March 17, 2026 · Health · 4,815 words · 10 speakers · 193 segments
And we're off.
Good afternoon, everyone. This is the agenda. Sorry. Standing Committee on Health for March 17th. Have a couple of new bills, couple of repasses and we're almost done with repasses, but we still got some left.
Kicking off with cool number.
Senate Bill 999 by Senator Brook. If reported with door to finance an
act to amend the social services law in relation to reimbursement for early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment.
So this is. If a child either has IFP or independent educational plan or handicapped. This would be. This would restructure the reimbursements so that the schools could actually get. Could get reimbursed for Medicaid patients that fit these categories. Questions or comments? Move to bill. Senator Jackson moves the bill. Senator may have taken. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?
Without wreck.
Without wreck. Okay, without wrecks. That bill goes to finance. Next bill Senate 1816 by Senator Fernandez is recorded with voter first readings.
An act to amend the public health
law in relation to the definition of elevated blood lead levels.
We. We passed this in the Senate before and it is a. It is something in my state. I. I certainly remember this because one of my. One of my first bills, I was still in the minority that actually I passed a. Started working on a bill related to elevated blood lead levels. This one would. We talked before about setting it to the federal standard, but God knows what the feds are going to do about this. So I'm glad that we are taking action ourselves. It would take the. It would put it at 3.5 micrograms per deciliter, I think is the term anyway. Questions or comments on the bill? One question. Yes, sir. Senator Oaks, I believe it was your
legislation in 2019, 2020, that actually dropped the levels from 10 to 5. Best leaders, you included as part of the state budget at that time, $9.7 million for local implementation. Though I noticed that this is being done outside of the budget and unaware of any funding going to local municipalities to actually offset the cost of implementing the standard. I certainly understand the standard, but what was the rationale behind separating this from the budget and not including any aid for local municipalities? New York association of Counties is estimating that the total cost of implementation would be about $68.6 million, which is a substantial hit. Is there any consideration within the state budget for action?
First of all, I certainly acknowledge that there would be a cost associated with the counties. I'm not so sure if I would agree with that number, but let's just say that it's the correct. 1.
Well, they're saying the 68.6 is the total cost from 10 down to 3.5. Right. Not from 5 to 3.5.
I understand. I'm still saying that. I'm not necessarily. I agree on the numbers, but regardless whether I agree on the numbers or not, there is certainly the fact that it needs to be, that it would have a fiscal component as part of the consideration. We did not include it in the budget. It is a newer bill. It was just brought to my attention more recently. Senator Fernandez asked for it to be included in this agenda. And I do believe it's a necessary, necessary bill, which is the reason I included it here. It does have a fiscal impact and certainly something that should be considered and you know, in potentially in future budget years, even in this one. But it just wasn't something that we considered during, during the process of actually doing, putting our recommendations together for the White House.
Okay.
Do we, do we know if Senator
Fernandez is planning on attempting to address that in this budget? Only because I'm concerned, you know, every, as you know, every dollar that local counties collect in their share of property tax goes to cover the cost of Medicare.
Every dollar.
So when we, and I certainly understand the idea behind this bill and it's
of dropping the lead levels, but we
have to recognize the fact that counties can only there so much.
You know, we have a lot of
unfunded mandates that we pass every year and we need to be conscious of that cost.
So I'm just hoping that it's, you
know, I'm going to support the bill, but I'm just hoping that it, that we can address that cost.
