastating to his family. So I acknowledge that. But I, to Senator Street's point, think that we need to ensure that blood tests have guide rails as part of the policy and the procedure. And I'm not certain that the amendment includes some of those guide rails. some of the concerns that have been raised about the efficacy of it. I think we need to have greater discussion on it. I think we need to advance the bill, but I'm too concerned. I have talked to people who have used the DNA stool test and others, and there are questions whether they are as accurate as a colonoscopy as well. I think anything we can do to get screening at younger ages and help people understand that is important, but I think we need guide rails so there isn't confusion and would encourage additional conversation with those organizations that we can ensure that we're doing the right thing. Thank you.