New Hampshire panel formed under SB 57 to study special-education costs; Ladd named chair

The commission created by Senate Bill 57 to study the cost of special education in New Hampshire held its organizational meeting, elected leadership and laid out initial information requests and topics for study.

Representative Rick Ladd, who opened the meeting and said he was the first-named representative on the bill, was nominated and elected chair by voice vote. "I'd like to start this statutory study, commission, which is looking at the cost of special education by referencing the bill. It's SB 57," Ladd said at the start of the meeting. Representative Ames was elected vice chair and Representative Megan Murray was elected clerk, also by voice votes with no recorded opposition.

The commission’s charge under SB 57, as read into the record by Ladd, includes examining referral rates by IDEA categories; increases in referrals since COVID-related school closures; interventions that could be implemented before an IEP referral; costs for services that are not Medicaid-medical in nature but are required by an IEP or Section 504 plan; district reporting of special-education costs; out-of-district placement costs and alternatives; dispute-resolution processes; use of state funds and Medicaid funding to schools; and graduation and post‑secondary outcomes for students with disabilities. "We have about 1 year to get all that done. 1 year. We'll get it done. I guarantee you, we'll get that done," Ladd said.

Why it matters: Commissioners emphasized the potential budgetary burden on local districts and taxpayers. Ladd and others highlighted that New Hampshire spends roughly $977,000,000 annually on special-education services and noted the mix of funding sources: differentiated aid embedded in the adequacy formula (about $68,000,000), a special-education aid (catastrophic) fund ($34,000,000 in the prior year, with proration noted), and federal IDEA funding (cited in discussion around $51,000,000). Commissioners repeatedly asked how those state and federal amounts interact with local spending and whether existing aid is targeted effectively.

What the commission requested and will examine: Members asked the Department of Education for longitudinal and district-level data, including: special-education aid claims and reimbursements submitted through the state's system (NESIS), breakdowns of who receives Medicaid-to-Schools reimbursements and how much is left unclaimed, counts of students by IDEA category over time, out-of-district tuition and contract rates, and the effects of rate-setting changes implemented in 2018 that commission members said increased out-of-district rates by about 5% annually thereafter. Rebecca Fredette, identified in the meeting as the state director of special education, explained that special-education aid applications and documentation flow through the state's NESIS system and that the department can provide data that districts submit for reimbursement but that some statewide cross-system summaries (for example, linking Medicaid claims to special-education aid) do not currently exist.

Medicaid and billing issues flagged for follow-up: Commissioners asked the Department of Health and Human Services to explain a grant (mentioned during the meeting) intended to help districts apply for Medicaid-to-Schools funding and to clarify how much Medicaid funding the state collects and how much may be going unclaimed. Participants cited changes to Medicaid billing rules about seven years ago that made reimbursement more administratively burdensome and, in some cases, not cost-effective for districts to pursue. The commission asked HHS to send a representative (Henry Lippmann was named as a likely contact) to explain current practices and whether a centralized assistance model—similar to what Colorado has used—might boost recovery of Medicaid funds.

Other issues identified for study: Commissioners asked the department to break down costs between public schools, charter schools and private/residential placements; to examine rates and contract practices for private providers and contracted therapy services (including telehealth providers from out of state); to provide data on due-process hearings and hearing-officer placements; and to supply the rules/manual districts must follow to secure high‑cost reimbursement. The commission discussed examples mentioned in the meeting — including out-of-state placements and private providers such as Spalding — and noted uncertainty about how billing, IEP documentation and Medicaid eligibility intersect in practice.

Next steps and schedule: The commission set a follow-up meeting for 01:00 on October 15 and asked staff to arrange presentations from HHS (Medicaid-to-schools), a consultant with prior experience helping districts with Medicaid billing (Dan Courter was suggested), and Department of Education finance staff. Commissioners also discussed pursuing district-level and longitudinal data for the last decade and identifying gaps in current reporting systems. The statutory timeline in SB 57 includes an initial report requirement and a later deadline for completion; commissioners flagged November 1 as an early preparatory milestone and July 1, 2026, as a later statutory timing point for work under the bill.

Quotes from participants are drawn directly from the meeting transcript. The commission identified multiple follow-up presentations and data requests to inform a final recommendation on whether and how the state should change aid structure, rate-setting, or administrative supports to districts.