House Health & Human Services [Mar 17, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

I did not like that. Okay, the Health and Human Services Committee will come to order.

Presente.

Here.

Here.

Present.

Here.

Excuse.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Present.

Present. Okay, welcome everyone. Looks like we have a full house today. we're going to be hearing 1271, 1298, and 1305. For those who didn't hear the announcement, we're moving 1307 to tomorrow. So with that, we'll go ahead and get started. Witnesses will have two minutes with 10-minute panels. And with that, we'll turn it over to our sponsors. Representative Jackson, tell us about your bill.

AML Bacon. Well, thank you so much, members of the committee. And before I get started, I want to thank everyone who is going to come and testify today, because I don't think we want to hide the ball in regards to the question that we're asking. Just for context, this bill has to go through two committees for reference. It needs to go through the Health and Human Services Committee along with finance. And so for our presentation today we really want to be able to build the case and show quite frankly what going on in our state in regards to substance abuse particularly with alcohol and how we can then propose some alleviation of some of those impacts And the alleviation of those impacts is through treatment And so I do want to thank my co in allowing me to join her on this bill I've been here now in the legislature for six years, and we've heard this bill before. And I think what differentiates now from the past is over the course of the last 10, 15 years even, We've been able to have deeper discoveries and understandings on how to treat alcoholism. We also have deeper understandings of the impact of it, not just on our physical bodies, but on our community. And as you heard my colleague share in regards to why an enterprise, we created these enterprises to particularly direct funds to behavioral health support. If you're not familiar, which if any of you are going to be in finance later, you might hear us say this a couple times, but right now the excise taxes, I'm not sure if anyone knows the history of the alcohol excise tax in this state and when it was passed in the 30s and where the money goes. it goes to a kind of like a pensioner's fund and then it goes to general fund. But to have an enterprise to say that one, now we have an organization that we created as a matter of state policy because we believe behavioral health is important and now that we know how treatments can help mitigate community impact, we want to direct some of these funds from this very substance that contributes to the community impacts to be able to treat it. And so I want to give you a little bit of background, because today, you know, we are going to hear from industry, but we're also going to hear from health care. And we're going to hear from the health care community who's been advocating for this for quite some time now. And every year they have approached some of us as legislators to take up their cause, because every year, as I said before, they learn more and every year they know they need additional support. but support is not targeted towards them. And so for context, Colorado does have some of the lowest excise taxes in the country. We are fourth lowest in the country for beer, sixth lowest for wine, and the second lowest among states with excise taxes in general. In Tennessee, they have the highest beer taxes at $1.29 per gallon, And in Washington, they have the highest spirit taxes at $35.31 per gallon. And so we're not asking for that, right? But I will also share with you the costs that we have incurred now. We do know where we are as a matter of health care. while the excise tax revenue comes into the state around $56 million, alcohol-related hospital costs are $351 million to the state. And that's what we're going to hear today. And so the notion of this fee is not to penalize business. We care about our business environment. We care about businesses. This is Colorado. We have a history with brewing and distilling. We care about our businesses who want to grow. And we would offer even here, you know, we have been considering amendments to figure out which sizes of these organizations need support because, you know, for example, 10% of is much more impactful than 10 of million And we do believe that there is something there But I want to encourage as we hear from industry today that we all figure out how we can partner in this space While we do want our businesses to grow, we cannot deny the impact of alcohol when it comes not only to our bodies, but our roads and our communities. And at some point, all of us need to work together to figure out how we will share the burden of the costs and how we will share the burden of the responsibility. And right now we're asking for a few more cents to go directly to an area that we know is productive. We know it's productive because today you're going to hear not only from hospitals, you're going to hear from our tribal communities, you're going to hear from the sheriffs because we're talking about jail-based treatment as well. And so today, again, I hope that we can pose the question by way of to what extent can we partner and share the burden for, one, for some people to enjoy libations, but two, to also understand the risks and where we will all contribute. And so as we go through the bill, we want to share a few things in regards to what you'll see as well by amendments. You may have the amendments in front of you. I do want to thank some of our stakeholders who did come to the table to engage with us, one of them being Labor. I understand you all have received a letter today, but we did approach Labor, some other locals, particularly for Teamsters, to ask them about their concerns and the impact of this. And while we have not been able to bring everyone to neutral, we have brought some because of some of the things you see in the amendments and what we know to be true about what we're asking for here. You will see an amendment to bring someone from labor who works in this space onto the enterprise board. And the reason why you see that is because in addition to talking about our costs here, we do want to always understand impact to industry. And that's why we brought that amendment forward. Furthermore, I want to direct you all if you have the fiscal note in front of you. On page 5 and table 2, we do call out the state revenues that our fiscal analysts believe will bring in. So while we hear the concerns about jobs, I will say that, one, there has been no bigger advocate. Actually, it's not fair. Maybe a representative leader. There is a big advocate for later in me having sponsored many labor bills. But when we talk about the reality of jobs as compared to the revenues brought in through this bill, if you look on page five under the enterprise beer, cider, apple, wine, impact and recovery enterprise, we will bring in roughly $6 million across the state. I'd like to compare that to the profits the industry made, which is in the billions. And if we're bringing $6 million in across all breweries, that is very, very small in proportionality to one in particular. And so we just want to look at that math because there are questions, we have been questioned on impact to jobs and the percentage of which the cost will balloon. And so here it is in black and white on our fiscal note, that we will not only bring in $6 million from beer, but also when we look at the rate to which we'll bring bringing in, if anybody knows math, any math teachers? No math teachers? This is a health and human service. We're STEM. If you look on page 3 at 5 cents per gallon of beer, anybody know how many ounces are in a gallon? God bless America. Ask your phone. 128? Thank you! So it's 128 gallons in beer. What is 5 cents divided by 128? That is .0003 cents an ounce. Oh, I didn't mention teardrops in swimming pools. Okay. And so I want to show you the numbers so we can ground in this conversation. Now, I feel like a very fair question for those who work in this space is how many gallons do you produce? so we can understand the nature of your business and do the math accordingly, as well as recognize how we can all partner and share the burdens. And as we hear today, I hope that's a question that could be asked by the committee. And so if you want, you can go back and look at the fiscal note. We are not even talking about hundreds of millions of dollars here. But when we talk about the impact of these dollars to go particularly into substance abuse and use work. I am sure you all have heard over and over again in this committee the impact of that and how the practitioners need to be supported. And we have an opportunity here to come back again and present to you in regards to what we know to be true about the cost of health care outpacing the cost of inflation, what we know to be true about what our businesses are producing and where we stand comparably across the country to be able to address a very important need here in our state. So in addition to that amendment for labor, you will see an amendment talking about how we can include equitably our tribal communities as well. Because in regards to this issue, let alone the commitment we made in this state, we agree that we will all support each other and so there are two amendments addressing their inclusion. And so with that, members, I look forward to answering any questions. But again, our presentation here in this committee will be about health care, the health impacts, what we know about this disease, what kind of support is needed, and are we asking for a fair, if not less than comparable, share than anywhere else in this country to address these concerns. And again, I do hope that we can listen in partnership and ask the right questions to figure out what a balance can be for us, because as sponsors, we do care about that. But again, and again, and again, I keep saying that. Sorry. My speech teacher would probably slap me with the ruler. It's a whole thing in the Health and Human Services Committee. I want to say thank you to our providers because it's been a tough couple of years for them. And so they are here to share what they need and propose along with us, because we are here in stewardship to them, a potential solution that can just go so, so, so far. Farther than we been able to go presently It not enough but it is a support And with that stop for questions Thank you committee Questions from the committee Representative McCormick

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question. And the idea around the three different enterprises was based on the different treatment modalities. And so the beer enterprise would be more focused on preventative efforts, drink responsibly campaigns, youth prevention. The wine enterprise would be focused more so on community-based services, jail-based services. And then the spirits enterprise would be focused more on high intensity treatment, high intensity inpatient treatment, crisis treatment, detox treatment. And that was the idea around the three different enterprises. It was based off of the three different types of treatment modalities. Amel Bacon. And in regards to BHA, the conversation in creating the enterprise, this is where it would be most aligned. And what we do understand about, there's a lot going on at BHA, you don't want to hide the ball there. But what we do understand about their function is that they primarily are the stewards of grants to be issued for this purpose. And so, statutorily, BHA's purpose is, and we have it here, which is to have high quality and equitable, affordable mental health and substance abuse and disorder services. And so, it is aligned, and that's where we're putting it by way of what is already statutorily written about what they are able to do with distributing grants for this purpose.

And the reason we didn't take the excise tax route is because we want these funds to be specifically earmarked for this. Our providers have been asking for help and support for a long time and we wanted to make sure that the dollars went directly towards supporting them in their efforts to uplift our communities instead of having going the excise tax route and having these dollars just go to the general fund which you know they may or may not go towards these treatment efforts Amal Bacon Thank you I also say that the fact that this is in statute means it has more flexibility dare I say from how the dollars are gathered, used, or even if we want to move into repeal. And so in addition to what you heard there, if we move this through statute, we can move it to enterprise, which means it has an earmark for use. and it is more addressable or more easily addressed by the legislature, not only now but in the future.

Representative Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. And if you look at Amendment L-6, we wanted to make sure that we clarified in the ledge deck that the industry does stand to benefit from these fees in that these dollars would be able to go towards their drink responsibly campaigns, the money that they're spending on those campaigns. and they would be directly benefiting from these fees through that mechanism.

Also, to your earlier question in regards to excise tax, I agree. However, that funding source is a century old, and it's a different conversation that we would have with all stakeholders. And if we have an opportunity to direct this money, we thought that we could do it here and be specific in regards to that whole share, what would go to this. And then we have had plenty of conversations with the Attorney General on this as well, and we do believe it will pass muster. I'll say also broadly that our employers, if not the businesses and their employees, are also members of our community. And whatever it is that we are offering here, they also have access to, not only for considerations of community health, but considerations of their own employees, including the owners. So no one would be excluded from this. We have had similar conversations when we did take on marijuana and tobacco and talking about the overall nexus. When we talked about how we would even be able to differentiate businesses part of the conversation with the AG office is to say that our purpose in this is to recognize that businesses do also contribute to community health, and they have an opportunity to mitigate the negative impacts of alcohol that supports their whole customer base as well. And so that has been the crux of the conversation, particularly around substances, Again, whether it's tobacco, marijuana, or alcohol.

Representative Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Rep Wook. and the, let me pull up my notes here, but the breakdown of the board, we wanted to make sure that it was inclusive of people who are from the alcohol industry. We want to make sure that it includes people with lived experience, people who are in or providing these treatment services. We have the amendment to incorporate someone from labor because we want to make sure that this is an inclusive and collaborative process in determining exactly how these fees are to be used so that they can have the greatest positive impacts in our communities.

Amel Beacon. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative. For context, also, the selection of the board is on page 6 of the bill. They're appointed by the governor. On page 7 are the board responsibilities and duties, which include current state of the plans, whatnot. not, the board also does have connections to evaluations of the grants issued. I do believe in an amendment. We are also, I think it's an amendment, if not in the bill, one, the auditor always takes a look by way of fiscal responsibility. And I do believe there is reporting to House and- There's an annual report. An annual report to House and Senate Finance.

Representative Jackson? As the bill stands right now, it would include them. And we are open to conversation about that from our small businesses. We have been engaging with them. We have asked, what is it exactly that you need so that this is not an imposition on them? And so we are open to continuing that conversation. We just have... not heard back from them regarding what exactly it is that they're wanting and needing at this point. Amel Bacon. Thank you. And I would just add, this is in relationship also to the Department of Revenue. So it comes through kind of like the business sentiment. So if there's a hobbyist, that is not applied here into whatever the law says in regards to when someone would qualify of being a formal distributor. But just to build upon that, one of the things that I ask and I actually look forward to hearing here is what are the numbers, right? What do our small craft distilleries or breweries produce? We are looking to figure that out so that we can meet them where they're at proportionally by way of how they can contribute, which could be, you know, if you are a producer of X amount or less, we have been talking about how to exempt them.

Vice Chair Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. So a comment and then a question. So it was just on the news today that Argentina said that you made me think of it when you were telling 128 ounces per gallon. So they were saying that they used to drink 24 gallons of wine a year that they would have there. People would get from Argentina, and now they're down to six gallons. So I don't know what's going on there, but I said, well, you know, I'm sure your Argentina beef will make up for that. But anyways, my question is, has there been any studies in regards to the job loss?

Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, sponsors. for bringing forward this important conversation. I was curious about the fee conversations I've had. It would be the manufacturer and the distributor. So why, quote, unquote, the double dipping?

