[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-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],{"_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",6467925,"mediaKeyId","5783720-f4ffebe0ffc26ad96b0df3669d3900af","parentId",5783720,"title","Subcommittee hears detailed debate on special education funding, Medicaid billing and Claremont shortfall","audioSeconds",5180,"startMs",11640000,"endMs",16820000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5783720-f4ffebe0ffc26ad96b0df3669d3900af&start=11640&end=16820","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5783720-f4ffebe0ffc26ad96b0df3669d3900af/thumbnail_11640000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6467925/New-Hampshire/Subcommittee-hears-detailed-debate-on-special-education-funding-Medicaid-billing-and-Claremont-shortfall","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6467925-d1a6d1cbeaf3453c38135d538cec433d/orig.mp4?Expires=1772478753&Signature=IqwOvzjjM0PQdy5QMTcJ~m~IZRutCHly5XC8u~snbbDny96LANAdkQNV9IqVd~lDxfsL69JMMEsYlTSTQjrybCuiKDStgC1llzCBtyhxFw7o1kVZKnY8G6suGT6ZAIOLyr3OitN~qL4CJ183jtcRa3bFlK8wVNI6S3U0ceC8rmbGrn5jV87qjtyXH6bY4mWeN8s9GZ2oZGIvx9vlxXsqRX5fb3yMJ8aSiRczK1GR02qz0~m4rDVEPMLjjMCHGidoCH8jqEYbBFapf0cPwbAtS7PO95tlGlr64zVXKcAo6Oj7D85HpE2J1x-WwxDxGRQy6O8j7U5Ur1D8gvIi9md1xw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-09-16T18:58:56Z","article","Members of the Subcommittee on Adequacy and Funding Sources devoted substantial time to special education funding, Medicaid billing practices for school services and a near‑term fiscal crisis in the Claremont School District.

Representative Ladd (Representative, New Hampshire House) and others reviewed recent fiscal numbers during the session: the transcript records a subcommittee discussion that the state’s total special education expenditures are roughly $977,000,000 per year and that roughly 85% of special education spending is locally borne. The transcript also cites approximate federal IDEA funding near $51,000,000, differentiated‑aid funding of roughly $68,000,000, and state special education aid figures that members cited as about $34,000,000 and “now up over $50,000,000” after recent budget action. Committee members said the catastrophic aid entry point is commonly discussed as about $70,000 per student, and that the current rules and reporting limits hamper attempts to estimate the effect of lowering thresholds.

Becky Wilson, director of governmental relations for the New Hampshire School Boards Association, briefed the panel on sources of district data and on the Medicaid‑to‑schools billing program. She told the panel that most districts that participate in Medicaid to schools already calculate hourly rates for billable, medically‑necessary services and that those hourly‑rate calculations could be used to estimate costs for the services that schools provide. She said, “the services that are already calculated, the hourly rates are for medically necessary services,” and that those rates are set by the state for reimbursement now but the reimbursement method is changing to a system that reimburses 50% of actual cost.

Wilson advised caution about using simple statewide averages. She suggested removing statistical outliers and said the information available from districts and the Medicaid billing system could be assembled into a distribution of student costs so lawmakers could estimate how many students would fall into cost tiers under alternate thresholds. She also emphasized privacy and administrative burden concerns with any request for student‑level cost data.

Committee members pressed for short‑term and medium‑term responses after hearing about the operational stress in Claremont. The transcript shows the Claremont district secured an $8 million revenue anticipation note to cover near‑term cash shortfalls, and that the board considered staffing reductions, delaying new hires, and bringing some high‑cost out‑of‑district students back in‑district to lower tuition expenses. Members said those steps illustrate the practical consequences for districts when reimbursements are prorated or delayed.

As a result of the discussion the subcommittee requested that the Department of Education and the Department of Revenue Administration provide district‑level distributions of special education costs, Medicaid‑to‑schools hourly‑rate summaries, and a count of students by cost bucket so the panel can model the fiscal effects of changing the catastrophic aid threshold or altering state share percentages. The panel noted SB57 — a separately created commission on special education costs — will also produce a report, but members said the subcommittee needs near‑term data to evaluate options that could be raised before the full committee deadline.

Ending: The subcommittee asked staff to prepare specific data requests for DOE and DRA and scheduled a follow‑up meeting to review the materials; no policy changes were adopted at this session.

