[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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],{"_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",6608917,"mediaKeyId","2933460-a9f2cb4f95188532f780b214e1c60c91","parentId",2933460,"title","House Committee Hears Push to Tie Parental Consent to Medicaid-to-Schools Care plans","audioSeconds",2371,"startMs",309000,"endMs",2680000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2933460-a9f2cb4f95188532f780b214e1c60c91&start=309&end=2680","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2933460-a9f2cb4f95188532f780b214e1c60c91/thumbnail_309000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6608917/New-Hampshire/House-Committee-Hears-Push-to-Tie-Parental-Consent-to-Medicaid-to-Schools-Care-plans","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608917-a788f85eafb65dad46a102b5b63db965/orig.mp4?Expires=1770854863&Signature=fusDDQ2l6sl1wjIXkGtgusAjEV5dmnpRNn62im7vpJKXvvuIchBWba03teBio1eSv~vQG6-HuvxB2PZ9B3PYHNhACJ6PqnUlpL1bvEICBgG4coJ6s6jPuFQOsN3G2gg7aPuvzS4tFU7PGqL2HkfbTSjTTyX~zV7Pf6u7HoWHLwskkOFxDJ45U4AC1MnhU0bBk6NH7b-reboDN031rmoJYH0UxGJn6TgIfMafl2Uc~Xamv3NdCTqBkzlHT4jpStZSsW-h47~iQLIU6qXJtrddOOznhyRHtNywF9s71tu0Q~x82XilXJ7BWMX95rQeDzWyZz-H6UbhNSYQJaI5n4PpBw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-04-09T16:44:16.33Z","article","Senate Bill 34, which would require parental consent whenever a student's Medicaid-to-Schools care plan is created or changed, drew hours of testimony at a House Education Policy and Administration Committee hearing.

Sen. Ruth Ward, R-8, the Senate sponsor, told the committee the bill would \"provide transparency, protect parental involvement, and ensure continuity of care\" for adolescents and young adults who receive medically related services in schools. Ward said the change responds to concerns after federal proposals in 2023 that, she said, could have removed parental consent requirements for some services.

Supporters and opponents agreed on one central change: the amendment presented to the committee replaces the bill's original trigger—changes to a billed ICD-10 service code—with a requirement to obtain consent for a new or updated care plan. Christine Stoddard, representing Bi-State Primary Care Association, and Betsy Burdes, chief operating officer at Amaskeag Health, told the committee that tying consent to diagnosis codes would be administratively unworkable and could force providers to interrupt appointments mid-visit to obtain signatures.

\"A code could change from the time you start the appointment to the end of the appointment,\" Burdes said, describing an example where a student is assessed for depression but anxiety is also raised during the visit. She said the amendment's care-plan approach aligns with current clinical practice and would prevent unnecessary pauses in services that could burden families and delay care.

David Chorney, deputy Medicaid director at the Department of Health and Human Services, described the operational reasons DHHS prefers linking consent to a care plan rather than individual ICD-10 codes. He noted there are more than 70,000 ICD-10 codes and that codes change over time; Chorney said program-integrity guidance sometimes directs providers not to bill particular codes because of how services should be delivered.

\"Basing it off the care plan is more operationally feasible,\" Chorney said. He added that state law already requires parental consent for participation in the Medicaid-to-Schools program and for annual billing, and said the bill's effect would be to make explicit in statute that changes to a care plan adding a new service require parental consent prior to performing that new service.

Representatives from the New Hampshire School Boards Association and from Amaskeag and other community health centers described Medicaid-to-Schools as a complex, heavily audited program that many districts manage with outside billing vendors. Becky Wilson of the School Boards Association said participation requires schools to document the medical necessity of services in an IEP, secure parental consent to disclose that a child receives medically necessary services, and confirm Medicaid eligibility. She described the program's paperwork and the modest per-service reimbursements that, aggregated over time, help districts offset costs.

Advocates for keeping parental involvement noted local variations in how services are provided. Committee members asked whether services provided at home (for example, when a child is homebound) could be billed under Medicaid to Schools; DHS said certain school-based services could be delivered at home and billed under the program, while unrelated provider visits outside the school setting would not be covered by Medicaid to Schools.

Committee members asked several times whether the bill meaningfully changes existing state law. Chorney and witnesses said parental consent is already required by statute and for annual billing; the bill would make explicit the need for written consent when a care plan changes to add new services.

Questions from members focused on operational impacts: who does the billing when an outside provider works in a school (the provider, the health center, or the school can bill depending on employment and contracting), how often consent would need to be re-sought, whether IEPs always include individualized health plans, and whether the amendment in the packet aligns with language in House Bill 2. Witnesses said the amendment clarifies when written consent is required and that DHHS and the Primary Care Association proposed the amendment language shortly before the hearing.

