Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Care Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews appropriations amendment for S.126, details $5.4 million cost
Summary
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.
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.
