[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6665574,"mediaKeyId","2347865-e4cb4bfc2966b3023b45578f4892b5ed","parentId",2347865,"title","House committee hears HCR 7, a resolution affirming state support for abortion access through 24 weeks","audioSeconds",2778,"startMs",12911000,"endMs",15689000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347865-e4cb4bfc2966b3023b45578f4892b5ed&start=12911&end=15689","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347865-e4cb4bfc2966b3023b45578f4892b5ed/thumbnail_12911000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6665574/New-Hampshire/House-committee-hears-HCR-7-a-resolution-affirming-state-support-for-abortion-access-through-24-weeks","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6665574-6893331a4fd92ad0f3da4844ccb49c56/orig.mp4?Expires=1773269053&Signature=PJpH8y0p7sLw3eok3lZo2d-nsKFv~EFzv0c~PRm6dihi5giEa5RK17l-F9yqSExRRyngtQo8n-ELSGqlQt1t03StNyTAY5guHQiDXr9uVs16C9hYZjjzNlQ2FjIzPIPIiJ-LFYiNECyxLYs6GuNMM0d5Iqp8x4X13kRqrDqPVfeTtdpgkWszlUBW4lvtv3wdL~XXuY90F390X05BStsaOCsdf46BLbNAQh5~R9IsgXDoVBeYXEaHFv4auCmBMkInIZEeVQR5znWLP8o-lHpqmZOB7hgkSqpym8TWch2EQKXA7HbDCVYSfkYYtxzonHqNYjU-ZW36Vs2HI0pfX0Iqlw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-02-19T21:39:14.793Z","article","Representative Alexis Simpson, prime sponsor of HCR 7, told the committee the nonbinding resolution would \"clearly show our constituents that our House position on abortion\" supports an individual's ability to access abortion prior to 24 weeks. Simpson characterized the measure as a proactive statement of legislative intent intended to reassure providers and patients after federal changes to abortion law.

Supporters from the medical community testified the resolution would help preserve clinician recruitment and retention. Representative Mary Hecken Phillips and practicing OB‑GYNs told the committee that studies published in JAMA indicate residency applications and clinician retention decline in states with abortion restrictions; Hecken Phillips said some practicing physicians have already considered moving to states with stronger protections. The New Hampshire Medical Society and clinicians explained that concerns about legal risk and professional practice have affected recruitment to obstetrics and gynecology specialties.

Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, ACLU‑NH and other advocacy groups urged the committee to approve the resolution as a clear signal to residents that New Hampshire will not seek further restrictions than those currently in state law.

Opponents argued from a pro‑life perspective that the resolution's language endorses abortion and that the state should prioritize and protect fetal life; witnesses from abolitionist and faith‑based groups urged the committee to reject HCR 7. Testimony included differing moral and legal perspectives on when life begins and whether a nonbinding resolution is an appropriate policy statement.

Committee members questioned sponsors about the resolution's scope and effects. Sponsor Simpson said HCR 7 mirrors the state's statutory framework by referencing 24 weeks and is intended as an affirmative policy statement in a state that, unlike other New England states, lacks a statutory or constitutional explicit protection. Members asked whether the resolution would change legal standards (it would not) and whether it would affect clinical practice; witnesses said the resolution is symbolic but could affect provider morale and decisions about where to practice.