Representative Johnson Thank you Madam Chair Thank you sponsors I just want to make sure as when you mentioned there would be sheriffs testifying I don see the organization of sheriffs anywhere on this bill in the Secretary of State Are you talking about individual sheriffs in their county or with the organization?

okay seeing that we'll move on to witness testimony thank you so much sponsors okay we'll start with our first support panel so Dr. Nikki Johnson Dr. Bill Berman and then we have Dr. Judy Schley remote and then Dr. Will Finn and then let's also pull up Lacey Hayes oh I'm sorry Lacey Hayes is in person Kelly Curl also in person I think and then Precious Collins who's remote and Lex Lutonheiser. I should know your last name, Lex. Apologize. Come on up. Okay, great. We'll start from my right to the left. If you can introduce yourself, the organization you represent, and you have two minutes. Welcome. Oh, it's that tiny little button. There we go. Okay, thank you. I'm Dr. Bill Berman. I'm a public health physician representing Denver Health and the Colorado Alcohol Impacts Coalition and urging you to vote in favor of House Bill 1271. The data is clear. Alcohol is a leading preventable cause of premature death and disability in our state. My elevator speech is short. The situation is bad. It's getting worse quickly, and we've done nothing about it. A few specifics. We drink hard as a state. We're about the eighth highest in consumption in the country. And we pay the price. We are the eighth highest in terms of death rate due to alcohol. Alcohol causes more than 2,000 deaths per year in our state, more than opioids. And the rate of alcohol deaths has almost doubled in the past 10 years. Alcohol is a major factor in every form of injury that I know of. Motor vehicle crashes, of course, but also homicide, suicide, assault, intimate partner violence, child abuse, and neglect. and alcohol is also a major cause of a number of serious illnesses a leading cause of liver disease including liver failure it causes serious heart disease high blood pressure heart rhythm abnormalities heart failure it causes at least seven forms of cancer including breast cancer and the i guess one of the important most important points is we know what can work and we're doing none of it so we have no funding for accurate well researched well presented public information. We have some of the lowest alcohol taxes in the country, and they're cut every year by inflation, by an average of 3%. And then there are large gaps, as you'll hear, in funding for treatment, particularly in rural Colorado. So I think this bill could be a major step forward in reversing this health crisis, and I urge you to vote yes. Thank you so much. Please proceed Did that work Okay Good afternoon My name is Dr Nikki Johnson and I here testifying on a personal capacity I do currently serve as the chief of mental health services for the Denver Sheriff Department I a licensed psychologist and a certified addiction specialist I've worked in jails and prisons for over 20 years now, and also am a mental health consultant for the National Commission of Correctional Health Care. So it's no secret that alcohol use disorder is a severe problem in the state of Colorado. not only in the community but also in Denver jails. Some studies will show 60% or more of individuals in jail have some kind of alcohol use disorder. In Denver jails specifically, we had around 1,100 individuals in 2025 who were arrested and incarcerated for lower-level alcohol-related offenses like DUIs. In addition, they not only came in with those alcohol-related offenses, but they also had severe withdrawal symptoms, leading to being on some kind of withdrawal medications. We had 1,400 unique individuals who required those services. With the funding cuts that have happened recently over the last year Both state and federally A lot of the programs that are offered in jails Specifically in Denver are grant funded Through both of these entities With those over 75% of those funds being cut We're at risk of decreasing public safety increasing the cost to the health system, specifically for alcohol withdrawal management. So with this bill, these funds would really assist in not only providing medication-assisted treatment, but also therapy services for individuals in custody. We know that over 95% of individuals in custody do get out and return to the community, and And so it's important to us to have funds to continue to provide treatment so that we can see a decrease in recidivism for these individuals. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Please proceed. Is it still morning or is it good afternoon now? I'm not sure. I'm Lacey Hayes. You all look very familiar. I am the contract lobbyist for Tribe Recovery Homes. My executive director could not be here today. We support 1271. Recovery of Homes is a trauma-informed residential outpatient and sober living program. We traditionally work with justice-involved individuals, and more often than not, our participants are men and women of color. About 80% of our participants have alcohol use disorder. Now, that can be a co-occurring disorder, but more often than not, there's alcohol involved. As you know, alcohol is harmful. You've heard that from these two experts next to me. Two years ago, we served around 1,800 participants in one year. This year, we project to be serving 430. So if we want to talk about job loss or financial issues, we're feeling that. Obviously, you struggle with the budget and other things, But our decrease in participants is not because there isn't a need or an increase in alcohol use disorder. It is quite literally because our community partners are vanishing and we holding on by a thread With that 75 decrease in our participants you can imagine how many jobs and people we had to let go By the way, we probably hire people that the alcohol industry wouldn't hire because they have records and they have lived experience. So I don't know where those people are going to work now. I just really wanted to hit that home. If we're going to talk about job loss for a million-dollar industry, We need to talk about job loss and lack of resources on the other side. This bill is not a tax. It is a fee because the resources are going to specific places. And it's really hard to tell the voters so descriptively where they can choose where this money should go. And this is the appropriate avenue. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Lex Lutzenheiser, and I'm a policy manager with Illuminate Colorado, a statewide nonprofit working to strengthen families, organizations, and communities to prevent child maltreatment. In addition to other national affiliations, we are the Colorado affiliate of FASD United. I'm testifying today in support of House Bill 1271. Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, or FASDs, are lifelong disorders that impact thousands of Colorado families and result from a disruption in fetal development due to prenatal alcohol exposure. Nationally, it is estimated that 1 in 20 school-aged children are impacted by an FASD, and prevalence data shows us that alcohol use during pregnancy is not uncommon. Individuals with an FASD and their families require access to knowledgeable resources, professionals, and affordable services such as diagnosis, early intervention, and skill-building support in order to thrive. As evidenced by a needs assessment we completed in 2024, and the stories we hear from Colorado families, we know that families impacted by FASDs are experiencing many challenges. Families have reported a lack of resources and supportive services, including lack of FASD aware behavioral health and medical providers, caregiver supports, and education supports. Medical professionals have reported challenges screening pregnant parents, including lack of knowledge and time to have conversations with pregnant people about alcohol use concerns during pregnancy. I shared a letter that was also emailed to committee members from an FASD parent advocate and mother of an adult son with FAS, or fetal alcohol syndrome, sharing her family's experiences. House Bill 1271 would create a responsible funding mechanism to better serve individuals with FASDs in Colorado and prevent FASDs. Through the programs implemented under the Alcohol Impact and Recovery Enterprise, dedicated funding could increase access to screening and early intervention for individuals and families impacted by FASD, while also increasing funding for providers serving pregnant and postpartum people impacted by alcohol use disorders. With this, I'd ask for a yes vote. Thank you. Thank you so much. We'll move online to Kelly Curl. Could you introduce yourself, the organization you represent? You have two minutes. Sure. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Kelly Curl. I'm the Director of Policy and Public Affairs at Jefferson County Public Health. I'm also speaking today on behalf of the Colorado Association of Local Public Health Officials as well. Colorado and Jefferson County in particular has had a long history with the alcohol industry brewing distilling hospitality and many other related sectors are an important part of our culture and a strong contributor to our local economy, supporting jobs, small businesses, and tourism. We recognize and see the value of these contributions in our communities, and I appreciate the statements from the sponsors around making sure that these fees are proportionate for different levels of producers in our state. At the same time, we continue to see alcohol-related harms affect our communities. Colorado currently ranks about seventh in the country for excessive drinking. In Jefferson County, chronic alcohol use was the second leading cause of natural deaths, followed by or following cardiac issues in 2024. And from 2020 to 2022, nearly 60% of all impaired driving court cases in our county involved alcohol. These outcomes show only a small window into the harmful downstream effects on individuals that can ripple outwards into our wider communities. Like in many other regions across the state, funding and infrastructure for prevention and treatment services can't keep up with the need. For example, over 60% of Jefferson County adults who needed but didn't receive mental health care cited cost as a primary barrier. Creating these enterprises is a balanced approach to valuing the alcohol industry's role in our economy while addressing the downstream and harmful effects that can come from it in our communities. We fully support reinvesting these funds into local prevention, education, early intervention, and treatment strategies. To ensure flexibility and use of localized solutions, we do recommend expanding the eligibility for funding to include a broader range of community-based organizations and public-serving entities, to include local public health agencies, nonprofits, schools, behavioral health providers, as well as tribal organizations and local governments. Prioritizing prevention is key, especially for youth and other high-risk groups. In Jefferson County, one in five high school students reports drinking in the past 30 days, and over half say that it wouldn't be hard to get alcohol if they wanted it. Thank you so much for your testimony. We'll move on to William Finn. If you can come off mute, introduce yourself and your organization. You have two minutes. Good morning, committee members. I'm sorry my camera doesn't appear to be working. My name is Dr. William Finn. I am a physician for the Southern Union Tribe. I'm here with the authorization of Tribal Council to present the tribe's position. Native Americans experience disproportionately high rates of substance use disorders, including alcoholism. These disparities are not accidental. They are rooted in a long history of trauma tied to colonization and deliberate efforts to dismantle tribal communities. That legacy shapes the health challenges our tribal patients face every day. House Bill 26-1271 is a meaningful step forward, and the tribe supports this effort. However, for us to fully support the bill, it must prioritize funding for tribal health programs. Despite chronic underfunding, the Southern U tribe has built a comprehensive and culturally grounded system. Still, gaps remain, especially in addressing alcohol use. While much attention and funding rightly target the opioid crisis, our communities continue to experience significant illness and death from alcohol. Dedicated funding from this bill would allow us to expand our services where they are most needed. For tribal members and our other Native patients, culturally grounded care is not optional. It is essential. Treatment that reflects the tribe's values and community context leads to better outcomes. For our Native patients, there is no substitute for care delivered by the tribe. The state and the tribe share a responsibility to care for tribal patients. In this partnership, the tribe is best positioned to deliver culturally competent care, and the state is best positioned to ensure equitable funding By directing resources to tribal programs this bill can save lives and strengthen our communities Thank you Thank you And we move on to Dr Judy Schley please Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Judy Schley, and I'm the Associate Director of the Public Health Institute at Denver Health. I'm a family physician and the medical director for the Center of Addiction Medicine at Denver Health. I support public health and clinical care for our department and our organization. I'm here today to support House Bill 1271. Alcohol use disorder is a frequent problem seen at Denver Health. Here are some statistics. A Denver Health EMS study found in a two-year time period approximately 170 calls to 911, of which a third were related to alcohol consumption or alcohol contributing factor to the call. In our emergency department, from January 1 to mid-March this year, there are at least five and up to 31 alcohol-related ED visits, representing 6% of all ED visits to date. This is about 1,000 visits that are related to alcohol, which translates to 100 visits per week. For hospital admissions between January 1 and mid-March, there was at least one hospital alcohol-related admission. In 2025, 6% of all these hospitalizations had an alcohol-related diagnosis. In 2026, that has grown to 13%. It's close to 600 admissions so far this year related to alcohol-related diagnoses, of which 60 admissions per week. Transitioning people from the hospital to highest level of care, which is residential treatment, is exceedingly difficult and also results in discharge to inadequate services. With H.R. 1, many people will lose insurance. Gaps in cares will increase. For example, sober living, which is covered by Medicaid, will not be available because many people will not have coverage. And the federal signal program, which is a payer of last resort for under and under uninsured will not be able to cover those services. Without this legislation and with the implementation of H.R. 1, more people will not get the required treatment they need. Thank you, and I'm available for questions. Thank you so much for your testimony. Questions for this panel? I have a question. This is for anyone on the panel. If you could talk a little bit about, and many of you mentioned, alluded to this in your testimony, but where we are as a state right now in these types of programs and how an enterprise like this could infuse money and sort of increase those programs or expand those programs and how do you see that impacting the work that you all are doing? Who would like to? Dr. Schley, are you, I'm raising your hand or are you? I can just say that this is Dr. Schley here from Denver Health. To have treatment services, in particular, residential treatment available for people who need it, will be quite important. And so that is actually something that would be very important. We have tremendous difficulty getting people into those types of services. That's just one example. And it should be available, and it can be with you have more money to pay for it. Thank you for that. Yeah I was going to get to her Thank you so much Ms Lutonheiser Thank you I appreciate it Thanks Madam Chair So as far as FASD services go, there's not currently a dedicated funding stream in Colorado to go towards awareness or prevention of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. So we view especially the beer enterprise as an opportunity to partner with alcohol manufacturers, distributors, to really ensure that there is more information out there about fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and the risks of consuming alcohol during pregnancy. I also will mention that in Colorado, due to the end of ARPA dollars, we no longer are able to fund FASD navigation services. So there is not currently a dedicated individual or entity in Colorado that individuals impacted by FASDs or their families can call for support. It is an area where there is a lack of awareness. And with this, a lot of times families don't know where to go first. And it's extremely difficult to find a diagnosis due to there being so few providers. that offer diagnostic services for fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, which of course leads to challenges down the road because we're not seeing the right treatments or options available to folks because they're not being treated for the right things, right? There are misdiagnoses happening. So across the spectrum, there's a lack of support for folks with FASDs and a lack of awareness, and that really is due to the lack of funding in Colorado specific to FASDs. Thank you. Representative Bradley.