Well, thank you for, thank you for your support. To answer the question that you asked earlier, I'm unaware if Senator Fernandez will be making an attempt to actually include it in this year's, in this year's budget. I know that there are pools that are available in the budget already for quality, for water quality that the counties can access, but whether it's, whether the senator's going to be fighting to include something like this in this year's budget, I do not know. Okay. But I think we can all, you know, we can all agree that there are, that it's, there are no such thing as safe lead levels. What we're doing is we're certainly pushing it down to make it so that we can not only eventually eliminate it, but there's other, there's other bills that we've introduced in past related to identifying pipes around the state that actually are still that are still polluting different water sources and then cleaning them. You know we've had discussions in this, in this committee as well as in the floor before about how we set that there's, there's a statewide, there's a national standard and whether that national standard changes or not, we're going to try to abide by it and clean and be able to identify the pipes that are, that are lead pipes that are still in the system and then, and then try to get them cleaned up. We get them, you know replaced. So all these things are, you know, part of a bigger effort to just make sure that we just excise this from the system as a whole. But these are all little pieces that we try. But your, but your concern is noted that this is that this is an impact on counties and so forth must be considered. Any further questions or comments? All right. Senator Webb moves the bill. Senator Jackson seconds.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed without rec.
Without recs. And that bill goes to first reading. Next Senate Bill 1911 a by me if reported we go to first meeting
an act to amend the public health
law and the insurance law in relation to health care professional applications and termination.
This extends due process protections for healthcare professionals in the instance that the insurance company drops who doesn't renew them as they say. Right. And it also sets a process for how they are to be how the how dispute how to dispute this this non renewal and how the people who would make a determination on the.
On that.
On the on this dispute would be put together. Any questions or comments on it? Senator Webman was the bill. Senator May 2nd.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed without rec.
This bill goes to first reading. Next Senate Bill 2625 by Senator Fernandez is reported with go to higher ed.
An act to amend the public health
law and the education law in relation to enhancing patient access to medication assisted treatment for treatment of opioid disease.
This bill would expand the will expand the ability of pharmacists to both prescribe, administer and dispense medication assisted treatment for opioid use disorders. Any questions or comments?
No need for coordination with primary care physicians. No holistic approach to any other pre existing conditions that the patient may have no coordination or required coordination. Because I think we would all agree that a pharmacist although love pharmacists. My wife as you know, is a pharmacist. Senator.
You're gonna have that to do when you go back home.
I don't think she wants the responsibility to do something like this and she understands the difference when we're Dealing with something that may actually be chronic. So I have some real concerns about when we expand the scope of practice to allow people to do things that they weren't trained for. And there's a reason that we require that medication be prescribed by doctors and that we require that they consider the patient holistically. So I understand the attempt, but then why just limit it to pharmacists? Why not expand it beyond that? If the idea is that we can, by allowing more and more groups to be able to prescribe that we can then make people safer, then expand the groups. But I think therein lies the concern here, is that we can't do that. We shouldn't do that. And I think it's irresponsible. I'll be voting no.
I was gonna say, like, because I was looking for a question, but you just.
Yeah, that's just my statement.
Gotcha. And not. Obviously, you will not be supporting the bill.
No.
I will note that this bill also is referenced to higher ed. So obviously there's conversations that happen there related to scope of practice. And it is a.
And it is a.
It is a reasonable conversation to have related to expanding scope of practice. Those are always conversations that we have that we. That we try to have. One thing I will note that pharmacists do check for allergies. So at least there's a, you know, the idea that somebody might.
Contraindications with other medications that they're aware of that they may be aware of. For example, if that pharmacy is. Has. Has prescriptions on file for that person, and they're aware that there may be. There are contraindications that they're trained to be able to identify. But that's presupposing an awful lot. I appreciate it. Looking forward to the further discussions, certainly,
because it will definitely happen in the. I'm sure that there will be plenty of discussion with the Higher Education Committee if it was considered over there. Any further questions or comments?
All right.
Senator Webb moves the bill. Second moved by Senator Jackson.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Okay. And without recruits, without rec. No. Okay. That is referred to higher ed. Next. Senate Bill 3105 by Senator Cooney, if referred, if reported, would go to first reading.
An act to amend the cannabis law
in relation to certain medical cannabis reforms.
Pretty straightforward. We've passed it in the Senate before. We allow for reciprocity for folks who are from other states to participate in the medical cannabis program for the state of New York. Any questions or comments on the bill?
Moves the bill.
Senator Webb moves The bill seconded. Seconded by Senator Jackson.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed? Nay.
And without rec.
That bill goes to first reading.