Ending: The public hearing record closed with strong, organized testimony on both sides; sponsors asked committee members to consider the resolution as a statement of legislative priorities rather than a legal change to existing statutes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs (02/19/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","HCR 7 would declare the House's policy position that an individual's ability to access abortion prior to 24 weeks should not be denied or infringed upon; sponsors and medical groups said the resolution would reassure providers and patients, while opponents called for protection of unborn life.","taxTitle","Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17754,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6665578,"House hearing on HB 117: sponsors seek flexibility so state law can track FDA changes on biosimilar interchangeability",879,7681000,8560000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347865-e4cb4bfc2966b3023b45578f4892b5ed&start=7681&end=8560","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347865-e4cb4bfc2966b3023b45578f4892b5ed/thumbnail_7681000.jpg","/articles/6665578/New-Hampshire/House-hearing-on-HB-117-sponsors-seek-flexibility-so-state-law-can-track-FDA-changes-on-biosimilar-interchangeability","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6665578-d6f92fbff0d9d176eab61ef271956bd5/orig.mp4?Expires=1773269053&Signature=IO5qnZO4tZsP-l-1N8sznuxLe38s05IR4Sks-HRn5p5~bPf6234t4LJSlMSBxFZ6aFnHbMw3fayTj5n1j5Z4AyFc2Sz1LX9jmNRItxPwVn~yp9R4Re2naDH4aJxyhycvRSidPdXU7KUppdzJy3y8b6W7Vjuq8MG2HJLvJRTxcDP7gX792XnYvmtoLU7-CyiBuEe8z0VDFP2XNTK11HyB1OKjjYoEO6-e0Z2dwmesJj4fwNpAKY8MKZMr~~59tdJGIPvMGbOP79eK9XckW7rQdT0c~18BoJ20-SoM2CrrByg3vJqPApVkZWF2YLEpzX8wBC0T9cuinxR-t43ZnD6~3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Michael Leon introduced HB 117 to the House Committee on Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs, describing the bill as narrow: it would allow state law to adapt to federal changes if the Food and Drug Administration alters regulatory pathways for designating biosimilars as interchangeable with originator biologics. Leon and other supporters said the goal is to avoid a state statute becoming outdated if the FDA adopts new scientific standards that obviate the historical need for in‑patient switching studies.

Sponsor testimony stressed the potential for cost savings and improved access. Leon described how biosimilars can reduce out‑of‑pocket costs for patients and said the bill is intended to permit pharmacists to substitute therapeutically equivalent products as soon as federal guidance allows. He urged caution about misinformation and \"nocebo\" effects, noting federal agencies (FDA and FTC) are working to prevent anti‑competitive or misleading statements that create unwarranted fear of biosimilars.

Healthcare and industry witnesses had mixed reactions. The New Hampshire Insurance Department told the committee it supports HB 117, emphasizing competition and lower drug prices when biosimilars enter the market. The New Hampshire Medical Society and practicing OB‑GYNs present said protecting patient access to affordable biologic therapies is critical to preserving the clinical workforce and residency enrollment.

Manufacturers represented by Amgen opposed the bill. Amgen state affairs representative Christopher Kent said the interchangeable designation is an important safeguard and argued that pharmacists substituting one interchangeable for another without prescriber involvement could raise dosing or safety issues in some contexts. He also noted the national pharmacy‑substitution statute enacted in 2018 (pharmacy substitution for interchangeable biosimilars) is already in place in state law and functioning, and that New Hampshire would be an outlier if it further loosened interchangeability criteria before federal action.

Physician testimony emphasized both the science and the clinical benefit: Dr. Michael Leon (pharmacologist/trainer) explained the biologics approval pathway and testified that clinical testing and analytical comparability are the bases for biosimilar approval and that, where approved, biosimilars are not distinguishable clinically from reference products.

Ending: Committee members asked technical questions about FDA timelines, how pharmacist authority would function, and how patients could decline substitution. Sponsors said the bill would not act ahead of FDA guidance but would allow the state to implement federal changes promptly to enable competition and lower costs.","HB 117 would allow New Hampshire to follow future FDA changes regarding interchangeability of biologics and biosimilars so pharmacists can implement federal guidance promptly; insurers and manufacturers testified with differing views on patient safety and market effects.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6665585,"Committee hears HB 731 to clarify licensure exemptions for supportive housing for people with developmental disabilities",1789,4224000,6013000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347865-e4cb4bfc2966b3023b45578f4892b5ed&start=4224&end=6013","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347865-e4cb4bfc2966b3023b45578f4892b5ed/thumbnail_4224000.jpg","/articles/6665585/New-Hampshire/Committee-hears-HB-731-to-clarify-licensure-exemptions-for-supportive-housing-for-people-with-developmental-disabilities","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6665585-14cd50d09a533ed28453f790e1a241cb/orig.mp4?Expires=1773269053&Signature=aiNmmN-R95yTn2gWYdMG4PGhKc6C1F~v8haSJ4h8ZmkVs58C0zuPNOfoFaik0J6klxJBhAtvKtE0cF9sFxrFI225o42XPpFydzNlpvoKmdLWwsyxMqpB1bBe~52fJjjcXPdQvAJ8JGsGSQXx478CUoUQRXz603OHLQadEvp~LGUluBtr~TAnUGePyl00H8X4PCP7XQ2hmz-xasSH~rT-NFTt5ZmTyeh9oalXA43bY7B17T05-H5eg2kwr-z9r2nak8QAXOX6mWrGjcVUkKFZpl6Opa1zHb9p36dDbtKeeHIbC65Uh5P0VrJ8E-j0i4KkjHB2PAyGwacxpmhkhOu3oQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Kathy Staub, co-sponsor, and other witnesses told the House Committee on Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs that HB 731 is intended to remove a regulatory barrier that impedes mixed-use affordable housing projects from reserving units for adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD).

