[{"_1":2,"_86":-5,"_87":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_25":26},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5},"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","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_27":28,"_29":30},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[31,74],{"_32":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":55,"_73":55},"mediaId",6235334,"mediaKeyId","3405141-3e608f5832d4f8f4299709b344d20c47","parentId",3405141,"title","Representative Van Donahue wins committee approval to add disparity and reporting language to S.126","audioSeconds",989,"startMs",506700,"endMs",1496135,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3405141-3e608f5832d4f8f4299709b344d20c47&start=506&end=1496","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3405141-3e608f5832d4f8f4299709b344d20c47/thumbnail_506700.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6235334/Vermont/Representative-Van-Donahue-wins-committee-approval-to-add-disparity-and-reporting-language-to-S126","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6235334-9a79a5840517ed48bb35418e45c2e1fd/orig.mp4?Expires=1769677531&Signature=Lmsrsn123DDTe8c8zNbvybUxkS30AhffAKFcmI5bGg0Ixr8KP0Pm3ZzbHN4dkaI10b9oWp~aQ07fqWviPyoPKUseVCqAG2mbVLRZ5N8s8DybRhbAAXmWSdaYOXrGcPGV2uKxVzCUNDRqGK2xWd120bORG0md31alhiqqVl0PV0j2-meHiHaUekDWn4oWIJtivbRoXGjpqKlj4g6LLrEu-itj~vAvQbVGPHLrseHUguIJFQjB8GmC3PE1JopmyWh2blSJcfu0duuIXl-nKDa4n3jx2YRPxp-6pGCRhj-TJ5n8dLlgL2yLvV5SnoL2~sD8GOfT1zgbEIWqV6BQYF8sDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-20T13:29:06Z","article","Representative Van Donahue told a legislative committee on May 20 that her amendments to S.126 aim to emphasize disparities in access and to add limited reporting for non‑hospital facilities to inform a statewide health delivery strategic plan.

\"This amendment is really just about maybe clarifying the intent ... to highlight this priority issue in reducing disparities in access resulting from demographic factors or health status,\" Representative Van Donahue said, describing the first amendment as adding and relocating language to make reducing disparities an explicit goal of the bill’s statewide strategic plan.

She told the committee the amendment moves disparity language into the portion of the plan that defines a shared vision and goals instead of leaving it in an identification list, and that the change aligns with recommendations from the integration council. Van Donahue also urged attention to parity in reimbursement for mental health and substance use services, saying the lack of parity has contributed to service closures: \"Central Vermont Medical Center, the reason the psychiatric inpatient unit closed was because it was losing money because inpatient psychiatry ... was funded at less than the cost of care.\" She cited the example of a state subsidy required to open an adolescent unit at Southwestern Medical Center.

Van Donahue’s second amendment would add a provision directing the Agency of Human Services, in developing the integrated statewide health delivery strategic plan, to determine \"appropriate reporting requirements for health care facilities that plan to offer a new health care service, terminate a health care service, or establish a new health care facility to provide advance notice to relevant state entities.\" She characterized that requirement as an inventory or notice mechanism for the strategic plan, not a new certificate of need or new authority to block providers.

Committee members voiced mixed reactions. Mari said she supported the intent but worried about the broadness of the reporting requirement and the potential for AHS to create burdensome mandates without additional legislative oversight: \"We don't know that AHS won't create any burdensome reporting requirements.\" The committee chair and other members described the proposed language as a way for the strategic plan to gain awareness of service openings and closures and as a tool for resource allocation and gap identification rather than direct regulation.

Representative Van Donahue offered concrete examples of the types of notice she expects: summaries such as a nursing home increasing bed counts or a substance use treatment facility planning to close or build new space, describing these as \"summarizing the service or the project\" so AHS can include them in the strategic plan.

The committee voted on Van Donahue’s first amendment; the chair recorded 11 members in favor. The committee then voted on the second amendment; the transcript records members expressing both support and concern about scope, and the chair announced the amendment was approved. Members asked that any reporting proposals from AHS be developed collaboratively with providers to avoid unnecessary burdens.

Why it matters: The amendments place disparities in access and parity for behavioral health reimbursement explicitly in the statewide strategic plan and direct AHS to design notice/reporting that could make openings and closures of smaller non‑hospital services visible to planners. That visibility could shape strategic decisions about resource allocation and highlight where access gaps exist.