Thanks for the question. Just a couple of things. There's many parts to the answer to that question. One I would highlight is the clear effectiveness of consistent, well-designed public information campaigns. That's been demonstrated convincingly over the last 50 years with tobacco. It's the reason in my practice that I almost never have a smoker say, why are you even talking to me about this? They all know why we're talking about it. I have people with alcohol use disorder very frequently, so I don't have any problem. We lack any kind of public funding for consistent public information. So that's only just a small piece of the answer to your question. Thank you for that. Additional questions? Vice Chair Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is for Lacey. About the job loss, can you elaborate a little bit more on that? Are you saying that because they don't show up for work because they've been drinking, is that's why they're going to be without jobs they're going to be locked they're going to be fired or can you elaborate a little bit thank you for the question uh representative leader so i'm talking more about the people that we employ so at tribe recovery homes you know we sober living we that on that recovery We provide treatment Who we hire are people with lived experience right So they had alcohol use disorder or substance use disorder And more often than not, they have a criminal record, right? Because of the lack of funding, I mean, look at this year. You're about to cut $1.6 million in recovery funding this year. What do you think happened last year? Medicaid is running amok on your budget, right? How do you think the people that we're providing services for are getting those services? It's because they're on Medicaid, because they don't have jobs, because they need help. These are the people that need the most help in our society. And we say, okay, I care more about the jobs over here in industry than I do about the people who are now in recovery. They are sober. They are working for tribe recovery homes. And we had to lay them off because we can't even provide services for the next generation of people that need help, that they can help. So when we're talking about jobs in that sense, it's more internal. And it's not just Tribe that's having this problem. Like I said, our community partners also are. Some are completely gone. All those jobs are gone. Vice Chair Leader. Thank you. Okay, thank you for that explanation. But just to be clear, it's not whether it's one job over the other job because we're actually in the situation we're in with Medicaid because of H.R. 1. When that big bill was passed, that's where the issue is there with the Medicaid cuts. But I'm looking at a letter here from the Teamsters principal officer saying, you know, we know when anything increases cost or anything, then it always trickles down to the employees. So that's just where I was coming from. But thank you. Additional questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you so much for participating today. We appreciate you being here. Okay, with that, we'll move on to our next panel of against folks. So Ainsley Giglerano, Sam DeWitt, Katie Nicholson, and Shawnee Adelson. And then we'll move to a few that are remote. Cassidy Schull, Ryan Thompson, and Brian Crawford. well we're pulling those folks up online um we'll start from my left to my right if you'd like to introduce yourself the organization you represent and you have two minutes that button's tiny sorry um madam chair and members of the committee thank you for allowing me to testify today my name is shawnee adelson and i'm the executive director of the colorado Brewers Guild representing more than 400 craft breweries across the state. While we appreciate the sponsor's sentiment and commitment to addiction recovery, we must respectfully oppose House Bill 1271. Colorado's craft breweries are small, independent businesses already operating on thin margins in an increasingly difficult environment. The cost of every input from hops and barley to packaging and labor has risen sharply in recent years, while sales have also declined. Since the beginning of 2024, over 100 Colorado craft breweries have closed their doors, and state excise tax reports show that in 2024, beer sales were their lowest per capita since 2016, which is the data I have as far back as the data I have. And in the first six months of 2025, all beer sales in Colorado were down over 6%. I've personally heard from brewery owners who choose to pay their bills and their staff over themselves, who have had to make hard decisions when it comes to cutting health benefits to employees to cover the costs of rising rents or property taxes, and who have ultimately closed their doors because they do not see a viable option to the increasing costs. Concerns about affordability have been expressed in this body in everything from opening day speeches to newsletters and town halls. Yet this bill would add an additional $35 million in taxes on the citizens and visitors who enjoy Colorado's craft beverages. Just like everyday Coloradans, breweries can't absorb another tax and will have to pass these costs on to consumers. And consumers are tapped out. They simply can't afford rising prices on all other items that have been rising faster than their income. If we try to pass additional taxes on to the consumers, they'll have to switch to a cheaper brand, which will harm our craft breweries even further. Craft breweries industry supports tens of thousands of jobs and serves as an economic anchor in our communities. We simply don't pass job-killing taxes on a sector that has put you on the map. I urge you to vote no on House Bill 1271. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Katie Nicholson. I am the owner of Old 121 Brewhouse in Lakewood, Colorado, and I'm here today to respectfully oppose House Bill 1271. Our industry is currently facing a perfect storm of shrinking margins. Over the last 24 months, the cost of raw ingredients like malt, tops, and yeast have climbed 7 to 10 percent. Because we prioritize buying local, we are absorbing those costs alongside skyrocketing aluminum prices driven by the tariffs. Even our credit card processing fees have become a burden, effectively forcing us to pay a double tax on sales tax and the charitable donations we accept on behalf of local nonprofits. HB 1271 would be a breaking point to our excise tax trajectory. To put our excise tax trajectory into perspective, in 2023, we paid around $554. Our anticipated 2026 projection would be $1,600. That's an increase of 189% since 2023. Old 121 maintains a daily happy hour with $5 flagship beers. In today's economy, we're essentially selling those at a loss, not because it's good business, but because we are a community gathering place. In just the past week, I had conversations with neighbors celebrating a new job, mourning the loss of a mother, and being sober for two years. We're very proud of the sodas we make and non-alcoholic options we also offer our community. Breweries take care of their people. When a local brewery closes, it's rarely because the community stops showing up. it's because the cost of keeping the lights on became insurmountable. If HB 1271 passes, we will be forced to raise prices and pull back on our support to local nonprofits like the Action Center who support our community experiencing hardship. We have donated over $1,800 to them last year and over $3,500 to them since 2023. That's a larger impact than this tax would contribute. I urge you to protect my fellow breweries and communities with no vote. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Please proceed. Good afternoon Madam Chair members of the committee My name is Sam DeWitt I serve as the State Government Affairs Director for the Brewers Association We based in Boulder where the 501c6 National Trade Organization dedicated to promoting and protecting America small and independent craft breweries I'm here today to respectfully speak in opposition to House Bill 1271. While we appreciate and share the goals behind this legislation, we believe there are existing resources available for recovery that should be fully utilized before imposing a significant new tax on Colorado's brewing industry. Colorado is set to receive approximately $880 million over 18 years from the National Opioid Settlement. And more than $130 million has already been distributed. Those funds were specifically intended to support treatment, recovery, and prevention efforts, and we believe they should be prioritized before creating new industry taxes. As Director Adelson said, craft breweries are facing serious economic headwinds. Beer consumption has declined sharply over the past five years. brewers are being squeezed from every direction. Rising costs, inflation across the supply chain, and new tariffs on key materials. Labor costs are up. Rent and insurance costs are up. Climate change is affecting the basics that go into beer, like hops and barley, raising those prices higher. Small and independent breweries already operate on extremely thin margins, and our members cannot suffer another tax. In this environment, adding a new tax would place additional strain on an industry that is already struggling to stay afloat. I also want to note that we were disappointed with the stakeholder process surrounding this bill. We heard nothing but rumors about the legislation until being called to the Capitol the weak representatives intended to introduce and told in no uncertain terms that this was the bill, like it or not, and that maybe it's a good thing that breweries are closing. Whatever your feelings about alcohol consumption, this sort of rhetoric has no place in a stakeholder process. We engaged in good faith, but ultimately felt that our concerns were not meaningfully addressed and in some cases mocked outright. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to consider existing funding sources and oppose House Bill 1271. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you for your testimony. Please proceed. Madam Chair and members of the committee, my name is Ainsley Chilarano, and I'm here representing the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, a national trade organization representing distilled spirits manufacturers. We respectfully oppose HB 1271 and its effective 60% increase on distilled spirits taxes. First, we must address the bill's use of the term fee. The so-called fee in this legislation functions as a tax. It broadly burdens every Colorado consumer who purchases alcohol, provides no direct benefit or privilege to the businesses paying it, and funds services for a limited group. Labeling it a fee circumvents the will of the voters by imposing a tax but skipping voter approval. For clarity and accuracy, we refer to it as a tax in our testimony. This 60% tax increase will ripple across Colorado's economy. Our economic analysis shows it would eliminate approximately 900 Colorado jobs and reduce retail sales by 60 million as responsible consumers cut back on purchases. These impacts would further harm an already struggling hospitality industry facing inflation, tariffs, record closures, and declining consumer spending at a time when they can least afford it. The spirits industry is already a major contributor to Colorado's economy, generating more than $5.1 billion in economic activity. When beer, wine, and cider are included, the alcohol industry contributes more than $22 billion statewide. Taxing these businesses to the point of extinction reduces, not increases, long-term revenue and undermines the broader economic benefits they provide. It is also important to note that many DISCUS members actively fund and support responsibility efforts to prevent underage drinking combat drunk driving and promote responsible consumption through their work with our sister organization Responsibility plus other company initiatives they fund themselves. The distilled spirits industry is an essential part of Colorado's economy and culture. The last thing hospitality businesses and consumers need right now is a significant tax increase they can't afford. For these reasons, we respectfully ask you to vote no on HB 1271. Thank you so much for your testimony. We'll move online to Mr. Crawford. Mr. Crawford, I think you might be frozen. I don't know if you can hear us. We'll give you a second to figure things out in a very serious thought process. Why don't we move on to Cassidy Scholl while we wait for Mr. Crawford. State your name, the organization, and you have two minutes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Cassidy Schall, and I am the Executive Director of the Colorado Association for Viticulture and Enology. We're the trade association representing the state's wineries and grape growers. Before I begin, I do want to acknowledge that we understand that substance abuse affects many Coloradans across the state. We do support thoughtful, effective efforts to expand prevention, treatment, and recovery services across our state of Colorado. However, we have concerns about House Bill 1271 and the creation of new alcohol enterprises is funded throughout additional industry fees. Colorado already has significant dedicated funding for addiction recovery. Through the National Opioid Settlement, the state is receiving approximately $780 million over the next 15 years, specifically designed for prevention, treatment, and recovery programs. Given this substantial investment, we believe policymakers should fully evaluate how these resources are deployed and their impact before creating new free structures that target specific industries. Colorado wineries are overwhelmingly small agricultural businesses. Many of them produce only a few thousand cases of wine per year and operate on extremely tight margins while supporting rural economies, farming communities, and local tourism. While additional fees may appear modest in policy language, for small producers they add up quickly and can directly affect hiring, vineyard investment, and long-term sustainability. Colorado wine is a growing agricultural sector that supports farmers, hospitality, and local tourism. Policies that increase costs for small producers risk slowing that progress at a time when we are working very hard to build a nationally recognized wine region. We share the goal of supporting public health and recovery services, but we believe those solutions should be balanced, transparent, and broadly supported, rather than placing new financial burdens on Colorado's smallest producers. For these reasons, Cave respectfully asks that this committee oppose HB 1271. Thank you for your testimony. We'll try Mr. Crawford one more time. Oh, not frozen any longer. Yay. You can say your name and your organization and you have two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Brian Crawford and I'm the president of the Beer Institute, a trade association that represents the interests of brewers and beer importers across America. The beer industry proudly supports more than 63,000 employees right here in Colorado, and we generate more than $4 billion in wages and benefits for Coloradans. I respectfully oppose HB 1271, a piece of legislation that threatens to fundamentally alter the landscape of beer in Colorado. Amid rising labor costs and high inflation, imposing additional taxes will exacerbate the financial pressure on brewers and consumers alike, which many people have talked about. While we strongly support Colorado's focus on prevention, treatment, and recovery services, we respectfully urge the state to utilize this substantial federal funding that is already available rather than further tax our industry The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration SAMHSA under HHS announced on February 4th that block grants to the state of Colorado combined to more than $14.7 million this year alone. Two major programs, $9 million through the Substance Use Prevention Treatment and Recovery Services Block Grant, and $5.6 million through the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant. Colorado should focus on maximizing the significant resources available to the state. This also includes notably $1.3 billion in taxes paid annually by the beer industry alone. This, coupled with the federal treatment and recovery dollars, is a better option than raising taxes that will reverberate throughout the supply chain. The beer industry is a strong supporter of our Colorado communities and has invested billions of dollars to successfully reduce alcohol-related harm. Our work not only nurtures the success of our vibrant industry, but also demonstrates beer's commitment to the well-being of our communities and to our consumers. I respectfully urge you to oppose this well-intentioned but short-sighted legislation, and thank you for allowing me to testify. Thank you so much for your testimony. Questions from the committee? Representative McCormick.

And it's $780 million over how many years? Who would like to answer that question? Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Crawford. So I am happy to look into that for you. I do not know exactly where within the federal government those funds go to the state. I think Mr. DeWitt was the one who testified to the opioid settlement numbers, but I'm happy to look into that and get back to you. Mr. DeWitt, would you be able to? I wouldn't, but I am happy to find that out for you, Madam Chair. Thank you.

But I would like to see how that's allocated as well.