Stakeholders described two common models: (1) a small group-home or home-care providership where an entity hires staff and provides 24/7 supports, and (2) a mixed apartment building in which a nonprofit holds units for residents with IDD while services are delivered by external agencies. Staub and other witnesses said the current statutory interpretation can force an entire building to be licensed as a health facility if even a handful of residents are receiving services, creating construction and compliance costs — for example elevator requirements and extensive documentation — that make projects financially infeasible.

Laurie McIntosh (Our Place NH) and other developers who want to build supportive housing projects described a model with 25% of units set aside for people with IDD, shared common areas, and onsite offices for service providers; they said the amendment before the committee would make certification of individual units possible rather than full licensure of the building in some cases. McIntosh urged the change to reduce developer costs and permit projects that combine independent living with on-site supports.

Doreen Shockley of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) testified that the department worked with stakeholders and helped draft the amendment. Shockley said the statute as originally written would not have achieved the sponsor's goal and that DHHS recommended changes to avoid unintended regulatory consequences. The department is willing to engage in further discussion, including state fire-marshal and local authorities, to refine language. Shockley acknowledged the issue has been under review since late 2022 and said certification is already used for some smaller household models where DHHS verifies basic safety (smoke detectors, drills) but that more complex, all-in-one service models may still require licensure.

Testimony included advocates highlighting the urgency as many families seek long-term housing options while parents age, and as some proposed projects must navigate financing and licensure uncertainty. Representative Kofalt requested a clear matrix of scenarios (which models would be exempted versus which would still require licensure); sponsors and DHHS agreed to provide additional clarifying language and follow-up materials before executive session.

Ending: Committee members asked for more precise draft language and cost estimates. DHHS said it can pursue rulemaking if statute requires licensure but stakeholders said legislative clarification is the preferred first step. The public hearing record closed with plans to refine the amendment for committee action.","Sponsors and advocates said HB 731 would let developers certify individual apartments rather than license entire buildings when units are set aside for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities; DHHS urged careful language and said rulemaking may be needed.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6665589,"House hearing on HB 70 spotlights physician opposition to current electronic health records",2253,467000,2720000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347865-e4cb4bfc2966b3023b45578f4892b5ed&start=467&end=2720","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347865-e4cb4bfc2966b3023b45578f4892b5ed/thumbnail_467000.jpg","/articles/6665589/New-Hampshire/House-hearing-on-HB-70-spotlights-physician-opposition-to-current-electronic-health-records","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6665589-562c51e705fc6d5651272a8d63e4cde2/orig.mp4?Expires=1773269053&Signature=TdQ4TXFSL1qjCEIwOfm7-VRvtikg-6U22v3~61m-2RcGAMqA4xYCngkdn-47BvDPW5b9DeKeJicU2K6CM6Ssw6VzVBwKHw81GuAJHED9MMw7PLtoRXI8P5VgzSDyL3dWJI5F-Xy2rR5HPoqvIEbxTUZIOtDd3ii5Op6xUzaSXTwydbN~A4hUcNTprVA47FVpBOruH7lnzWIFjTnN~eEH-bZVlu-~nBNqdmkIgbTtoH-6MrNVQRGhHE5Klvtapow4bNebInYYxbFgR8wwEoG5u4GOOATlgJxxRJU603z1XpxsBxLHsYOPzwmixw9J4j0CsQTNmDBWlKI3L19KkqSQtQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative David Nagel, prime sponsor of HB 70, told the House Committee on Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs that the bill aims to curb harmful effects of current electronic medical records on the doctor–patient relationship and private practice. \"I would take the electronic medical record. I would throw it to the bottom of the ocean,\" Nagel said, arguing EMRs \"fail\" the sanctity of the relationship between clinician and patient and drive physician burnout.

