Maine PFAS advisory committee divided on whether PFAS Fund should cover LD 582 fiscal note

Members of Maine’s PFAS Advisory Committee on Dec. 15 split over whether the PFAS Fund should be used to pay the fiscal note for LD 582, legislation that would require health insurers to cover PFAS blood‑serum testing.

Representative Dan Ancoli, co‑chair of the advisory committee, framed the fiscal concern: "This fund does not have a sustainable funding source. It had it has what it has, and, we have to factor that in when we talk about mandating coverage," he said, arguing that the Fund was created for agricultural impacts and might run out if used for an ongoing statewide mandate.

Director Beth Valentine reviewed the bill’s scope and legal context and said the statute establishing the PFAS Fund ties Fund uses to people exposed through land application of biosolids. She noted the bill references clinical guidance by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) for medical necessity determinations and asked the committee how comfortable it would be with broadening the Fund’s purposes to cover testing for the general population.

Why it matters: Valentine and staff flagged the bill’s fiscal note, which the committee was told is $90,000 in fiscal year 2027 but grows to about $206,000 in later years. Staff cautioned the fiscal estimate might be slightly inflated because lab costs have declined since the note was prepared, and they flagged a separate potential cost called "defrayal" (an ACA‑related employer/state cost) that could increase state expenses if new coverage is adopted.

Members representing farming interests — including Adrienne Lee and Jenny Tilton Flood — and public‑health representatives urged caution about expanding the Fund’s mandate, saying the Fund’s original purpose was to support farmers and adjacent residents impacted by land application of biosolids. Commissioner Amanda Beal said the department should carry out the Fund’s initial charge and that any statutory change would receive robust legislative debate.

Others, including Senator Rick Bennett, said creative financing should be considered and suggested at least some interest earnings be retained for PFAS work. Valentine reported the Fund earned about $2,800,000 in interest in FY25 and $7,100,000 total in interest since inception, but added that the interest currently flows to the state's general fund and redirecting it would be complicated.

The committee did not take a formal, binding vote. Chair Ancoli proposed and staff administered a nonbinding round‑robin to collect members’ views; staff were asked to return with legal analysis of statutory authority, reconciled financial figures, and comparables on how other state funds use interest earnings before the committee offers any formal advice to lawmakers.

What’s next: Staff will post further rule revision drafts and the waiver procedure for blood testing, and will prepare follow‑up materials on statutory authority and the Fund’s finances for a future meeting to inform any advisory recommendation on LD 582.