Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Trusts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Finance reviews protections for health-trust contingency fund in SB661
Summary
In executive session the Senate Finance Committee reviewed a consolidated amendment to SB661 addressing an insurance-model concern for a health-trust contingency fund; members debated where member-equity stabilization deposits may be held and whether credit unions would be excluded.
At an executive session of the Senate Finance Committee, senators discussed Senate Bill 661 and a consolidated amendment (1182S1) intended to address solvency and insurance-model questions tied to a health-trust contingency fund. The sponsor said actuaries raised concerns that earlier drafts lacked sufficient protections against insolvency and that the amendment had been sent to the state insurance department for review and would not be distributed until that review was complete.
The committee focused on a provision describing the "member equity stabilization fund" and where its deposits must be held. Senator Waters asked whether language specifying deposits "in a bank" would exclude credit unions and whether the intent was simply to keep the funds in New Hampshire. The sponsor acknowledged the language came from Senator Pearl and said he had asked bankers for input to provide guardrails for how the funds would be invested.
Ryan Hill, vice president of government relations for the New Hampshire Bankers Association, told the committee that "current statute doesn't allow credit unions to take public funds," explaining that public-funds statutes reference banks and do not consistently authorize credit unions to serve as custodians. Gina Powers of Rath Young & Pignatelli, speaking on behalf of the Cooperative Credit Union Association, said her understanding was that state law does not explicitly allow credit unions to accept public funds and that credit unions would not object to moving the legislation forward with the committee amendment.
Members repeatedly framed the account as taxpayer dollars because membership is limited to public entities, and several senators urged guardrails to ensure deposits are placed in reputable, insured accounts with liquidity protections. The sponsor said he would not distribute his draft amendment until the insurance department had reviewed it and that outcomes in either chamber were not guaranteed.
The committee did not adopt a final vote on SB661 during the portion of the transcript provided; members agreed to continue refining language and to coordinate further with the insurance department and stakeholders before broader distribution or floor action.