Nagel said the bill seeks to protect small and private providers — including acupuncturists, chiropractors and massage therapists — from the financial and administrative burdens of EMR systems. He told the committee that enforcement by federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid has effectively coerced clinicians into EMR adoption by tying payments to compliance. \"If Medicare\" — Nagel said — \"they will withhold 15% if you don't comply,\" a reference to past incentive and penalty programs he cited in testimony.

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield senior director Sabrina Dunlap testified in opposition. She told the committee the bill \"is a solution in search of a problem\" and that, while insurers do not force providers to use EMRs, restricting how carriers may access data through EMR systems would hinder claims processing and prior authorization. Dunlap said the bill's section limiting permissible EMR data \"is at odds with reality\" and that the amendment adding prior-authorization data to the allowed dataset improved but did not fully resolve her concerns.

Physician and human-factors researcher Dr. Ruth Colligan supported HB 70 and described evidence she has collected on the burden of EMRs in practice. \"For every hour of direct patient contact, a provider spent two hours on the computer,\" she told the committee, citing diary and time-motion studies. Colligan also gave cost estimates for simple EMR implementations: purchase costs of about $150,000–$170,000; implementation costs near $85,000; and ongoing maintenance of $4,000–$8,000 per provider per year — figures she said place a disproportionate burden on small independent practices.

Representatives on the committee questioned sponsors and witnesses about possible sunset provisions and unintended consequences. Representative Polozov asked whether the law should be temporary to allow federal policy or better IT systems to evolve; Nagel said he was open to limited or time-limited approaches but said the bill is a first step. Representative Lamontagne and others pressed how the bill would work where hospital systems use their own EMRs and how outside providers could access records. Nagel and supporters emphasized phone and personal communication historically served that role and that the bill's aim is to reduce compulsory, expensive EMR compliance for small providers.

Harvard Pilgrim senior policy adviser Peter Braggen and other insurer witnesses argued the bill would be practically unworkable because large swaths of the health care market (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, ERISA/self-insured employers) are federally regulated and unaffected by a state rule. Braggen said roughly 30% of New Hampshire's market is state-regulated carriers and that federal programs remain the dominant driver of EMR adoption and interoperability standards.

The hearing record includes both technical critiques of how EMRs are used for billing and public-health data collection and pleas from small-practice advocates that the state avoid imposing additional costs that could push clinicians out of independent practice. Committee members asked for follow-up fiscal and implementation details; no formal committee vote on HB 70 occurred at the hearing.

Ending: The public hearing on HB 70 closed after substantial testimony for and against the measure; proponents framed it as protection for private practice and patient communication, while insurers warned it could disrupt existing claims and prior-authorizations processes. The sponsor said he would be available for follow-up questions and that recent amendments were intended to address insurer concerns about prior-authorization data needs.","Lawmakers heard competing views on HB 70, which would limit insurer use of electronic medical records (EMRs) for commercial prior authorization and protect small providers from mandatory EMR requirements; sponsors said the bill protects private practice while insurers warned it would impede claims processing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House committee hears HCR 7, a resolution affirming state support for abortion access through 24 weeks

House hearing on HB 117: sponsors seek flexibility so state law can track FDA changes on biosimilar interchangeability

Committee hears HB 731 to clarify licensure exemptions for supportive housing for people with developmental disabilities

House hearing on HB 70 spotlights physician opposition to current electronic health records