Because I feel like I've... Yes, ma'am. We have had that beverage. Legally different from it's called something else. It worked. Any additional questions from the committee? Thank you all so much for participating today. We appreciate you being here. We'll move on to our next panel of witnesses in support. Fran Lancer is in person. Veronica Bell remote. Tom Mia Wheeler, Debbie Stafford, and then Wendy Andrade, and then two remote, Ashley Dickerson and Brian Sims. Okay, thank you so much for joining. We'll start from my left to my right. If you can introduce yourself, the organization you represent, and you have two minutes. Welcome back. Each room is different. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Wendy Buxton Andrade, and I'm here representing Mental Health Colorado in support of House Bill 26-1271. For 73 years, Mental Health Colorado, the nonpartisan nonprofit organization, has been acting as the state's leading advocate for healthier minds across the lifespan for all Coloradans. I will keep this simple. As the state of Colorado continues in a physical crisis, so do many of our residents. Many individuals experience barriers to accessing care for mental health and substance misuse conditions. Like the opioid settlement, this bill will draw funds from an industry that has contributed to the health crisis to help improve access to services to address the crises that they have created. We all know that the huge gains we have had at the state to combat this enormous health concern. And if we cannot fund treatment adequately, it will not be there, and the strains on other systems will begin to happen. We do not want that, and our state cannot afford that. Mental Health Colorado is asking for support of House Bill 26-1271 because it is a way to engage the industry that is contributing to the health concern and funding services that help mitigate it. We must continue to hold industries that contribute to problems accountable, and this is one way to do it. We do not want to drive business from the state, but we want to continue to fund these recovery services. We will put a strain on other parts of the system. Thank you for your yes vote on 1271, and I can answer any questions. Thank you so much for your testimony. Please proceed. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Veronica Bell, and I represent the Colorado Behavioral Health Care Council, the statewide membership association for community-based mental health and substance use disorder safety net providers. CBHC supports House Bill 1271 because it creates a sustainable, dedicated funding source to address alcohol-related harms and expand access to behavioral health care across Colorado without drawing from general fun. Our members are on the front lines of this issue every day, serving individuals in crisis, supporting families, and helping people navigate recovery in a system that remains under-resourced relative to the need, particularly for alcohol use disorder. From a provider perspective, dedicated funding matters. ACCESS TO SERVICE VARIES SIGNIFICANTLY DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU LIVE AND PROGRAMS WE KNOW WORK, LIKE COMMUNITY-BASED PREVENTION, OUTPATIENT TREATMENT, AND RECOVERY SUPPORTS ARE OFTEN THE FIRST TO BE LIMITED WHEN FUNDING IS INCONSISTENT. THIS BILL HELPS STABILIZE AND EXPAND THOSE SERVICES STATEWIDE WHILE ALLOWING FUNDING TO BE DIRECTED BASED ON LOCAL NEEDS OUR MEMBERS KNOW THAT WHAT WORKS IN ONE REGION MAY LOOK DIFFERENT FROM ANOTHER IT ALSO SUPPORTS CRITICAL GAPS OR PROGRAMS while allowing funding to be directed based on local needs Our members know that what works in one region may look different from another It also supports critical gaps our providers see every day including detoxification, crisis stabilization, and higher levels of care. It also reflects what providers see every day. Alcohol-related harms have real and significant impacts on individuals, families, and the health care system. In Colorado, we're seeing rising impacts, including over 200 lives lost a year due to impaired driving. This bill takes a thoughtful approach by aligning resources with those impacts and reinvesting them into community-based solutions. Importantly, this funding is dedicated and protected so providers can plan, hire, and build programs with stability rather than relying on short-term or inconsistent funding streams. Combined with strong accountability measures, that stability is critical. Without a more reliable investment like this, the gap between need and access will continue to grow, and communities across Colorado will feel that strain. On behalf of our members and the communities that they serve, we respectfully urge your support on House Bill 1271. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. You can go ahead and proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Debbie Stafford. I'm here representing Aurora Mental Health and Recovery. Aurora Mental Health and Recovery has over 860 employees, and we serve about 20,000 individuals a year. We just opened up a 45-bed withdrawal management facility, and what we experience in the treatment of those who are struggling with substance use disorder is extremely significant. What we do know is that over almost one and a quarter million Coloradoans need some level of substance use treatment, and about 75% don't receive that treatment in a timely fashion. It's very difficult, and when you're looking now at many of the funding cuts that are coming back, it makes it very hard. I'd like to answer a question that hasn't been posed, but I've heard that it's been asked, and that is you will be hearing another bill, House Bill 1301, coming up later this week. 13.01 is also looking at doing a ballot initiative for alcohol and other substances. There has been concerns over what would the two be doing that would be similar. They're totally not similar. That would be a total preparation for a state hospital in the metro area and state hospital services on the western slope. So I just wanted to answer that in case anybody has any concerns there. and again if you have any questions we know that about 75 percent of the people that need treatment don't get it i'm also a pastor i officiate many many deaths and i can tell you that on the average i officiate six to ten deaths a month from alcohol overdose and they're young people and it's affecting families and we're paying for that we're paying for that in the unintended consequences in our families and i would ask for your support thank you thank you so much for your testimony Welcome back to the legislature. We also have another person in the audience that we'd like to bring up, Chris Crosby, if you could join us with this panel. Thank you so much. While you're getting settled, we'll go online to Ashley Dickerson. State your name, organization. You have two minutes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of House Bill 1271. My name is Ashley Dickerson. I serve as the Development and Engagement Manager at Sobriety House in Denver. As Colorado's oldest licensed substance use disorder treatment provider, we see firsthand the urgent need for sustainable funding to address alcohol use disorder. Demand for services continues to grow. It's reflected in the constant and expanding wait lists that we see across providers, but funding cannot keep pace. First, funding for substance use disorder services is inconsistent Many providers rely on unstable funding streams like Medicaid reimbursement short grants opioid settlement funds and limited behavioral health allocations These sources often change year to year making it difficult to plan programs, retain staff, or expand services to meet the growing demand. Second, there are significant barriers to accessing the funding that does exist. For example, the opioid settlement funds can only be applied for by local governments, state agencies, or regional councils. Nongovernmental providers, like nonprofits, cannot apply directly and must partner with one of these entities, making the process extremely difficult to navigate. At the same time, these funds are dedicated specifically to opioid-related programming. Now, that means alcohol-specific services are not eligible to receive these funds. This bill would help address these inconsistencies and barriers by creating a sustainable funding source for alcohol-related prevention, treatment, and recovery services. For thousands of Coloradans seeking support, this would mean less time waiting for care and more time finding recovery. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much for your testimony. We'll move to Brian Sims. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present a different perspective to you today. My name is Brian Sims. I'm a U.S. Army infantry veteran in long-term recovery. I'm a certified peer specialist in multiple states. I'm a clinical graduate student at the Hazelden Betty Ford Graduate School, and I am the National Director of Project Rebirth, which is a recovery community organization for veterans and first responders and an organizational member of the Colorado Providers Association. I'm also a resident of House District 25 in the Deer Creek Canyon area. I'm here today in support of House Bill 1271. My personal recovery journey transitioning from the military includes surviving homelessness, in a suicide attempt, which fuels my commitment to addressing the triple threat, blocking our access to appropriate and timely care for veterans and their loved ones, alcohol use disorder, AUD, trauma, and moral injury. Colorado has honed over 400,000 veterans, yet we face a unique crisis. In Colorado, my fellow veterans report a binge drinking rate 18% higher than the national average, And per the VA's research, since 2011, veterans are more than twice as likely to die of a substance-related incident than the general U.S. population. Furthermore, peer-reviewed research shows that up to 63% of veterans seeking help for AUD also suffer from PTSD. In our rural communities, these veterans live in resource deserts, often driving hours for care that is not integrated to treat these connected wounds together. I've heard many times today that this is a tax increase, but that is wholly inaccurate. This is an enterprise fee capped at 0.27% cost increase to the industry. While opioid settlement funds are vital, they overwhelmingly target opioid use disorder. Per current MOUs and the regulations in the use of the SAMHSA block grant funds that Mr. Crawford of the Beer Institute spoke about, AUD is often only treated if it is co-occurring with an opioid issue. Our veterans and their loved ones deserve dedicated support for the specific wounds of alcohol use disorder, moral injury and trauma that they cannot access through federal VA in a timely manner. In conclusion, this bill allows for integrated care and mobile outreach, and I strongly urge you to vote yes. Thank you so much. Tanya Wheeler. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee. Thank you for allowing me to testify in support of House Bill 1271. My name is Tanya Wheeler. I'm the Executive Director of Advocates for Recovery Colorado I also a woman living in abstinence active and sustained recovery for over 35 years We all know that alcohol is the most commonly abused substance in Colorado the United States and the world. Yet Colorado hasn't instituted any change in fees associated with its use in over 40 years. My question to you today is why? Why would we not ask the alcohol industry to contribute to the solutions in our state by helping fund prevention, treatment, and recovery when we have been so good at historically holding the nicotine and opioid industries accountable for the damage those substances have caused. This enterprise fee will provide specific funding to all Coloradans who are impacted by alcohol use, including those who do not have an addiction themselves, but who will be impacted by its use and loss and lose those who will lose parents, siblings, other family members and friends. The cost of this fee is very small in comparison to the cost of the consequences associated with the damage caused by alcohol. We need this now, especially in a time when our legislators are forced to make extremely difficult decisions to cut funding from other sources that support prevention, treatment, and recovery, including the entire $1.6 million Recovery Community Organization grant program this year that supported people in recovery and family members in their home communities. I'm asking you for a yes vote today on House Bill 1271 to provide a consistent and sustainable solution to this consistent and sustainable problem. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much for your testimony. If you'd like to proceed, introduce yourself to the organization you represent in two minutes. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. My name is Chris Crosby. I'm representing myself. and it's fun to be on this end. I've worked with a lot of you before and I'm a little nervous. This is exciting. I don't know if anybody's pointed this out yet, but the irony of doing this on St. Patrick's Day is hilarious. We would make so much money today. Let's do it. We've all in this room lost someone important to us, a colleague, family, a friend. I want to talk to you about my brother, Devin. I lost him three years ago along with my family. to substance use disorder. He went through bouts of just about everything, heroin, meth, and the one that did him in that he could never actually kick was alcohol. There are many experts in the room, but a fact that I know, and it's not so fun, is that alcohol is one of the only substances that can actually kill you on a detox. And so resources around detoxing is super important. He was on Medicaid. We didn't have a lot of services. and long story short, when we could get him in inpatient care, it was really short because they had a long wait list of beds and I needed to get people in and it didn't end up working out for him. Here's my pitch and here's why I'm here today. A bill similar to this has lost in the past twice to my knowledge and I really hope this is the year where we look around and we go, it's time for us to be bold and it's time for us to do a hard thing. I know there are probably some details in the bill that need to be worked out, but I hope it's all in spirit of passing it this year because we're in desperate need of it. We have a TABOR environment and we have a federal government environment where everyday people aren't getting a lot of help, and this is a great opportunity to do it. So thank you for your time. Thank you so much for your testimony. Questions for this panel? Representative Ryden?

Thank you, Representative Bryden. Just so you guys know, I've sat on an opioid settlement team for 12 years now. I'm still the financial person for Southeast Colorado. There's nine counties. To put it in perspective, $1.2 million is all we get a year for nine counties. And it has to be sustainable, and it's only one year funding for them. So you start a program, you have to look at sustainability for that program because you're only going to get one year of funding for that. So when you talk about in a rural county that doesn't have many people to be able to build those services, sustainability is crucial. So when we hear that people want the opioid money and we see that, it really makes me pause because you have to have an opioid-related crisis that's going behind it. You have to have co-occurring for it to go to alcohol. So any of the alcohol programs that they start, it has to be co-occurring and it has to go relate back to an opioid problem. So if you have any other questions, and it's a board that has to approve, and they're all grant funding, so it's not sustainable whatsoever, and it's only 18 years. so I can answer any other questions because I still live that side. Representative Stewart.