Next bill.
Senate Bill 4589A by me is reported
with good finance and acts amend the public health law in relation to federally qualified health center rate adequacy.
Pretty straightforward and necessary in my view. That is rapid form salute reform. No, it's fine. You gotta. You gotta sneeze. You gotta sneeze. But salute it is rate reform for fairly qualified health centers around the state. Do we connect questions or comments? Yes. Oh, second. Things are confusing me. Moved by Senator Gallivant. Seconded by Senator Steck.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed without rec.
And that bill goes to finance. Next.
It's St. Patrick's Day.
Speed. Well,
all right. Next bill.
Senate Bill 4955B by Senator Harcom. If reported with go to finance.
An act to bend the public health
law in relation to the functions of the Medicaid Inspector General with respect to audit and review of medical assistance program funds.
We have passed this bill in the past and has vetoed in the past before anybody asked. I do not believe that the. I feel that there's. There might be some changes to the bill since it is a B print, but I'm not sure how different it is from the one that has been vetoed in the past by the.
By the governor.
This one alters the way that OMEG does their audits. It does not take away authority. It just makes sure that it does it in a way that is not as that allows some flexibility for those folks who are trying to abide by the. By the law. And there might be some timing issues as far as when they're required to make fines, etc. Etc. So any questions or comments on the
bill, move the bill.
Second.
Senator Jackson moves the bill. Senator Gallivant seconds.
All those in favor?
Aye. Opposed without rec.
And that bill goes to finance. Next. Senate Bill 5056B by me. If reported we go to First Street.
An act to amend the public health
law in relation to requiring the Department of Health to examine heat vulnerability and heat related deaths.
We passed this before the Senate requires the Department of Health to examine heat related deaths in the state of New York. Any questions or comments on this?
I have a question.
Oh yes, Senator Mann.
Does it include having them make recommendations about how to prevent stories? Just setting a baseline so that we understand.
There's a report that comes out?
I don't know that it's specifically because there's Obviously there's obviously a study and a report that comes out as far as there being. So I guess there would be recommendations in there. But you're asking whether there's language related to being not just collecting the information but making recommendations about how to prevent the deaths.
It's mostly data on heat related deaths. It doesn't necessarily require recommendations on how to avoid it. It doesn't preclude those as well. So that could be included.
It's a good observation center and one that and it's a reprint but I might look to tweak it even a little more so that that is explicit because the idea, I mean certainly as Mr. Gagarivat said it doesn't require and certainly you collect the data, you establish some, you know, you establish some parameters as to where they have been happening, how many there are, what the seriousness is of it and then you collect the data and produce it in a report. It doesn't preclude there being recommendations, but it might need to be something a little more explicit.
I wasn't asking as a criticism, but this is an issue that I want to work on too. So maybe we can work together on the follow up part of it.
Did not take it as a criticism. Senator May. It's a good observation and I will move the bill. Thank you. Senator May moves the bill. Second is second by Senator Webb. Didn't see your zone but Senator Webb.
All those in favor?
Aye. Opposed without rec.
Without rec, is that right?
Yes, without rec.
But for the same reason that Senator May run up.
I mean it's a good issue to
look at what we're silent as to Venmo and so I understood that.
Gotcha.
Next Bill, Senate Bill 7460 by merging
Finance and acts, amend the Public health
law, the Social Services law and the Family Court act in relation to establishing the maternal infant care center's pilot program and providing for the repeal of such provisions upon expiration thereof.
Many moons ago we appropriated $350,000 for the use of for the establishment of this pilot program and that is still being reappropriated. So we should go and get it, which is what this bill would do. We've passed it many times before. I'm hoping that we get to do it this year again. Again, it would establish a pilot program for maternal infant care centers around the state.
Any.
Senator Mann.
So it says at least four centers in areas of need in the state. Is that a term of art? Have those been determined or is that open to determining where those areas will be?
So it Would.
I think it would.