Quotes in this article are attributed only to speakers who participated in the meeting and are drawn from the transcript, including Becky Wilson and Representative Ladd.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Education Funding (09/16/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Lawmakers and a school‑board representative debated expanding state reimbursement for special education, the absence of district‑level cost distributions, and a cash shortfall in Claremont; the subcommittee requested detailed district cost and Medicaid rate data from the Department of Education.","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},6467930,"Education subcommittee reviews four retained school‑funding bills, makes no recommendation and schedules follow‑up",6878,212000,7090000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5783720-f4ffebe0ffc26ad96b0df3669d3900af&start=212&end=7090","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5783720-f4ffebe0ffc26ad96b0df3669d3900af/thumbnail_212000.jpg","/articles/6467930/New-Hampshire/Education-subcommittee-reviews-four-retained-schoolfunding-bills-makes-no-recommendation-and-schedules-followup","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6467930-15412b256aa9c313142510a1433aaba8/orig.mp4?Expires=1772478753&Signature=F4U3LmA27IICrB7tN6Zoot6lH21ov8AUq0NNu-qUrE15bfAIgtWke5fWUgPuUtZPjMlztin7ueObj99wlBmxlV-dM7PHsTV6BProwkpkAGp07sS82wcxJWmVzf3dEpC4mayhiD0Dxl81AMOFjRWxa35g4gV6Rqeoaj1dKtdzuotKcLp3sCYuefsokLRAVVDeKC~NDK8IdAtpO9mS2HrvNElrXN8Gr9HITMt2g84hzF~RW-Dx5UrpvFNfPvEV8A2ctBnr0Hh7R1FVckZkB7AkjaZ9-xtOMCZqbvomNVz4d0AAfJBVQF1zm~Maftxf4D-ibJ5Uo03Z--39D3V2uDfONA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Chair of the Subcommittee on Adequacy and Funding Sources called a work session to order to review four bills retained from earlier hearings: HB651, HB772, HB491 and HB734. The session focused on whether any of the four retained measures should be recommended to the full committee, and on what additional information the subcommittee needs before taking action.

The subcommittee did not take public testimony and heard summaries and discussion from lawmakers who sponsored or had worked on the measures. Representative Ames summarized HB651 as “a bill that builds on [a court] finding” about the statutory base cost of an adequate education and that the bill “puts before us the proposition that the legislature should in turn define that this amount of money, at least as a minimum, is what’s required for an adequate education.” Members discussed whether the bill’s figures should be advanced now or held for a later budgeting cycle.

Representative Ames and others described HB772 as an ambitious, complex bill that would create a results‑driven, weighted funding model based on student characteristics and outcomes. Several members described the bill as “overwhelming” in scope and said it would require substantial technical work from the Department of Education and the Department of Revenue Administration to produce the weightings and calculations. Representative Patrick said a single subsection of HB772 could “take hours of discussion and data,” and that the bill in full is not workable in the current session.

Two related bills addressed the treatment of SWEPT (the statewide property tax/“swept” excess property tax) and rebate policy. Representative Ames, sponsor of HB734, said his bill would not change the total amount collected via SWEPT but would deposit SWEPT receipts into a centralized Education Trust Fund and make the $363,000,000 figure adjustable for cost‑of‑living changes. That measure also would revise the low‑ and moderate‑income property tax rebate program and create a study panel to examine tenant relief not covered by the homeowner rebate.

Representative Ames and others said a central policy question is whether SWEPT should remain locally retained or be pooled and redistributed at the state level. Representative Ladd and others argued that pooling SWEPT is necessary for the tax to have a meaningful statewide effect; opponents and skeptics said the courts have allowed the current local retention structure and that pooling would be politically difficult.

Representative Ladd also presented HB491, a proposal to create a joint legislative study committee focused on revenue sources and reducing reliance on property taxes. Some members supported a cross‑chamber study panel with ex officio revenue officials and nonvoting technical experts; others said the legislature already has ample committee capacity and that ad hoc bills and hearings could accomplish the same work.

On next steps the subcommittee agreed not to make any recommendations at this meeting and to reconvene after staff and the Department of Education provide requested data and documents. The subcommittee scheduled a follow‑up meeting for 2025‑09‑30 at 10:00 a.m. to continue deliberations and to review additional material.

Quotes in this article come from participants who spoke during the session, including Representative Ames (sponsor/summary of HB651), Representative Ladd (subcommittee member), Representative Patrick (subcommittee member), and the chair of the subcommittee, as identified in the meeting transcript.

Ending: The subcommittee paused its work to gather analysis and modeling from executive branch experts and to allow sponsors time to propose amendments; it will meet again at 10 a.m. on Sept. 30 to consider the additional information and any proposed changes.","A legislative subcommittee met to review four education funding bills kept from earlier hearings, debated major changes to adequacy and the SWEPT tax, and agreed not to advance any of the bills today; a follow‑up meeting was set for Sept. 30 to consider department data and further amendments.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Subcommittee hears detailed debate on special education funding, Medicaid billing and Claremont shortfall

Education subcommittee reviews four retained school‑funding bills, makes no recommendation and schedules follow‑up