Debbie Stafford and thank you Representative Stewart. I'm only going to tell you what we're experiencing at Aurora Mental Health and Recovery. What we're experiencing since the passage of HR1 and since the millions of dollars of Medicaid cuts and what is going to be happening in the next three years, we're experiencing horrific risk factors having to look at total programs and also when you look at people are going to have to starting next year have to re-qualify every six months to get any level of help, we are going to find less and less help. And right now they're telling us that 75% of those who need help find it hard to access help. So I can only tell you from our organization, we are already saying we are trying to figure out our impacts and what will survive in the next three years. And I respect that the state of Colorado is behind a very serious fiscal crisis, but it is rolling downhill quickly. And the problem is, and I respect the testimony that just came, is that withdrawal management must have a medical component to it. You can't. Withdrawing from alcohol is very different than withdrawing from opioids. And so if we don't fund that, that's why you see a greater risk factor for death. Additional questions from the committee? Seeing none, we can thank you all so much for your testimony and especially for those who talked about their lived experience and lost loved ones We appreciate you bringing that to the committee today We will bring up our next panel of opposition Tom Parrick, Megan Dollar, Mickey Hackenberger, and Scott Chase, I think all in person. And then we'll pull up a few folks remote. Dave Thibodeau, Carlin Walsh, and Lenny Eckstein. While we're bringing up folks online, we'll start with the folks in person. Thank you for being here. We'll start from my left to my right. If you could introduce yourself, the organization you represent, and you have two minutes, and you found the button. Amazing. Found the button, yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My name is Scott Chase, and I am representing the Colorado Independent Liquor Store Association, which includes the 1,500 small mom-and-pop liquor stores across the state, including the Ethiopian and Eritrean liquor stores, as well as the South Asian Liquor Store Association. here to respectfully oppose 1271 I have huge respect for both the sponsors and the intent of the bill but truly we feel from the mom and pop liquor stores across the state that this again as you've heard before this fee is truly a tax it's an excise tax it's actually like tariffs that we've all heard about. You know, manufacturers, even the manufacturers that may be exempt may absorb some of the costs, but those costs are going to be passed on to the mom and pop liquor stores across the state who are struggling beyond belief. And they will have no other choice to then pass it on to their customers. And really drive up even more problems with affordability across the state. Mom and pop stores have been crippled over the last four years by the ballot measure that passed that allowed wine to go into every grocery store and convenience stores. These are really small business owners that are trying to survive a very tough economic force. And again, this fee, which is a tax, will just be passed along to the stores and then their customers. We won't support any kind of taxes on the product, but I will tell you that if the state does desire to increase the fees, then they should do it by the ballot, plain and simple. Let the voters decide. If they decide, then that is the will of the voters. But doing an excise fee is really not the answer. And even a ballot measure can have the funding be directed accordingly. So that is the issue that we hear. We respectfully ask that the committee vote no on 1271 and really appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you so much for your testimony. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Mickey Hackenberger, and I serve as the Executive Director of the Wine and Spirit Wholesalers of Colorado. I'm here to register our opposition to House Bill 26-1271. Our opposition is based on our belief that this bill raises a fundamental constitutional concern. The Colorado Constitution is clear Any new tax must be approved by the voters Yet House Bill 1271 imposes what is labeled as a fee on wine spirits and beer while functioning in every meaningful way as like a tax. It is applied broadly across an industry. It is collected in the same manner by the same entity as the excise tax. The proceeds are directed to a state enterprise rather than tied to a direct proportional benefit to the payers. Beyond the legal consequences, this bill sets troubling policy precedent. If the state can impose industry-wide fees that look and operate like taxes without voter approval, then the protections of the Colorado Constitution are effectively bypassed. This bill also creates, as you've heard today, real economic consequences. The alcohol industry in Colorado is highly regulated. A new fee or a new per unit fee will inevitably be passed through the supply chain, increasing costs for retailers, restaurants, and ultimately consumers. At a time when businesses are already under pressure, this bill adds yet another burden. It's important to note our industry is not opposed to contributing to public priorities, but those contributions must be done transparently, constitutionally, and with voter consent when required. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to vote no on 26-12-71. Thank you so much for your testimony. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Megan Dollar, and I'm here on behalf of the Colorado Chamber of Commerce and our members of all sizes across the state. We are respectfully here in opposition to House Bill 26-12-71. Beer, wine, cider, and spirits are deeply woven into Colorado's economy and sustain thousands of local businesses across the state. These businesses are already under extraordinary pressure. Inflation, tariffs, supply chain disruptions, labor shortages, record closures, and changing consumer habits have all created a difficult environment for survival. HB 1271 would move Colorado exactly in the wrong direction. Regardless of whether it is labeled a fee, the practical effect is the same. It increased costs on businesses and consumers, and the consequences will be real and immediate. Local businesses will be left with only a few options, absorb the cost and risk closure, reduce staff, or pass those higher costs to consumers. And this is at a time when affordability remains a top concern for Colorado families. We believe that adding a fee on businesses is not the answer. The scale of this industry's contribution cannot be overstated. it amounts to 131,000 good-paying jobs and generating more than $22 billion in economic activity. Colorado's hospitality and beverage industries need stability, certainly certainty, and partnership from policymakers, not a major tax increase at one of the most difficult moments in recent memory. With the highest cost increases in generations and continued closures across the state, this bill would only deepen the challenges facing these local employers. With that, we would respectfully ask for a no vote on House Bill 1271. Thank you for your testimony. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Tom Parrick, State Government Affairs Director for the American Distilled Spirits Alliance. We're a group of industry leaders in manufacturing, importing, and marketing of alcohol products with a focus on distilled spirits. We represent hundreds of well-known spirits brands and roughly 60% of all spirit sales in the U.S., including Colorado's Stranahan's Whiskey, who we are fortunate to represent nationally. As I wrote in my more detailed comment letter our alliance opposes the additional alcohol taxes let alone a 60 increase in the current tax rate on alcohol The headwinds for alcohol are currently well known. Price-conscious drinkers, changes in drinking patterns, decreasing sales across all categories of alcohol. We feel lawmakers should be looking for every opportunity to support, not penalize, the entire hospitality sector. After all, when our sales decrease, so too do state revenues. We believe that the three new enterprises and the tens of millions of dollars in additional fees that are established in this bill are really just simply taxes by another name. These new fees will be, quote, assessed, collected, and enforced, unquote, exactly like alcohol taxes are currently enforced. That definitely seems like an additional tax to us, not a fee. If 1271 advances, we do recognize that the legislation is to direct and support addiction treatment and prevention, and that new revenues would be continuously appropriated to those important services, not lost to the general fund. Colorado lawmakers and voters should demand that all of those taxes from all legal intoxicating products are prioritized toward prevention, addiction, and mental health first, before any new fees and taxes are levied. As the state of Colorado approves more and more potentially addictive products that strain social services, $12.71 singles out only alcohol for a 60% tax increase. That will result in higher alcohol prices across the board, is regressive on households, and is sure to be viewed by your constituents as an unpopular tax. Thank you for this terrific discussion today, and we look forward to continuing that. Thank you for your testimony. We'll move online to Dave Thibodeau. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dave Thibodeau. I'm one of the co-founders of Ska Brewing down in Durango, and I'm here to testify in opposition to HB 1271. Ska is more than just a brewery. We're a community gathering spot with a full restaurant where families can come for dinner or even see a concert. We're a space that Durango's myriad nonprofits use for meetings and fundraisers, and we employ over 70 people in La Plata County. Our industry has experienced a very difficult few years, particularly since COVID. Rising ingredient and packaging costs, staffing shortages, inflation, and supply chain disruptions have made running our already tight businesses incredibly difficult. In fact, in Colorado, more than 100 breweries have closed down just in the last two years. Despite what you may have heard, we are not billionaires or millionaires. Most Colorado brewers that I'm aware of, including Ska, have not been profitable in a number of years. I started Ska over 30 years ago, and after pouring my heart and soul into it for over half of my life, I had to make the incredibly difficult decision to sell my business this past year or face shuttering its doors. As most small business owners know, you're always borrowing to try and grow, and it's nearly impossible to ever get ahead. I was fortunate to get out of debt, and our new owners have allowed me to keep working for the company I love. But tight margins and difficult days are still ahead. Adding an additional tax would be detrimental to our small business. Colorado's craft brewing industry has helped build vibrant local economies, supported agriculture and tourism, and created gathering places that strengthen communities. We want to continue playing that role, but right now many breweries are simply fighting to survive. I understand the intent behind this bill, but I respectfully ask that you consider the very real impact they could have on small Colorado manufacturers, local jobs, and community institutions like Scott. I ask that you vote no on HB 1271. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. We'll move on to Carlin Walsh. Madam Chair, members of the committee, I'm Carlin Walsh, owner of Elevation Beer Company in Pontius Springs and chair of the Colorado Brewers Guild. I am here in opposition of House Bill 1271. Colorado voters passed Proposition 117 in 2020, requiring their approval for new government enterprises above a revenue threshold of $100 million. This bill creates three enterprises simultaneously. Together, those target $60 million a year, and it's structured specifically to stay under that threshold. The voters of the state have said that they want to voice in decisions like this, but this bill is denying them the ability to have that voice. This same concept was defeated in 2024 as well in this very building. The alcohol industry already contributes tens of millions of dollars a year to state excise taxes, to the general fund, in fact, that's available to the state legislature right now today. Before you can construct an entirely new government enterprise, a new overhead, a new board, and a new collection infrastructure, the question worth answering is why aren't we using the money that we already have available? This bill was stakeholdered with our industry with one week before introduction. One week. As an industry that employs thousands of people directly and accounting for the full supply chain, the number stretches into the multiple tens of thousands. This was not transparent stakeholdering, and we deserve better, quite frankly. I've heard brewery owners referred to as millionaires and billionaires. That's insulting, to say the least. When over 100 breweries closed in Colorado last year, in the past two years, nobody in this business operates on high margins, not the small craft breweries and not the large commercial producers. At elevation, this bill will cost me around $8,000 in new fees this year, based on production this year. That money will not come from profits because there are none. It comes from wages and hiring decisions. So I'm encouraging you all to please embrace some pragmatism and practicality and vote no on this bill. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. And we'll move on to Lenny X. Thank you. As this country slides towards lower consumer confidence, some like to say to my wife and I, hey, at least booze is recession proof. Well, not for a $65 bottle of premium Colorado whiskey. It's not. I wish my distillery was part of the profitability figure that was floated out there earlier, but it isn't. Those figures belong to some of the biggest producers in the country, not to small Colorado producers to just tax targets. The times are tough right now for new small businesses. My family did not start Deerhammer 15 years ago for the paycheck, and I did not get out of bed at 4 a.m. this morning to jump on an earnings call. Quite frankly, the earnings these days are embarrassing. No, I got up before dawn to drive down the road to my distillery in Buena Vista, Colorado, and distill a batch of whiskey, which I'm doing right now. This is a passion-based endeavor, a dream to build something great, a business that our son can hopefully one day take over. We are grinding every single day to see this thing work. We are clawing for any and every dollar earned. I make whiskey from grain that I buy from real Colorado farmers. I'm making whiskey right now from rye and barley I drove down to Monta Vista a couple weeks ago to pick up All of this is my dream and I do my damnedest to manufacture a real Colorado product that my family and everyone in our state can be proud of But the ever cost to do so is strangling our ability to realize this dream I pretty much never speak on these sorts of state legislative matters, because I've been too damn busy making whiskey. But this proposed enterprise tax, or a fee, if that word sounds less detrimental to speak out loud, This fee that further cuts into our efforts to thrive as Colorado craft producers is too much. I understand the need to fund critical public health programs, particularly programs that deal with substance abuse. But with this proposal, you are leading your smallest Colorado manufacturers drive. Small business cannot shoulder this one. It's too much. Thank you for your no vote on HB 122171, whatever it is. We feel the same way. and for getting bill numbers. Thank you so much for your testimony. Questions from the committee?

Who would like to answer that?