The commissioner can work on determining where those areas are. The specific appropriation the 350,000 is for pilot programs. So I think they would look at incident areas where there's higher incidents and
try to target those areas. This part, that would be part of the. Of the pilot program of it all, you know, because it would be to determine how the areas of need would be established. Put the. Operate. You know, start operating the pilots, the actual. The actual maternal infant care centers, and then, you know, run it for a couple years and potentially have it be expanded. The positive thing here is that we have received. We have been told by the second floor that they're certainly interested in doing this even in a broader scale, which is great. I feel that we should just, you know, we already have $350,000 been appropriated, so let's actually get it. Get out in the field and then expand it as we. As necessary. Any questions or comments? Okay, One thing actually, just quickly is that. That I do know. I do know that we've talked about before was that. No, just because I remembered that we needed to. That I wanted to make sure that I pointed out that certainly as far as areas of needs are concerned, certainly in the state, in the. In the city, both in the. In the Bronx and in Brooklyn. I know that we've worked before on issues of maternal mortality being an incredibly serious issue in. Particularly in urban areas and areas of color, the Bronx and Brooklyn. So I'm gonna definitely that's. We should just get this moving. Senator Martins also agrees, which is why we moved the band.
And Senator Brooke has this conversation before.
Yes, we did. We did have this conversation before. Senator Brooke. We will welcome her back at some point. And Senator Rhodes? Second.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Without wreck, without rec. Senator Gallaghan, this bill goes to finance.
Next bill.
Senate Bill 9196 by Senator Krueger is reported to go to first reading.
An act to amend the public health
law in relation to the establishment, incorporation, construction or increase in capacity of for profit hospice.
Pretty straightforward. Would ban the future for profit hospices in the state of New York.
Excuse me.
We've passed it before. And have you read it before? Any questions or comments? The bill.
Move the bill.
Senator Webb moves the bill. Senator Zone Myra moves. Seconds it.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Aye. Opposed? Opposed. Without R and without rec. I did say your full names because there's too many. There's too many Z's, you know.
I agree.
I agree. So you have to be clear. You have to clear who is it from next? Senate Bill 9237 by me if reported would go to first please.
An act to amend the public health
law in relation to the definition of family for purposes of services provided by voluntary foster care agency health facilities.
So want to make sure that health care facilities called Article 29I which are facilities that are either in around or attached to foster care locations can also be utilized by the birth of wells foster families and not just the children themselves. And this is what this bill would expand and do. Any questions or comments on bill?
All right.
Senator Jackson moves the bill. Senator May 2nd. All those in favor?
Opposed without rec.
And that bill goes to first reading. Next bill. Senate Bill 9275 by me if reported with go to finance.
An act to amend the social services law in relation to requiring Medicaid to cover gender affirming care regardless of federal funding, to amend the executive law in relation to prohibiting discriminatory practices by healthcare entities and to amend the insurance law in relation to prohibiting discriminatory practices by insurers and to coverage for treatment for gender dysphoria or gender incongruence.
And this bill has been sponsored by Senator Horn Siegel before in the Senate and before he left us. I proudly pick it up and carry it. And it would require Medicaid to cover gender affirming care regardless of federal funding. Any questions or comments on this bill? Second. All right. Senator Webb moves the bill. Senator Jackson seconds.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed
without wreck.
That bill goes to finance. And last but certainly not least, Senate Bill 9388 by me if reported will go to first reading.
An act to amend the public health
law in relation to providing public notice and public engagement when a general hospital seeks to close entirely or a unit that provides maternity, mental health or substance use care.
We have passed this bill basically unanimously before and I'm gonna. I'm gonna angle so my voice carries to the place that it needs to care. We have passed it unanimously basically the last couple of years and it has been vetoed the last couple of years. It still would establish a standard which I think is necessary so that if a hospital is either closing its entirety or parts of it which are going to impact the population that they serve, the population that they serve should be informed and involved in that process. It is not about saying that they can't do it, but it is about saying that if they must, they have to include the folks who are going to be impacted by the shifts in service in that facility. And I really Love for it to be signed next time we pass it basically unanimously. That's good for. Ma', am. May I notice it was not court unanimously, because. Not quite unanimously, but it's basically unanimously. How many people voted against?