No formal vote was taken at the hearing. Committee members said they would review HB 2's language and consult with the sponsor and DHHS before next steps.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Education Policy and Administration (04/09/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 34, proposed by Sen. Ruth Ward, would require written parental consent whenever a student's Medicaid-to-Schools care plan is newly created or revised to add a service.","taxTitle","Education, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17745,"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},6608909,"Contentious Hearing on SB 96: Bill Would Require Schools to Answer Parents 'Completely and Honestly'; Critics Say It Threatens Student Privacy",1500,7360000,8860000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2933460-a9f2cb4f95188532f780b214e1c60c91&start=7360&end=8860","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2933460-a9f2cb4f95188532f780b214e1c60c91/thumbnail_7360000.jpg","/articles/6608909/New-Hampshire/Contentious-Hearing-on-SB-96-Bill-Would-Require-Schools-to-Answer-Parents-Completely-and-Honestly-Critics-Say-It-Threatens-Student-Privacy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608909-fe5360e35518982fdda532cdf22e2453/orig.mp4?Expires=1770854863&Signature=lhdDOGT7nGexIbVNE2o6wzS9xge4iKbkpkOK64krP1BLLaGGNIeKtP44TvvwKMdtNIemZ-N8boEKdsFgHVrWx6U2v19Etv2wqqsZvbi6-Y~sMswlJ4jjXaZsvtaTiE1yE26-5pe66l5tvcY6gR6h3ROOELmE7diS-YbcxyKqxKswL3FEUFGcTS-Dv2S7XGECry34pXc7dDuv0wt7VJPCG1uF2qk5iwjw5BqRzvgvJ-U1i0bdNxsTSqLfTzPBi0Gr-H8zTG64lajtsdtlj51jU0YZIsNOm43JiWw4az8qUZZTpCqyla7pGfz9wWuD8AOvfmEm8dTbrRq0A3un4B8KRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 96, labeled the \"Honesty and Transparency in Education Act\" by its sponsor Sen. Tim Lang, would require school districts to respond \"completely and honestly\" to written parental requests about their child within 10 business days, subject to a narrowly defined exception when disclosing the information would, in the credential holder's good-faith judgment, put a student at imminent risk of physical harm, abuse or neglect. The bill would make a violation a disciplinary matter under the educator code of conduct.

Lang described the bill as intended to restore parents' trust in schools by making clear that parents can get straightforward answers when they ask about their children's welfare and school performance. \"The primary trust relationship in this discussion is the trust of the parent with the school system,\" Lang said.

Opponents from a broad cross-section of witnesses said the bill would damage student privacy and deter students from seeking help from trusted adults. Sarah Terrell, a New Hampshire mother who testified in opposition, described how being outed before a child is ready would damage parent-child trust and could expose a student to abuse. David Trumbull, citing the Dover v. Manchester case, argued parents' rights in schools are \"not an unqualified right\" and said courts have rejected blanket rules that require schools to disclose every detail.

Union and district representatives made similar points. Becky Wilson (NH School Boards Association), Brian Hawkins (NEA-New Hampshire), and Deborah Howes (AFT) said the bill would place educators in an untenable position and bypass existing school governance processes. Hawkins urged the committee to leave operational and personnel matters to local districts; Howes said \"material information\" is not defined in the bill and teachers would face conflicting requirements if federal or state privacy rules apply.

Multiple testifiers, including students and youth witnesses, warned of a chilling effect: adolescents would be less likely to confide in teachers, guidance counselors or other school staff if they believed those adults were legally required to disclose sensitive information to parents. Witnesses cited public-health and safety stakes: trusted-adult relationships reduce suicide risk and help identify students who need services.

Committee members pressed for specifics and asked about carve-outs. Senator Lang and supporters said teachers already must report when a child appears at imminent risk and that the bill simply clarifies the duty to respond to parental inquiries except where disclosure would endanger the child, in which case the credential holder must make a child-protection report. Opponents countered that DCYF cannot act on speculative risks and that the statute's carve-out gives teachers a false sense of legal protection.

Testimony also covered practical questions: whether a teacher or district staff person is the proper respondent, whether forms are standardized statewide, and how the bill would interact with FERPA and other privacy laws. School Boards Association testimony said districts already manage Medicaid-to-Schools and other programs with detailed documentation and that the bill could duplicate or contradict local policies.