I think, as I had said before, our opposition to this bill is not a public policy issue. And in fact, I think our industry recognizes that it's very important to participate in that process. Our opposition is based on the fact that Colorado's constitution requires a tax to go to the ballot. You have another bill which you're hearing tomorrow. We are neutral on that bill because consistently for the last two years as this bill or a version of it has come before this body, we have said this is a tax, not a fee. And I know the sponsors, I've talked to them. I admire their work. They disagree with that interpretation. but my organization is neutral on that bill that's coming before you tomorrow because it is doing it the way we have argued should have been done, and it's taking it to the ballot. Additional comments? Okay. Oh, sorry. Okay. Ms. Dollar. I was just going to say our opposition is based on probably the use of the fees specifically, so just fees on businesses. our organization typically opposes. But that's certainly a good question, I think, for our member organizations that could be impacted. I'm happy to ask that. Oh, sorry. Oh, Mr. Walsh, is this in response to Rep Frey's question? Yes, if I may, please. Go ahead. Yeah. I think from the beer side, we feel like the stakeholdering process was lackluster, to say the least. and we had two years to engage in this discussion from 2024 and that never happened. So we would certainly love to sit down at the table with appropriate amount of time and willingness to have a discussion about this Okay Representative English Thank you So for Ray's question, when she said basically what's the fix if this isn't the fix, so I guess the opposition is because you all feel like it should go to the ballot for the taxpayers to vote on it. but say it did go to the ballot for the taxpayers to vote on it and they voted in favor of it and then it would have to be done anyway would that be the fix or then would it i don't know would it have to be something else or do you feel like it would need to be something else if the voters was to vote on it because what is the solution outside of excise tax who would like to answer that mr Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for your question, Representative English. Yeah, I think we're saying that, which is the fix would be, and I will tell you from the small mom and pops, their stores, their liquor stores, and all the minority-owned stores are really struggling. I think they would still be opposed to adding a new tax that then gets passed on to them and their customers. But the right way is to go through the ballot and say, if the voters of Colorado want to increase the existing excise tax and have that funding go specifically to the treatment that we're talking about in this bill, then they should have that right and they should do that. And if the voters do that, then we have to respect it. I will tell you from the small retailers, we see any of this impacting the smaller retailers much more than this fee, this increased cost. It will be much easier absorbed by the big box stores that not only can absorb the cost on their alcohol, but also pass those increased costs on across a myriad of other products in their stores where the liquor stores can't. There's nothing that we can pass the increased costs on to. It's absorbed by the small mom and pop or by their customers. But to answer your question, we believe that if that's the voter's choice, then that is what we'll have to deal with. Representative Bradley. Oh, did you have a – okay. Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a question for Mr. Walsh or any of the other craft breweries. It's actually been about 150 breweries that have closed over the past five years, citing cost and labor shortage and other things. When we say that it's only going to be 0.05 cents per gallon on beer, cider and apple wine distributed in the state, do you believe that what do you think the projective costs increase per consumer and how that impact demand on you guys? Because my my thing is, yeah, we're going to squeeze the small businesses again. And the bigger retailers can probably absorb the cost, but what's going to happen to you guys? So the way pricing works in beer is we work in a three-tier system. You're never going to find a six-pack of beer for sale for $12.03 for $12.05 on the shelf. It just doesn't happen. Everybody takes their margin, and you've got to fit within those confines. Typically, it is the producer that does not get to preset those margins. So we typically the ones that are really getting squeezed But it has effects across the entire supply chain because of the way our three system works Does that answer your question Representative Bradley Yes and I was also just wondering what's going to happen as far as he said $8,000 in new fees for himself, wondering if the other brewers want to comment on that. Who would like to answer? looks like we don't have additional comments. Okay, we'll move on to Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. This question has already been asked twice, and I guess I might pontificate a little bit. I apologize. I'm really struggling with this because I think both sides have very compelling arguments. So my question to you all, and thank you, Mr. Thibodeau, So, I mean, well played, y'all. Get in Durango here. So, you know, and Scott has played a very important part in our economy down in the southwest corner of the state. But to Rep Foray's question, to Rep English's question, how do we address this lack of funding for alcohol use disorder if we're not doing it through direct fees for the people that are buying these products? I mean, we do it with tobacco, we do it with marijuana, we do it with vaping. So I'm really curious, like, how do we move this policy forward and address this issue? And I would love your feedback. Please, thank you. Who would like to address that question? Mr. Chase. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks, Representative Stewart. We do, and it's all through taxes. those are I mean whether it's marijuana and whether the tobacco tax everything else those are taxes what we're saying is that's the route that we should go we have an existing excise tax on these products and that if the voters so choose to increase that excise tax and direct it towards specifically alcohol addiction and substance use disorder then that should be their prerogative and their ability to do that. I understand, and I will also say, just for a matter of point, this should be a bigger priority in the state budget. I mean, you guys get to call balls and strikes every day. And when you look at the overall budget, I would say that there's, you know, if you ask anybody on this panel or other, we probably all have a list of things that we think are much lower priorities that are currently being funded than this. And it goes back to just the prioritization of the budget, but the things in regards to those other substances that you talked about, the taxes were levied on them, and that's what we're saying should be done here. Okay. Thank you. Additional questions from the committee? Okay. Seeing none, thank you all so much for your participation today. We appreciate you being here. Okay. With that, we'll bring on our, I think, last panel against. Let's start with Lee Wood, Melissa Koza, Jason Senior, who's remote, Patrick Stern, Kevin Lynn Culhane. And then anyone else in the room that is wanting to testify against the bill, if they could come forward, or anyone online? Okay, sorry about that. We'll start from my left to my right. If you could introduce yourself, the organization you represent, and you have two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, for the opportunity to address the hearing. My name is Lee Wood. I am the president of the Colorado Distillers Guild and am co-owner of Woods High Mountain Distillery in Salida, Colorado. I'm here to voice opposition to HB 1271. The bill addresses an important issue, and our members recognize that substance abuse is a problem. However, the guild opposes the bill based on the burden it places on us as small Colorado businesses and how the bill is structured. The vast majority of distillers in Colorado are small businesses with very limited resources. We're currently experiencing increases in costs for raw materials, rents, labor, insurance, and many other expenses, while consumer demand is flat or decreasing. And one thing that hasn't been addressed today is that exports of our products, of which many of the distillers in Colorado do, have completely fallen off a cliff, complements of tariff policy. The 60% increase that this bill would introduce makes it even more difficult for our members to run sustainable businesses. This hurts our farmers who we buy grains from. It reduces our ability to employ staff. Excise taxes also is something that hasn't been addressed here, are a fairly inefficient way of taxing us in the sense that for every dollar of excise tax that is charged to us as manufacturers that typically is reflected in about a $2 to $3 cost to the consumer out the door. So because of the way the three-tier system works and sort of the beverage alcohol economics, that's a very real cost to our consumers. Distilleries in Colorado also have very deep roots in our communities. We serve as important third spaces for our local customers. And for those of us who rely on tourism, this bill jeopardizes our ability to serve our state, national, and international visitors. 1271 certainly has its heart in the right place, but runs the risk of creating a whole new set of problems while creating an overly complicated structure to administer it. I respectfully ask the committee to vote no on 1271. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Please proceed. Hello, Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Melissa Koza, and I'm here representing the Teamsters Local 267. I'm here on behalf of our 400 brothers and sisters who live and work in Colorado. Teamsters Local 267 oppose House Bill 1271. Great American beers that consumers enjoy every day are proudly made and delivered by hardworking teamsters. It is our request that you value the work we do by opposing these harmful tax increases or fees, however you wish to look at them. While the tax increase may stem or may seem inconsequential to you, we know that higher taxes lead to higher prices on your constituents and the loss of good paying Teamster jobs. This is a tax increase or a fee increase that will disproportionately harm lower income Coloradoans which is especially troubling considering the strain that inflation is already put on household budgets These bills are a bad deal for consumers. Alcohol taxes end up costing consumers far more than the tax itself, as the tax is marked up through the distribution system and then a final sales tax at the point of purchase. These tax increases directly impact the number of union employees that work at breweries, not to mention other jobs in agriculture, transportation, hospitality, and other industries that rely on beer. These are good-paying jobs for Colorado that will be hard to replace. We had always believed that Colorado was one of the best states for beer. Unfortunately, this bill threatens the reputation of this state as a great place to work for a union brewery, and it threatens our jobs. We ask for you to support Colorado's unions and oppose these job-threatening fee or tax increases. Please vote no on House Bill 1271. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. We'll move online to Mr. Senior. if you could come off mute introduce yourself and you have two minutes hello my name is jason senior i'm an owner of shelter distilling in montrose colorado and we respectively oppose this bill um colorado and brewery colorado breweries and distilleries we're at a tipping point right now where any increase in costs will put a lot of small local breweries out of business. And when breweries and distilleries go out of business, that means waiters, waitresses, support staff, cooks, cleaners, a whole array of people lose their jobs. And local breweries and distilleries, we support our local communities, not only in taxes, but also donations to the local nonprofits, local sports teams, etc. And while we do support programs to help people with addictions. I mean, that's a noble cause. We don't agree with where the funding is going to come from because we can't shoulder the burden of any more costs on the businesses. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Questions from the committee? Okay. Seeing none, thank you so much for your testimony. We appreciate you being here today. Okay. We'll move on to our last panel, if we could bring up Jocelyn Reimer, Clara Shelton, Bria Kinsella, Chris Crosby, I'm sorry, oh yeah, we did already call up, I apologize. And then Kristen Hartman, Hartman. It looks like it's remote. And then I think we've gotten everyone, but if there's other folks in the room or online that would wish to testify in support, please come forward. Wonderful. We'll start from my left to my right. If you'd introduce yourself to the organization you represent, and you have two minutes. All right, thank you. Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jocelyn Reimer I the Director of Victim Services for MAD Colorado and I here in strong support of House Bill 1271 In my role I work with people during some of the most devastating moments of their lives I support parents who have lost children, spouses who have lost partners, and survivors who are learning to navigate their life with injuries that they did not choose and they will carry forever. I walk alongside them, excuse me, I walk alongside families through grief, through medical crises, and through a criminal justice process that they never expected to face. What I see every day is that DUI crashes are not abstractions. They are people, and the impact does not end at the scene. It continues for years, sometimes for the rest of the family's lives. One thing that becomes clear when you work closely with these cases is that drunk and impaired driving is deeply connected to untreated substance abuse. When people struggling with alcohol use disorder go without treatment, they are more likely to make dangerous decisions, including getting behind the wheel. And when no one intervenes, the consequences fall on innocent people. According to CDOT, there were 236 lives that were lost to suspected impaired driving in Colorado in 2025. That's a 10% increase from 2024. Alcohol was involved in 75% of the toxicology results of those cases, with an average BAC of .181, more than three times the legal limit in Colorado. House Bill 1271 addresses the problem at its root by creating dedicated, sustainable funding for prevention, treatment, and recovery services funded by fees on alcohol manufacturers and distributors, not taxes. This bill makes Colorado roads safer and its communities stronger. On behalf of MAD Colorado and the victims and families we serve, I urge you to support this bill. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for your testimony. Please proceed. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Bria Kinsella. I am the CEO of the Colorado Providers Association, representing behavioral health providers in every county of the state, and we strongly support House Bill 26-12-71. Previously, I spent a decade in southwest Colorado as the ED of a five-county prevention organization. At that time, we had the highest rates of suicide and SUD in the state. We lost countless loved ones, including my husband, because substances are easier to access than services. Our budget was less than $300,000. We did the work because the loss we carried, being paid barely a living wage. I worked as a bartender at Mancus Brewing to support myself and my daughter, who was left behind. the Durango-Mancus-Telluride shuffle is the reality of being a provider in rural communities. Currently, many rural regions are losing their only AUD services due to Medicaid changes. When this happens, the need will not disappear. It will shift to small organizations that cannot absorb the level of care. Breweries like Ska, Steamworks, Carvers, Animus, Mancus, Wild Edge, and Dolores River Brewing operate at very different scales. Even for the largest, like Ska, who you heard today, that was sold to friends of Dave, who also own the local A&L course distribution operation, this fee is under 1% of the revenue. For the smallest, like DRB, it drops to $100 a year, closer to a utility bill than a financial burden. This February, alcohol lobbyists in Colorado reported roughly $65,000 in earnings. That is more than many providers earn in an entire year And in just a couple of months it exceeds what many behavioral health leaders in the state make annually The alcohol industry generates roughly billion in Colorado while the average Coloradan earns about $65,000 a year. This bill asks that the industry contribute a fraction of 1%, while everyday Coloradans are already paying far more through Medicaid, premiums and out-of-pocket costs. Thank you so much for your testimony. Please proceed. Hi my name is Lisa Ward. I am the lobbyist for the Colorado Providers Association reading the testimony for Precious Collins. I do believe she was signed up remotely and then I also signed up so just one of me. So I will proceed with Precious's testimony. Thank you so much. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on House Bill 26-1271. My name is Priscilla Precious Collins and I'm here today as a Ute Mountain Ute tribal member and I'm also affiliated with Colorado Providers Association and I'm a doctor of public health candidate at CU Anschutz. As a child I moved in and out of foster and kinship care because of my mother's alcohol addiction. This isn't just one story it reflects a disturbing pattern I've seen across my family and community. I have lost many relatives from both my mother's and father's sides to alcohol-related harm. These weren't just individuals. We lost caregivers, knowledge holders, language speakers, and cultural teachers. When we talk about the alcohol harm in A.I.A.N. communities, we are also talking about the loss of culture, language, and identity. Each life lost is a break in generational knowledge that cannot easily be replaced. This is not just a health issue. It is a cultural survival issue. Alcohol-related harm is preventable, and the policy is one of the strongest tools we have. HB 261271 represents an opportunity to reinvest in the communities most impacted. It supports prevention and recovery efforts that can keep families together and protect future generations. I am here because I live the consequences of inaction. I ask you to support this bill so fewer children have to grow up the way I did and so our communities can heal and thrive. This bill is more than alcohol. It's about protecting families, preserving culture, and saving lives. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. We'll move on online. Clara Shelton. Hello. Can you hear me? We can. Okay, great. Thank you. Hi, Madam Chair and members of committee. My name is Clara Shelton. I am a MAD national ambassador and resident of Colorado, and I'm here to support House Bill 26-1271. And I'm here because this bill is personal for me. In 2015, my younger brother Sam was a CU Boulder student, and he was killed by a drunk driver. He was 18 years old, just beginning his adult life, making plans, looking forward to everything ahead of him. He was funny and warm and completely himself. And in one moment, all of that was gone. And our family will carry that loss for the rest of our lives. And people sometimes ask me how to move forward after something like that. And the honest answer is that you can't. You just learn to carry it. And that grief is permanent. So are the questions, which highest of those is, could this have been prevented? and what I've come to understand is that many drunk driving tragedies don't begin the moment that someone gets behind the wheel. They begin much earlier with someone who's struggling with alcohol and addiction or mental health challenges and who never got the help that they needed. This crash is not This crash is the final chapter of a story that no one interrupted, not because no one cared, but because the resources to reach that person just didn't make it there in time. House Bill 26-12-71 is about changing that. It creates dedicated, sustainable funding for prevention, treatment, and recovery services across Colorado, the kinds of services that could reach someone before a tragedy occurs. When people have access to real support, they're more likely to get help before something irreversible happens, before another family receives the call that mine got. My brother deserved a future, and so does every family who has won crash away from what my family has experienced. So please support House Bill 26-12-71. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Dr. Robinson. Thank you, Chair Gilchrist and the members of the committee for the opportunity to testify. I'd also want to thank Representative Jackson for reaching out to us and Assistant Majority Leader Bacon for your leadership as well on this. My name is Brigitte Robinson. I'm the current president of the Colorado Medical Society. I'm an actively practicing general and trauma surgeon. Colorado's physicians see the impacts of alcohol use disorder every day in emergency departments and primary care offices in conversations with patients and their families. And as a trauma surgeon, I've personally cared for patients whose lives were changed or ended by alcohol-related accidents. I've stood in an operating room in the middle of the night working to save someone injured in a drunk driving crash. That experience stays with you. By the time many of these patients reach us, the disorder is already deeply entrenched and significantly harder and much more costly to treat. We can treat the consequences, and we do, every day, but this committee has the opportunity to fund the prevention that makes those consequences less inevitable. Prevention and early intervention programs work, but across Colorado, those programs are chronically underfunded and eventually and unevenly, I'm sorry, distributed. What's needed is a funding stream to support community-based prevention, outreach, and early intervention, reaching Coloradans before they ever need to see a physician for this. The CMS has a long-standing policy supporting fees on a commercial product known to cause harm and directing that revenue towards addressing those harms. This bill is an expression of that commitment. On behalf of the Colorado Medical Society, I encourage you to support HB 1271. Thank you very much for your time and for your continued commitment to the behavioral health of all our Coloradans. Thank you so much for your testimony. We'll move to Ms. Hartman. Oh, it's not letting me access my camera. I do apologize. No problem. We can hear you very clearly. Thank you very much. My name is Kristen Hartman. I'm here representing myself today. 82% of Colorado craft beer consumers are upper income white men. So I'm having a hard time reconciling this burden that the tax would create on them. While at the same time, 88% of women incarcerated in Colorado have mental disorders. So there's a discrepancy there that I struggle with that I would think these upper income white men would want to spend a few cents to get our women the health care that they need so that we're not having to lock them up at twice the rate of men. As a childhood survivor of alcohol driven violence I strongly urge you to support this bill Children of alcohol using parents have no voice have no presence have no safe and equitable pathway for justice Mr Crawford talked about not appreciating being excluded as a stakeholder in this bill. As families who don't use alcohol drugs, we certainly understand that frustration at not being included as stakeholders, considering that the state is grooming all of our children to be alcohol drug users every time we go to the grocery store, every time we go to the gas station or restaurant, since fast food restaurants are the only place we can take our families and sit down for a meal that does not have drugs on the menu. So this idea of stakeholdering is important. And because as a survivor, I would also ask that this bill, which includes on its board users in recovery and active users, that we be reminded to include the other half of the population that is impacted by alcohol and include us as voices and stakeholders on these bills, since we cannot go to the grocery store without wading through beer gazebos to get SpongeBob popsicles with our grandkids, which always seem to be near the hard Mountain Dew while they're banning flavored vapes. And so it's really getting confusing. And I ask you to support this bill. Thank you so much for your testimony. Let's just see if there's any other folks online that are waiting to testify. Okay, great. Any questions from the committee? Representative Woo. Yeah, I have a question for Kristen's iPhone. Miss, did you say the state is grooming alcoholics and drug users or something to that effect? I don't know what you mean by the state. Ms. Hartman. Thank you. Yes. So when Big Pharma was sued for knowingly promoting addictive drugs onto citizens, alcohol is doing the same thing. And opioids were never sold in grocery stores. So we feel a lot of us families who do not use alcohol drugs do feel that we are not included in these decisions to mass market and promote the addictive drugs onto our families without our consent. We have no say. And it does feel like the state is grooming our children to be alcohol drug users, which is a tradition of exploiting vulnerable populations for profit and economic development. A longstanding tradition, obviously, in our country that we know about. and depending on, you know, encouraging alcohol use of festivals and grocery stores and restaurants, it is a form of grooming and that we can't get away from it. And we have no seem to have no voice as safe and equitable pathway for our survivor voices. And as a childhood survivor, that is a quest I've been on for a very long time. I'm trying to find out who to hold accountable, because if no one's accountable for what was done to me, then I have to carry all of that myself. And I feel that's a lot to put on children of alcohol-using parents. If families want to groom their own children to be alcohol users, I think that's their prerogative. But grooming all the rest of our children who don't have it in our homes, but we can't go anywhere without it, that's what I mean by the state grooming, by allowing and passing privileges to an alcohol industry that's had rising alcohol deaths for the past 20 years. And the fact that it has not become a priority does indicate by the votes and the amount of privileges, just this session alone, you all have 10 alcohol bills nine sex bills three gambling bills three marijuana bills bills If we could stay focused on this bill Thank you Yes Thank you So grooming our children to be alcohol drug users is exactly what all these promotion bills and privilege bills feel like We're not addressing the alcohol harms that go with it. Thank you so much for the question. It means a lot to me that you asked. Appreciate your testimony. Additional questions from the committee. Seeing none, thank you all so much for your testimony. Okay. I did a final call, so I think we can close the witness testimony for now. Sponsors, would you like to come back up? We hear you have a few amendments. Vice Chair Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-001 to House Bill 1271. Seconded by Representative Frey. Sponsors, would you like to explain the amendment? Representative Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. So L001, it adds a labor representative to the enterprise board during our stakeholder process. That was something that was requested of us, and we wanted to honor that. Any questions on this amendment? Any objections to this amendment? With that, L001 passes. Vice Chair Leader, would you like to move the second amendment? Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L002 to House Bill 1271. Second. Representative Ingram seconds. Would you like to describe the amendment? Representative Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. L002 makes sure that these enterprises are compliant within the constitutional enterprise structure. And so it caps the enterprise revenue at $100 million over five years per enterprise. And what that boils down to for this bill is there is a cap of $20 million per enterprise. And that's what L002 is about. Okay, any questions on L002, Representative McCormick? Thank you Madam Chair thank you for that explanation Rep Jackson so is the enterprise structure written to say exactly that it's a five year hundred million dollars I'm sorry I'm not that familiar with the enterprise language structure so this is just mirroring mirroring what the how that structure is written that is

