Supporters and opponents spar as committee hears bill to repeal state paid family and medical leave

Representative Lehi Turcotte told the House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee he introduced House Bill 517 to repeal New Hampshire’s paid family and medical leave program — the “FMLI” — arguing the program has not achieved its stated goals and places an unfair cost burden on taxpayers.

“This program has been up and running for three years,” Rep. Turcotte said. “About 10,500 state employees receive the coverage paid by taxpayers, and private employer uptake is very low. It’s time to end the taxpayer obligation.”

Turcotte presented enrollment figures and fiscal estimates to argue the program failed to attract private employers at scale and that state employees were placed on the taxpayer payroll for an unsustainable entitlement. He said participation numbers showed only a small fraction of New Hampshire workers have coverage through the voluntary program and cited implementation and advertising costs used to stand up the program.

At the same hearing, commissioners and agency officials that designed and implemented the program defended it and urged the committee not to repeal.

DJ Bettencourt, commissioner of the New Hampshire Insurance Department, told the committee insurers and regulators designed a market‑oriented model and contracted a carrier, MetLife, which bears program risk and administers coverage. “By having state employees form the foundational risk pool — roughly 9,000 state employees at launch — the carrier could derive actuarially sound rates and make coverage available voluntarily to employers and individuals,” he said. Bettencourt said MetLife retains the financial risk for claim experience and that private carriers are now offering supplemental products.

Cassie Keane, deputy commissioner at the Department of Administrative Services, and Rich Labors, deputy commissioner at New Hampshire Employment Security, described operational steps: the state offered coverage to state employees as the statutory baseline, the program included employer‑sponsored and individual pools, and open enrollment windows for individuals ran annually. Labors said 308 employers had elected to sponsor coverage and an individual purchase option is available for workers whose employers do not participate. He said many of the individual purchasers are young women buying bonding leave benefits for newborns.

Speakers from small nonprofit employers and town governments — including Laura Milliken of New Hampshire Hunger Solutions and Nancy Glynn, a selectboard member — told the committee the program is important to recruitment and retention and that the cost to small employers or municipalities to participate has been modest. “We are able to hire and retain employees because we can offer a competitive benefits package,” said Laura Milliken; she said her nonprofit pays the premium for all employees and has used the program for employees with childbirth or family‑care needs.

Witnesses opposing repeal also included MomsRising, the New Hampshire Women’s Foundation and healthcare and workforce groups, who urged the committee to consider improvements and expansion rather than repeal.

Turcotte argued the program created an ongoing taxpayer obligation because the state paid premiums for state employees; opponents said the state‑funded employee pool was a deliberate design choice to seed a voluntary market and was essential to offering affordable coverage to individuals and small employers.

The committee closed the public hearing after extensive questioning from members and testimony from agency officials and community groups. Committee members said they would study the program’s enrollment, fiscal impact and market dynamics in follow‑up work before making a policy decision.