[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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",[32,75],{"_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":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6253272,"mediaKeyId","3182209-04bb7570c105f5b7088e00a612b68044","parentId",3182209,"title","Committee debates authorship and timeline for statewide comprehensive health plan; members seek earlier deliverables and annual check‑ins","audioSeconds",1370,"startMs",1000,"endMs",1371000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3182209-04bb7570c105f5b7088e00a612b68044&start=1&end=1371","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3182209-04bb7570c105f5b7088e00a612b68044/thumbnail_1000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6253272/Vermont/Committee-debates-authorship-and-timeline-for-statewide-comprehensive-health-plan-members-seek-earlier-deliverables-and-annual-checkins","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6253272-7c3413035eaebd39658af1da8564f49e/orig.mp4?Expires=1774993074&Signature=I1OnYn1~6vMhFs0eOrcm6AlfMoBng5FgsSGx9rDZP~S25b1p4Wwi5gLrxeG~Y~HVvvb~v58WhbMo-dLP-FsIGBMHixJVtgn~CtWXRDNSw8tkUCnqM3kqmjjOAJoTIleQb4IUJaD6nuAhJREbPdJ5b0XF1FgkH2O4zuiRA~pnluO2--ODFaHvsLLGzB4w-DVxZb7Rs667nvpg2IIAhLViBWO~W4N0SQcEWXe7xkvMUfy9BhcGK9qiV7DcyMR~hipzxFHKQkHYvVk96JTZmyFX4jlVMwyWWjpSDXrnIU~5NR~KRDrDMBzn6rQ3hzfdU1ecT8NDZt6Qw9s7zcEiY-yylQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-02T14:51:41Z","article","Committee members debated who should write sections of a proposed comprehensive statewide health care delivery plan and moved to accelerate reporting milestones, while urging annual updates and quality‑improvement check‑ins.

Committee members said the Agency of Human Services (AHS) should lead preparation of the plan, with technical contributions \"to the extent of their expertise\" from the Green Mountain Care Board and the Department of Financial Regulation (DFR). Members discussed which agency should author which sections — finance, total cost of care, hospital global budgets, administrative burdens, and access to primary and behavioral health services — and agreed to let the agencies \"figure out\" the specific division of labor while noting the bill language should reflect contributions from subject‑matter experts.

The session reviewed a multi‑year schedule for the work laid out in the bill. The draft timeline in the bill described stakeholder engagement and data collection from 2025 through 2027, preparing a plan in 2028 and presenting it by Jan. 15, 2029, with updates every three years thereafter. Several committee members called those deadlines too distant. One member said: \"My constituents don't have 2 years,\" and pressed for an earlier deliverable.

Members discussed several alternatives: moving the plan presentation to Jan. 15, 2027; producing a preliminary plan in 2026; and providing periodic status updates in 2025 and 2026. The committee agreed the plan should be iterative, use quality improvement methodology, and include annual reporting or check‑ins on implementation and quality improvement activities. At one point members proposed a two‑year update cycle, with written reports to the General Assembly on a recurring schedule (committee discussion included a proposal for December reporting in even‑numbered years beginning in 2028).

Committee members and witnesses emphasized collaboration. A Green Mountain Care Board representative said the board \"would love to be able to contribute the work that we have\" but cautioned that new, brand‑new work could create workload pressures and that when the board contributes reports or data it should be able to do so as an independent submission rather than having its materials folded into another agency's report without attribution.

During public comment a speaker identified as Brian urged that the plan consider corrections health care contracts, arguing the state's approximately \"$121,000,000 contract for corrections health care\" (described in testimony as \"that’s $30,000,000 a year\") could be redirected to community providers; he urged the committee to ensure corrections health care is included in the plan's scope. The committee did not adopt a specific change tied to that comment during the markup but members said they wanted the plan to consider gaps in care across settings.

Members also discussed governance and technical authorship. One suggestion accepted in committee language was that \"the Green Mountain Care Board and the Department of Financial Regulation will contribute sections appropriate to their expertise,\" and that AHS will prepare the plan, with technical assistance as needed. Several members asked staff to insert a requirement for interim updates and to consider a preliminary product in 2026 so the Legislature would have work to review sooner.