Additional questions from the committee? Any objections from the committee? With that, L002 passes. I move L to House Bill 1271 Second. Seconded by Representative Frey. Okay. Representative Jackson.

Representative McCormick.

Madam Chair.

Managing the amendments. Representative Jackson.

Amal Bacon.

Additional questions on this amendment? Any objections to this amendment? Is that L003 passes. Okay. Next phase, we're going to do some amendments to amendments, so we'll go slowly through this process.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Second. Representative Frey seconds. You need to move L5. And L005 to amend L004. Second. Representative Frey seconds. M.L. Bacon, would you like to explain the amendments?

Questions on L005? Objections to L005? Okay. With that, L005 passes. Want to explain L004 as amended? Okay. Representative Jackson.

Additional questions on this amendment? Any objections to this amendment? Okay, With that, L-004 as amended passes. Okay. Vice Chair Leader.

Second. Representative for eight seconds. Representative Jackson.

Okay. Additional questions for this amendment? Any objections to this amendment? Okay. With that, L006 passes. Okay. Are there additional amendments from the sponsors?

Go ahead. Do they have it? No, not yet. Okay. Sorry. We have L8. Okay.

Second. Representative for a second. Sponsors, would you like to describe L008?

Questions on this amendment? Sorry, Representative Frey.

And so, like I said, according to the research that we did, we would love to continue to have conversations. But when we did look into the range of gallons produced by craft brewery or small distilleries, we were actually given a range of fifteen thousand to one hundred thousand gallons. And so we tried to land in the middle. if I'm going to be honest. And we can all, at the Brewers Association, we can all kind of look that up. And so I don't want to say, though, it isn't, like I said, we do need to have a sense. The other conversation we have is with the Department of Revenue, who gives us spreadsheets of how many gallons are produced per year, and they do have lists of who has these licenses. So we can cross-reference there as well to figure out size. But open to negotiation.

so I appreciate it. Additional questions from Representative Frey. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is, I'm sure this

AML Bacon. This amendment wasn well we restructured it now We had L7 before this where the amounts were much higher And so we brought the amounts down now for L8 We did not share this precisely amendment but we have said in our conversations we have been asking, and like I said at the start of this presentation, how many gallons do you produce so that we can understand the impact? So we did put that out there. I would like to address perhaps later in closing in regards to commentary on stakeholding as much as I love this building. I know that some of us have all come across feels when it comes to stakeholding, but, you know, I will say that first representative Jackson was not here in 2024, but given my experience and the lobbies, we did reach out. We have weekly meetings. We have asked these questions and now we're at a place in committee where we demonstrating our interest in support but we can only do so much if information is not given back

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, at a time when we are having to close a billion dollar budget gap, we have a choice here. Right now, BHA has a greater need than available funding right now before these budget cuts that we'll be making. And we have to make the difficult decisions about which programs and services can continue and which cannot. At the same time, we already have set a precedence in Colorado that when products carry public health impacts, there should be investment in addressing those impacts and those harms. We've already talked about the tobacco industry. We've already talked about marijuana and how both of those industries support education, public health, and community investment. So the simple question is, why should alcohol be any different when the negative impacts of alcoholism are destroying lives and destroying communities and our taxpayers are bearing that burden? They are bearing the cost of alcohol-related harm alone, whether they drink or not. And this bill creates a more balanced approach. This is not a fee on consumers. We heard that one representative from the brewing industry that this would be a $60 million revenue loss. And I am not quite sure where those calculations came from because our numbers from DOR suggest that these fees would be million annually across the entire beer industry So I not sure how a million fee equates to a million revenue loss And this bill creates dedicated industry fees to help support prevention, treatment, and recovery. And, you know, ultimately, I think the decision that you have in front of you is about your priorities. We can continue asking taxpayers to shoulder these costs alone, or we can ask a multi-billion dollar industry to be part of the solution. Members, I ask for you to vote your conscience based on what best supports the health, stability, and well-being of the communities that we all are charged to serve. I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, sponsors. Vice chair leader, would you like to move the bill?

As amended. As amended. Second. And amended. Representative Furet, seconds. Closing comments from the committee.

Representative McCormick.

Representative Hamrick.

I think you're still on mute. Well, why don't you want to we'll move to Representative Ryden and come back. Oh, no, she's off mute. We're good.

Representative Vyde.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative Frank.

Thank you, sponsors. And thank you to everyone who testified today. This is a really robust policy discussion and lots of perspectives brought forward. I am a yes today. I really appreciate what you're trying to do. Like so many people on this committee, you know, my family has been significantly impacted by alcoholism and have seen folks take that really courageous path to recovery and seen the lack of services and how much it's needed. And so I appreciate your approach to trying to solve that. I would absolutely agree with my colleague, Representative McCormick, that we should change our tax structure so we don't have to do this. But I think this is what we are faced with at the moment. And I also really appreciate how hard you worked to get it to a place where small businesses are not impacted as significantly. And I think there's probably, as you both mentioned, more work to do there and you have more time. And so I'm looking forward to that work moving forward. And that, you know, there is a balance of supporting our businesses in Colorado and making sure we have really robust public health programs. And so I feel like this bill strikes that balance and really appreciate all the work that's been done. So with that, Mr. Chidoux, please call the roll.

No.

no

no

yes

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Respectfully, no.

Yes.

Can I say maybe?

No, I'm sorry.

No.

Respectfully, no.

Yes.

I move to postpone indefinitely in the reverse

Representative Ryden seconds

with that the bill is postponed indefinitely

Oh, yeah, okay. Oh, okay, great. Thanks, Representative Ryden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, colleagues. So this is House Bill 1298. And we have a little bit of a problem that was caught. So the FBI actually needs and requires statute authority to run background checks for kids, the placements that they have in foster care and anyone who provides services to those kids in those foster care homes. But when the Office of Early Childhood was created, the authority, and this is a member, it was reorganized, the authority that they had, which was in that part of legislation, was accidentally repealed. so the solution is hopefully a simple fix that is this bill 1290H which gives that authority back it allows it will then allow for title 4E funding to easily pass back through that's one of the things we're at risk for if we're not able to give the FBI that authority back to do those background checks then we can lose sort of we're out of compliance with federal law which is that you have to have those background checks and that's we're looking at 65 to 70 million dollars that is pass through money from the feds to help provide those placements. So we certainly don't want to lose that. More importantly, though, I mean, we know that just for safety, you know, if we're not able to provide those checks, then the, you know, the safety of our kids, I think, is at risk. It also has other implications. If we can't get the statute authority fixed, those could be like, we can't actually hire new staff to provide services because we wouldn't be able to do those background checks on those individuals. So that could also hurt in terms of making sure we have continuity of care for these kids. So that is the bulk of this bill. We have someone from the department here to talk more about it. And then we'll have one amendment as well that just came of late from further looking at this to make sure we're getting it right.