Right.
Would you not count that as almost unanimous? I'd say over 90% of legislation that's basically unanimous. That's what that means. I'm not a math guy, but 57 out of 63. Come on.
I'm just striving for accuracy.
I'm driving. Correct. Okay, you hear that?
You got that?
All right. So almost unanimous. 90%. Is that more acceptable to you? So 90%. So it'd be great. You could sign it. Any questions or comments on the bill, Senator Jackson? Question.
You mean to tell me a hospital that's, you know, waiting on patients and registering people in and they want to hide the fact that they're closing and don't tell people, are they crazy?
I don't know if they're crazy or not, Senator Jackson. However, it is true that in many instances, whether it's the hospital as a whole or more likely a section of the hospital that sometimes they just close without, there is a process that currently exists, but does not. But we do not feel that it is inclusive enough of the community that's going to impact. And as opposed to that, we want to create this process so that the community that's going to be impacted by these changes can participate in the process and can know that it's happening. But no, I do not know if that makes them crazy or not.
So the thing is that they basically want to close and not report to anyone, at least the people who attended.
There is a process currently that exists. I mean, just be clear about that. But the process, unfortunately, does not include real community members. There is a. There's a board which is. Which is a state board that in many instances just kind of like rubber stamps changes that the hospital. Terrible. I agree. Which is the reason why I believe the process needs to be rebooted and made to be more inclusive of community concerns.
Senator, just a quick question.
Yes.
If a hospital were to relocate several miles away, would this require them to also coordinate with the local community? Not shut down, but they've made a decision that they're going to be perhaps constructing a new facility in the area, just not where they've been for 100 years. Would this trigger the requirement that they have to communicate with the local community in the same way?
That is an interesting one. Before we get the answer by the guy that actually does know the Question. I remember the bill low enough, I believe that because we are speaking of a process by which there needs to be a shift. There will be some. There will be in this facility. Facility A, Facility B is where they can build a new place and there is going to be changes, fundamental changes in what is delivered in facility A. Even though the moving to facility B, that I figure it would probably would trigger the process. Would that be a correct interpretation?
If you can make sure it would. I just, I think those instances are also occurring where it's not just the hospital closing, but they're choosing to relocate somewhere else and impacting the local community. And it's not just the health care to the local community, it's jobs. You know, when you talk about the local community, that's where the hospital systems recruit from for work in those hospital systems. And so when they relocate to A, to a different area, it is oftentimes at the expense of people who live
in that community as well. So it would, it would be your interpretation that would trigger.
Yeah, I mean I think that generally speaking, like, if you're talking about like truly just a new building, they're not significantly modifying their services. I think it'd be rather straightforward that we're just opening a new facility, shifting everything to that new facility.
If it were the Rivera Hospital and they moved it 10 miles up the road and it's still owned by the same group, same organization, same structure, they just decided to move the brick and mortar there. They didn't close it, they relocated it. I just would want there to be clarity that that's also important.
I think, I think so. And also like, you know, it depends on where you're talking the state. Ten miles in certain locations may not be a large distance, but it could impact local communities abilities to access services. So in places like New York City, a 10 mile move could leave the local community without access to services.
So I do believe 10,000 makes no 10 cents in the city of New York, regardless the bill. I do believe, and I don't remember the exact verbiage of the bill, but ultimately we're talking about if there is a change in the services that will be delivered, then there needs to be a more overt community inclusion. And that's what, that's what the process would do. And again, we passed it basically unanimously except for five people.
I'm not going to call them up on it.
They're just. And it'd be great if it got signed. But first we have to move the bill. I'll move it.
I'LL second it.
Brian moves the bill. Senator Web seconds, but I third it. Fourth it. Third it. 56. It 60.
Yeah, that's like two.
Six.
Six. All those. Okay, after all that, do. All those in favor? Opposed?
Without right. Without right.
That bill goes to first reading.
And
thank you, folks.