What’s next: AHS is expected to incorporate the language into the strategic plan work and to develop recommended reporting practices; committee members requested follow‑up and cautioned that any substantial new reporting requirements would likely require additional legislative action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Healthcare - 2025-05-20 - 9:30 AM","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Van Donahue told a legislative committee on May 20 that her amendments to S.126 aim to emphasize disparities in access and to add limited reporting for non‑hospital facilities to inform a statewide health delivery strategic plan.","taxTitle","Health Care, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",30956,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_32":75,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":76,"_40":77,"_42":78,"_44":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":55,"_73":55},6235340,"Committee reviews appropriations amendment for S.126, details $5.4 million cost",93,799,94710,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3405141-3e608f5832d4f8f4299709b344d20c47&start=0&end=94","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3405141-3e608f5832d4f8f4299709b344d20c47/thumbnail_799.jpg","/articles/6235340/Vermont/Committee-reviews-appropriations-amendment-for-S126-details-54-million-cost","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6235340-3df6b107ba2dbf1c5927d3478f9beb1d/orig.mp4?Expires=1769677531&Signature=oDpxcTm7Gb8f8DvJJojV-qGFZ7eD~sfqOMy8yE3wUC~PTCInsxrkxYka8G9ytUbqUXHMu7VKHp3rHXiHIuM2GKVV9Vq3mVWtS9OZpU8ywud4XMtyo~Pw3lhF593Vg~yyZAlItNC5h9Q4-5ctlbwSY5Kd0p33fzMFilybwr3T6NC-HHMAnfbXggRCwZePD1kXv7jZPt28~K269CjJWIehA5rcYuYXFPVG4HC1Mr0SdvDOdfvIHfiYC-gkvZ5v1YPx3PEs5DijfID6I93j0vL5asyj753IW7Esl2mxGZ3cRgqTjbdUwziNLz1qavpwlBRzmZ02ylg6Gc9FpfljaZcyiQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A legislative committee considering S.126 on May 20 discussed a House appropriations amendment that would restore specific funding language to the bill and allocate a total of $5,400,000 to implement provisions of the proposal.

Nolan, a staff member who walked the committee through the fiscal changes, said the amendment “is adding the appropriation back to the bill” after budget conferees had placed the money in the budget rather than the bill. He told the committee the total cost for the bill is $5,400,000.

The amendment would allocate funds across multiple sources: $2,900,000 in general fund; approximately $2,150,000 from the health information technology (HIT) fund; and $307,500 as bill‑back revenue, according to Nolan. He said the Agency of Human Services (AHS) would receive roughly $4.2 million in total — about $2.2 million in general fund and $2.0 million from the HIT fund — and that the Green Mountain Care Board (GMCB) would receive approximately $1.2 million across general fund, bill back and HIT fund for contracts and positions.

Nolan explained the GMCB portion includes $512,000 to fund three positions, with $205,000 paid from general fund and $307,500 treated as bill back. He described bill back mechanics: “40% of bill back is general fund paid by state. The other 60% is the mechanism that the Green Mountain Care Board has to bill back the industries for which they regulate.”

Committee members asked clarifying questions about the three positions requested for GMCB and whether the agency had capacity for the work. Nolan said the GMCB “doesn't have capacity right now to do this work” and that the positions would perform the work prescribed by the bill; he noted the House originally had five positions and the number was reduced to three.

Members noted the appropriation in the budget bill was based on the Senate position and that the budget set aside an estimated $3.5 million in general fund to cover costs; Nolan warned that AHS had initially estimated $5 million to complete the work and “we'll be coming back again next year for more money to continue this work” if the lower amount is adopted.

The committee took a straw poll on adopting the House appropriations amendment. The chair asked members to raise their hands; several members raised hands in favor during the informal count. No formal roll‑call vote was recorded in the transcript.

Why it matters: Restoring specific appropriations into the bill makes the spending for S.126 visible to legislators and stakeholders, and the split among general fund, HIT fund and bill back affects state budgeting and regulated industries. Committee members pressed for clarity on staffing, long‑term funding and how costs relate to prior budget assumptions.

The committee moved next to policy amendments to the bill; questions about exact legislative action and any final formal vote on the appropriations amendment were not fully recorded in the provided transcript.","A legislative committee discussed adding appropriations back into S.126, detailing a $5.4 million total cost and allocations to the Agency of Human Services, the Green Mountain Care Board and health information technology programs; members signaled support in a straw poll and asked for clarity on positions and future funding needs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Representative Van Donahue wins committee approval to add disparity and reporting language to S.126

Committee reviews appropriations amendment for S.126, details $5.4 million cost