Well, let's not let her go that easily. What your favorite hair product To the bill sir No you don have to answer that Thank you I will answer that Yours Nice nice I will add Representative

Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Kelty is also on this bill, and she's upstairs voting. She will join us as soon as she can. She wanted to make clear that... We wanted to make it very clear that this is very narrow when it comes to offering these background checks, that it is just for this placement option so that there's no ambiguity in how those could be used in other ways. So in the amendment is also in the actual content of the bill. You will see that it's very narrow for placement only.

I did, but I can ask someone else. No worries.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know it's weird me being up on the wall. I was just going to ask the representative, do you foresee this include or increasing barriers for relatives or any delay in placements which would push kids into state supportive foster care versus family care?

Are you asking if we're not able to fix this, then that would add delays?

Representative Bradley? I was asking if this bill would create that, but if this bill doesn't go into effect, I guess either or, now that you mention it.

I would say I will maybe let Logan speak a little bit to how that possible future implications. I don't know the answer to that, but I would say if we don't pass it, then yes, it's going to be considerable barriers to placement across the board.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-001 to House Bill 1298.

This is the technical amendment that was just mentioned, making sure it's in alignment with what is already required by the FBI. And just to be clear, too, they have been operating in good faith with us for quite a while now, even though technically there was no authorization for them to do these checks. It's just they kind of said, hey, you really need to put this in statute or we're not going to do it anymore.

Yes. Can I move my bill?

Go ahead. Well, I will guess wrap up and say I think we all agree that the safety of our kids is of the utmost importance. And with that, I'll just say I move House Bill 1298 as amended to the committee of the whole with a favorable recommendation.

I move House Bill 1298 as amended to appropriations.

Second.

Yes. Redfield.

Yes. English.

Yes. Hamrick.

Yes. McCormick.

Yes. Stewart. Yes. Wook. Yes. Leader. Yes. Madam Chair. Yes. Passes 13-0. You're on your way to the Committee on Appropriations. Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to our last bill. Representative Lukens, please tell us about House Bill 1305. Thanks for being so prompt. Take your time. Representative Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the Health and Human Services Committee. I am so excited to be here on this bill because this bill is honestly a long time coming after many conversations with critical hospital and behavioral health facilities in my district. So House Bill 1305 is in relation to licensing of behavioral health facilities. This bill provides a narrow targeted clarification so that an inpatient psychiatric facility may be considered part of a hospital campus when it functions as an integrated department of the hospital, even if it is not physically contiguous. And so when we are in as far as background of this bill, what we are talking about is the only inpatient psychiatric facility on the entire Western Slope, which happens to reside in my district. The bill aligns statute with modern hospital operations by preserving existing oversight, safety, and quality standards and avoiding unnecessary and duplicative regulation. This bill establishes a clear, consistent framework applicable statewide to support rural hospitals' ability to maintain and expand inpatient behavioral health capacity. This bill matters because Colorado's current statutory interpretation of hospital campus does not allow for remote locations. Obviously, the remote locations tend to be in rural Colorado. As a result, inpatient psychiatric facilities that are clinically, operationally, and financially integrated are excluded from hospital campus designation solely because they are in a separate building. This forces these facilities into standalone licensure models that drive unnecessary costs, increase administrative and regulatory burden, and create barriers to inpatient behavioral health access. and it does not improve quality, safety, or oversight. As a bit of background information, this is specifically in relation to a Vail Health in my district, which recently opened the Precourt Healing Center, a purpose-built inpatient behavioral health facility that is part of Vail Health. For the sake of this committee, I'll be calling Precourt Healing Center PHC. PHC operates as a department of the Vail Health Hospital, not as a separate institution. The only distinction is the physical location, and PHC is not contiguous to the main hospital building and is purpose-built to be central to the bulk of the local population, which is in Edwards, Colorado. This issue arises at a time when Colorado is experiencing a well-documented behavioral health crisis with demand for inpatient psychiatric services far outpacing available capacity. across both urban and rural areas. I have folks here to testify from Vail Health in my district, as well as HICPAF, I believe, is also signed up online. We will be asking for your yes vote on House Bill 1305 because it will help address a critical need and access problem that we are facing on the Western Slope. Thank you. Questions from the committee? Representative Burrung.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative Lukens. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. What was the exact phrasing you said, Representative Barone, at the beginning of your question? Representative Barone.

I apologize.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Barone. As far as competition and choice, there currently is not competition or choice because there's only one inpatient psychiatric facility on the entire western slope. So I think that perhaps if you were talking hypothetically in the future, if there were to be more inpatient psychiatric facilities built anywhere in Colorado, which would be amazing. This would not negatively impact that. I think it would just increase access to care for patients seeking behavioral health. And so I think that that would be great if there were more facilities that were able to be built. But this is if they had an issue with contiguous buildings on their campus being connected to a bigger hospital facility than this. I don't think that it would negatively impact competition or choice at all. In fact, I would like to see more choice on the Western Slope, but that obviously takes a significant amount of money. Representative Johnson.

Representative Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Johnson. As far as the licensing payment and costs, I would encourage you to ask our witnesses that are signed up to testify. Representative Johnson.

model of this? Representative Lucas. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that this would, I think that this bill, if they were trying to build more facilities on the Western Slope, I think that it would probably make it easier for patients to access the critical care that they need as far as the insurance that they are trying to seek, and then also the providers that they are trying to give access to for the patients that are going to those hospitals. Additional questions from the committee? Okay, seeing none, we can move on to witness testimony. Thanks, replicants. Okay, let's bring up, we have three witnesses, Nico Brown, Will Cook, and Melissa Edelman Looks like two folks on remote Anybody in person Okay great Wonderful Welcome. If you'd like to introduce yourself, state the organization you represent, and you have two minutes, and it's that tiny little button by the plug. You were close. Yeah. That is a really small button. I know. I respectfully request if Will could go first. Sure. Yeah, no problem. Let's move to online if Mr. Cook would like to start. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Thank you as well, Representative Lukens, for sponsoring this bill. My name is Will Cook. I'm President and CEO of Bell Health, and I'm here to speak in favor of HB 26-1305, which you've just heard very well from Rep. Lukens. supports a narrow but important clarification and statute that directly affects access to inpatient behavioral health care in Colorado. I was privy to some of the questions that were being asked. They were great questions. Just so you know, we would wholeheartedly support as many other people getting into the inpatient behavioral health business as they should desire because the supply and demand equation is still imbalanced. So please know that the intention of this is to actually facilitate having more options and more providers and more competition. Having said that and being mindful of my time, I came to Bell in 2019, and at the time there was a crisis, a pretty big behavioral health crisis. It was statewide but hyperacute in the mountains. And so the board and the community and I began to immediately start to address how we're going to fix the problem. And that includes integrating behavioral health in schools and primary care and specialty care, really trying to get upstream to the problem because we'd love it if no inpatient beds were needed. But like physical health needs, there are times and places where someone needs acute inpatient care. And so as we began to fill all the gaps and provide the services that were necessary to adequately address this crisis, we came to the realization we needed inpatient. As you all know, Vell is a pretty expensive place, especially in the Vell Village. And as Rep. Lukens referenced, it made more sense to build this down valley where it's lower costs and better access for other people. At the time we built it, we didn't know West Springs and Grand Junction would be closing. Unfortunately, that happened. And probably for the same reason that a lot of people aren't getting into this. It costs a lot of money. You lose a lot of money. And so finding out ways to do this as efficiently as possible without having, you know, administrative or cost burden is really important. And in closing, I just want to say HICPF in particular, Director Kim Pimsteffer and others have been very helpful with us in trying to get this resolved. Unfortunately, I think we need legislation to address the statutory issue. And thank you again for your time and consideration. Thank you so much for your testimony. Okay, if you'd like to proceed, introduce yourself and the organization you're with, and you have two minutes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My name is Nico Brown. I'm the Chief Strategy Officer at Vail Health. I've lived up in Vail, which is a rural remote community, for about 20 years. I started at Vail Health on the clinical side and then went into the administrative side. I'm here today because this bill really matters. As Will stated, this bill helps ensure the sustainability of this service because these services unfortunately lose money. And so we need to be able to deliver them as effectively as possible in order to provide the level of care and the capacity of care that the demands of our communities across Colorado need. To that end inpatient psychiatric facilities that are clinically operationally and financially integrated should be part of the campus designation even if that building is not contiguous or located in the same way. What this bill does is provides a legislative solution that's straightforward, it's narrow, and it will help people today. This is something that's done in other states, states like Virginia, Montana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. And I want to thank all of our state agencies in working collaboratively to get to this place where we can find a statutory legislative solution so that we can continue this great work. What happens if this doesn't go through? So first of all, the integrated facilities would be forced into standalone licensure. So what does that actually mean? It means that you would have to have a duplicative board. You would have to have duplicative med staff. You would have to have duplicative administrative staff, et cetera. And because there aren't enough behavioral health clinicians, that would mean that the clinicians would be serving in administrative roles. All told, this would cost about $2 million in excess. You want to just finish your sentence? Yeah, that would be great. $2 million in excess on startups and about $1 million in perpetuity going forward with no clinical benefit to the patient or the families or the state of Colorado. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Questions from the committee? Oh, I'm sorry. We do have an additional person. I can't see her name. Oh, it's from Hickbox. Yes, Ms. Edelman, could you come off mute, introduce yourself, and you have two minutes. Sorry, I didn't see you initially. We can't see you or hear you. How about now? We can hear you. Perfect. Please hear me. Okay. My name is Melissa Edelman. I'm the Behavioral Health Policy and Benefit Division Director at the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing. I am here to testify in support of HB 26-1305. The department sees this as an opportunity to expand acute behavioral health services into the rural parts of Colorado and specifically in the region that Vail is serving. We see this as an opportunity to support infrastructure that has already been built to serve Medicaid members. I'm available for any questions. Thank you so much for your testimony. Okay, now questions from the committee. Okay, Representative Biden.

I'm sorry. Mr. Cook. Madam Chair, I apologize. Is it okay to speak? Please, go right ahead. I'm sorry I didn't catch you in time. No worries. It's hard to know with certainty, but I will tell you for rural hospitals who oftentimes don't have the breadth and depth of resources that some of the larger systems do, finding any way to set up a new service line, especially one that loses money by reducing administrative overhead and costs is really going to make that decision easier or said differently If it not done it makes it that much harder So again I believe that it really situationally dependent In our situation it was building within Vell Village was way more expensive and farther away from the population density, and things are much more accessible in the middle of our valley. I can't say if that would happen in other places, but I can say with certainty that if this passes, it will make it easier from an administrative perspective to get this through and over the line. Additional questions from the committee? Okay, seeing none, thank you so much for your testimony. We appreciate you being here today. Anyone else online or in person that would like to testify today? Okay, seeing none, we will close the witness phase. Representative Lukens, do you have any amendments? Okay, wonderful. Any amendments from the committee? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Okay, Representative Lukens, would you like to wrap up? Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, members of the committee. I am so proud to bring before you House Bill 1305. I want to also just give a shameless plug for the critical services that Vail Health provides on the entire Western Slope for a bit of context. I have 22 towns in my district. I live in Steamboat, which is about an hour and 45 minute drive to Vail, which is still within my district. To drive from Vail to Dinosaur, the two opposite corners of my district, it's like a four hour drive. and people from all across the western slope are going to eagle county to vale health to seek the critical services that they need because they provide such important services um to people seeking health care on the western slope and i also want to celebrate um the pre-court healing center i was there when when it broke ground and i was there when it was uh when we were taking tours halfway through it being built and now it's built and we discovered this problem um specifically in relation to contiguous buildings, which tends to happen in remote areas. So without this bill, integrated inpatient behavioral health facilities would be forced into standalone licensure models, and they would be subject to duplicative governance, staffing, reporting, and compliance requirements, even though this building is part of FailHealth, which already has such an amazing system and network on the entire western slope. This bill is a narrow targeted clarification that supports a critical resource of this inpatient psychiatric facility. It simply aligns statute with modern hospital operations, and I ask for your yes vote on House Bill 1305. Thank you for your closing comments. Would you like to move the bill? Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 261305 with a favorable recommendation to the Committee of the Whole.

Representative Stewart?

Representative Stewart seconds. Closing comments from the committee. Representative Stewart.

Additional comments from the committee? Thank you, Representative Lukens. As you mentioned in your opening statement, how critically important it is we're addressing mental health in Colorado. and to have such a desert in this space and this one guiding light of a medical facility is incredible, and I'm so glad that they're doing the work they're doing and so glad that we can potentially help them with this legislation. So thank you so much. With that, Mr. Shadun, can you please call the roll?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

You're on your way to the Committee of the Whole. With that... Got it. Your bill passed. Yay. Okay. Also, I wanted to just remind everyone that we laid over the House Bill 1307, 1307, the Sunset Colorado Medical Board bill, till tomorrow, just so everyone knows that. And with that, the Health and Human Services Committee is adjourned. Thank you.