Supporters including Rep. Mike Moffitt (speaking as a former teacher) and co-sponsors argued the bill would relieve teachers of an ambiguous burden by clarifying that they should tell parents the truth unless disclosure would put the child at imminent risk.

No committee vote was recorded; the hearing included extensive public testimony and committee members indicated follow-up questions and requests for additional language and legal review.

","Senate Bill 96 would require school staff to answer parental requests for information about their child \"completely and honestly\" within 10 business days unless disclosure would place the child at imminent risk; supporters say it restores parental trust, critics say it endangers student privacy and trusted-adult relationships.",{"_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},6608911,"Senate Bill 100 Seeks To Reinstate Divisive-Concepts Prohibition with Intent Standard; Legal Challenge Expected",1294,3961000,5255000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2933460-a9f2cb4f95188532f780b214e1c60c91&start=3961&end=5255","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2933460-a9f2cb4f95188532f780b214e1c60c91/thumbnail_3961000.jpg","/articles/6608911/New-Hampshire/Senate-Bill-100-Seeks-To-Reinstate-Divisive-Concepts-Prohibition-with-Intent-Standard-Legal-Challenge-Expected","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608911-31b95e4ae3ff54f98e482294260d01c3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770854863&Signature=lQFpFsYWFGPJSUBw3jWrzDjhd0BXQvO2TXcPfHzbaWodcMC5GHSS7N~NS8KuPWT~2wrF8U6rm07nZVP4j7exzg5PVX4tDZcqIAKlhcc6Fjey5m0l7pohXdtefESZZEk9eRJejhX7q7Su-LMzZh5xUjB~u-eRa510J9a1yMRzl1kf~2DvvswV5tT6I0t9VrvpkQQLaYcyY7fCbqGD7PEZFFS~FjUKHAS3rfqd3pScBT61z4Q4pFRvFo8Y64qnAPuOaRyFH4G82iV5ELPxoDp-9Jm4RLu1GfTXapxNEv5NilYBepw4cfSJBWEBP37oMu-D8wGvWjiCtv0q-F9pnA6abQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 100, introduced by Sen. Tim Lang, would amend the existing prohibition on teaching \"divisive concepts\" in public education by adding a scienter requirement: that a teacher must have \"intentionally or knowingly\" taught proscribed concepts. Sen. Lang told the House Education Policy and Administration Committee the change is aimed at remedying a federal court ruling that found the prior law constitutionally vague.

\"This bill seeks to correct the constitutional vagueness that was in that law,\" Lang said, describing the amendment as a narrow fix that would require proof that an educator knowingly and intentionally taught disallowed material.

Ian Hewitt, counsel for Cornerstone (identified in testimony as a Christian advocacy organization), supported the scienter change but urged the committee to do more to address the district court's broader concerns. Hewitt said Judge Barbador's opinion focused chiefly on the law's scope—whether it could be read to prohibit teaching that remedies such as affirmative action are permissible or beneficial—and not only the mental-state language. Hewitt told the committee that changing scienter alone may not be sufficient to overcome the court's injunctive ruling.

Sen. Lang and proponents characterized the bill as restoring the preexisting policy that teaching certain statements declaring any group inherently superior or inferior, or urging discrimination, should not be taught in k-12 classrooms. Lang said the bill preserves the ability to teach history and context, and that the intent standard would shield teachers who are presenting historical facts or analysis.

Proponents said enforcement is not intended to be automatic; the bill keeps the burden on the state to show a teacher acted intentionally and knowingly. Ian Hewitt and others also told the committee that enforcement mechanisms under existing law (Human Rights Commission, Department of Education, and private lawsuit options) have not led to consistent investigations; Hewitt urged clearer agency enforcement responsibilities if the prohibition is to be effective.

Opponents who testified during the hearing raised concerns that the statute's language remains broad and could chill legitimate classroom discussion about history, current events and social systems. Several committee members asked for examples; Senator Lang and testimony cited controversial current events instruction as the motivating complaint from some parents.

Sen. Lang acknowledged a future legal challenge if the amended law were enacted and said the bill will likely face review in the appellate courts. The committee did not vote on the measure at the hearing.

","Senate Bill 100 would require proof that an educator \"intentionally or knowingly\" taught one of the statute's prohibited \"divisive concepts,\" a change proponents say addresses a federal court ruling that struck down the prior law as vague.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House Committee Hears Push to Tie Parental Consent to Medicaid-to-Schools Care plans

Contentious Hearing on SB 96: Bill Would Require Schools to Answer Parents 'Completely and Honestly'; Critics Say It Threatens Student Privacy

Senate Bill 100 Seeks To Reinstate Divisive-Concepts Prohibition with Intent Standard; Legal Challenge Expected