Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
After hours of testimony, committee votes it 'inexpedient to legislate' on bill to dissolve Office of Health Access
Loading...
Summary
Representative Mike Belcher proposed HB392 to dissolve the Office of Health Access and an environmental justice program; dozens of witnesses—including DHHS officials, refugee‑resettlement groups, disability advocates and providers—urged opposition. The committee voted to report the bill Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL).
Representative Mike Belcher opened debate on the amended House Bill 392 by arguing the Office of Health Access (previously Office of Health Equity) and the state's environmental justice program should be dissolved. Belcher described concerns about the office's ideological underpinnings and said the amended bill preserves federally required carve‑outs such as language access and disability accommodations.
DHHS witnesses strongly opposed the bill. Anne Landry, associate commissioner at the Department of Health and Human Services, told the committee the Office of Health Access is "our centralized coordinating body that helps us achieve health access and independence," citing day‑to‑day coordination of communication access, refugee resettlement oversight and cross‑departmental problem solving.
More than two dozen public witnesses — including disability advocates, nonprofit resettlement agencies, mental‑health providers, deaf services representatives and municipal and medical groups — urged the committee to oppose HB392. Testimony described concrete program work: ensuring American Sign Language and tactile interpreting for deaf residents; administering federally contracted refugee resettlement funds; providing triage and coordination that can reduce emergency‑room use; and offering technical assistance to smaller providers to meet federal compliance requirements.
Claims about fiscal risk were raised during testimony. Several witnesses cautioned that dispersing or contracting out OHA functions could jeopardize federal grants and increase administrative costs; one witness referenced Department of Environmental Services’ estimates that removing coordinated civil‑rights compliance could put tens of millions of federal dollars at risk. Those figures were presented as cautionary testimony rather than as a committee finding.
After extended testimony and a period for questions, the committee chair moved to report HB392 Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL). Senators seconded the motion and the committee recorded the voice vote in the affirmative, effectively ending the bill's advance from EDNA.
Why it matters: witnesses said dissolving the office risks weakening federally required compliance (language, disability access and refugee resettlement oversight), increasing administrative burden, and harming vulnerable residents who rely on centralized coordination. Sponsor proponents argued it would remove what they viewed as problematic policy approaches and save state administrative dollars.
Next step: The committee reported HB392 ITL; the report places the bill in a status where the committee recommends no further legislative action on the measure at this time.