The committee concluded section 8.0 of the bill and moved on to markup of S.63. Members signaled they will continue to refine dates and reporting language in follow‑up sessions and asked agencies to coordinate on authorship responsibilities and on producing interim deliverables so that the Legislature receives updated information before major contracting decisions.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Healthcare - 2025-05-02 - 10:50AM","oneSentenceSummary","The House Health Care Committee debated who should author a statewide comprehensive health‑care delivery plan and pressed to move final deliverables and interim updates earlier than the bill's initial timeline.","taxTitle","Health Care, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",30956,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6253277,"Health committee adopts S.63 amendment that removes 'contested case' label for hospital budget enforcement; Rutland Regional urges keeping VAPA protections",1314,1319000,4937,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3182209-04bb7570c105f5b7088e00a612b68044&start=1319&end=4","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3182209-04bb7570c105f5b7088e00a612b68044/thumbnail_1319000.jpg","/articles/6253277/Vermont/Health-committee-adopts-S63-amendment-that-removes-contested-case-label-for-hospital-budget-enforcement-Rutland-Regional-urges-keeping-VAPA-protections","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6253277-2178254677634aa68d153af5a5c76e11/orig.mp4?Expires=1774993074&Signature=TW~a8452dzblb9NB-PLXSLvaVrAhTZU7J23vEVa3uaw1wFs7wCPh4sC1DXu8g1zoABpOZgDpd~NsHojmLfUE4NwXW0LjfiDLSiWLA~iDBCLAdJBIfJB2gQoKaEcMK0uCO-lwcHSdmy9MOmBD62SZwFbwoAbBcl4vTrAORH7Yv3CthCAoohP2yjUOGanytBJg6KrFBGMO7W2tZc5slyHzpCBFiGzyuz3QPKkcs3VoRW8oi5qT1YVaajQXtRrrfOyYqRzg0tWNLUp3Z2ZjXvlvInABaxuFJT530dqib-It5GUXFSNH291q3z1onxxBjKsjJbje8e8rFMKbT3nmBOy4sA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Health Care Committee voted to approve S.63 as amended, adopting language that says the Green Mountain Care Board's review, establishment and enforcement of hospital budgets \"shall not be construed to be a contested case\" under the Vermont Administrative Procedures Act (VAPA), and that appeals of final board actions would proceed under the board's existing appeal statute.

The amendment drew sharp testimony from hospital counsel who said removing contested‑case procedures would undermine due process and risk more litigation. Supporters of the amendment and board counsel said the change clarifies appellate pathways and reflects staffing and operational limits at the board.

Mitchell Baruti, Vice President and Chief Legal Officer at Rutland Regional Medical Center, told the committee he and his hospital had participated in the board's process but argued participation alone does not supply \"procedural due process that also results in fairness under the law.\" He said: \"When a state agency takes retrospective action that reduces a hospital's revenue and scrutinizes its past decisions and imposes corrective steps based on complex factual determinations. That is not policy, but adjudication. And adjudication under Vermont law requires contested case procedures.\" Baruti warned that without contested‑case protections hospitals would be denied \"the opportunity to present and challenge evidence\" and could face decisions made on \"untested assumptions or data that 1 party never had the chance to question.\"

Jen Carvey of the Office of Legislative Council explained the amendment's statutory mechanics, saying: \"Any person aggrieved by a final board action, order, or determination under this section may appeal as set forth in section 9381.\" Carvey summarized that the statute requires the board to adopt administrative appeal procedures and that an aggrieved party may appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court after exhausting administrative remedies.

Mark, an attorney for the Green Mountain Care Board, told the committee the amendment contains two pieces: (1) clarifying that enforcement appeals from the board go to the Supreme Court rather than to superior court and (2) the narrower and more contested question of whether contested‑case procedures apply. He and other board representatives said their concern is practical: if full contested‑case procedures (formal rules of evidence and cross‑examination) must apply to every enforcement hearing, the board may lack the staffing to carry them out while also meeting its statutory duties.

Committee members pressed both sides on consequences. Some said directing appeals to the Supreme Court streamlines the appellate path; others said eliminating contested‑case procedures would create uncertainty and could increase litigation. Baruti argued that contested‑case procedures would reduce ambiguity and litigation because they create \"a record that can be reviewed, challenged\" and decisions \"based solely on the evidence presented.\" Board counsel and members said they are open to working with hospitals and other stakeholders to clarify the statute and to develop procedures that balance fairness and administrative capacity.

After discussion the committee approved the committee amendment to S.63 (draft 1.2) and then voted to report S.63, as amended, out of committee. The roll call on the final motion recorded eight yes votes and two no votes; the committee clerk announced the vote as 8‑2‑0.

Committee leaders and witnesses agreed to continue stakeholder discussions after the markup to clarify the scope and procedure for budget enforcement and appeals, and to examine whether statutory or rule changes are necessary to preserve fairness while keeping the board able to enforce budget orders.

The committee's action will change the statutory language governing how the Green Mountain Care Board's budget reviews and enforcement actions are characterized and where appeals may be taken; the precise operational effects and any downstream litigation remain uncertain and depend on subsequent rulemaking, staffing, and possible future statutory clarifications.

","The House Health Care Committee voted to approve S.63 as amended, adopting language that the Green Mountain Care Board's hospital budget reviews \"shall not be construed to be a contested case\" under the Vermont Administrative Procedures Act and directing appeals under the board's existing appeal statute.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee debates authorship and timeline for statewide comprehensive health plan; members seek earlier deliverables and annual check‑ins

Health committee adopts S.63 amendment that removes 'contested case' label for hospital budget enforcement; Rutland Regional urges keeping VAPA protections