House Floor Session – part 3 5/9/19


>>[GAVEL]>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: THE HOUSE WILL COME TO ORDER. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.>>CHIEF CLERK: MME. SPEAKER I HEREBY ANNOUNCE PASSAGE BY THE SENATE THE FOLLOWING HOUSE FILE HERE WITH RETURNED AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE IN WHICH AMENDMENTS CONCURRENCE OF THE HOUSE IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED. HOUSE FILE 138 AND ACT RELATING TO HEALTH. THE MESSAGE IS SIGNED; CAL R. LUDEMAN; SECRETARY OF THE SENATE. HUOT MOVES THE HOUSE REFUSE TO CONCUR IN THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE FILE NUMBER 148 AND THE SPEAKER APPOINTIVE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE OF THREE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND HOUSE REQUEST ALIKE COMMITTEE BE APPOINTED BY THE SENATE TO CONFER ON THE DISAGREEING VOTES OF THE TWO HOUSES.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: REPRESENTATIVE HUOT>>REPRESENTATIVE HUOT: SORRY MME. SPEAKER..>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: THIS IS YOUR MOTION;. ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] THOSE OPPOSED SAY; NAY. THE MOTION PREVAILS.>>[GAVEL]>>CHIEF CLERK: MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. MME. SPEAKER COME I HEREBY ANNOUNCE PASSAGE BY THE SENATE OF THE FOLLOWING HOUSE FILE HERE WITH RETURNED AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE WHICH BE DENSE OF THE CONCURRENCE OF THE HOUSE IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED. HOUSE FILE NUMBER 653; AND ACT RELATING TO LEGACY. THE MESSAG THE MESSAGE IS SIGNED; CAL R. LUDEMAN; SECRETARY OF THE LILLIE MOVES THE HOUSE REFUSE TO CONCUR IN THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE FILE NUMBER 653 AND THE SPEAKER APPOINTIVE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE OF FIVE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND THE HOUSE RESPECT ALIKE COMMITTEE BE APPOINTED BY THE SENATE TO CONFER ON THE DISAGREEING VOTES OF THE TWO HOUSES.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: REPRESENTATIVE LILLIE.>>REP RESENTATIVE LILLIE: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. THIS IS MY MOTION . THIS IS THE LEGACY BILL. WE’VE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENCES WE NEED TO WORK ON . APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] THOSE OPPOSED SAY; NAY. THE MOTION PREVAILS.>>[GAVEL]>>CHIEF CLERK: MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. MME. SPEAKER COME I HEREBY ANNOUNCE PASSES BY THE SENATE THE FOLLOWING HOUSE FILE HERE WITH RETURNED IT RETURNED [INAUDIBLE] CONCURRENCE OF THE HOUSE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED. HOUSE FILE NUMBER 1244 AND ACT RELATED TO NATURAL RESOURCES. THE MESSAGE IS SIGNED; CAL R. LUDEMAN; SECRETARY OF THE SENATE.>>HOUSE HANSEN MOVES THE HOUSE CONCUR IN THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE FILE NUMBER 1244 IN THE BILL BE PASSED AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE AUTHOR REPRESENTATIVE HANSEN TO EXPLAIN THE SENATE AMENDMENT>>REPRESENTATIVE HANSEN: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. MEMBERS THIS IS THE DRAINAGE WORKGROUP BILL WHICH PASSED OFF THE FLOOR ; THE HOUSE WITH 100 VOTES. THE SENATE MADE TWO CHANGES TO ONE WAS A TECHNICAL CHANGE WHERE THEY USE THE WORD ARTICLE INSTEAD OF SECTION AND THEN THEY PROVIDED A SUNSET ON A PROVISION FOR SEDIMENT DELIVERY.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: DISCUSSION TO THE SENATE AMENDMENT? REPRESENTATIVE BACKER>>REPRESENTATIVE BACKER: MEMBERS; MME. SPEAKER; MEMBERS; THOUGH I LIKE THE SENATE AMENDMENT; ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT THIS BILL IS IF YOU LOOK INTO THE POLICY IT IS A FORMER OF TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. JUST BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE. IT TALKS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR YOU DEALS WITH DRAINAGE LAWS. SO ESPECIALLY IN MY AREA; BECAUSE WE ARE SO FLATS; THAT IF THERE IS RUN OFF THAT GOES INTO THE DRAINAGE DITCH; IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE TAXED. AND [INAUDIBLE] DITCH ASSOCIATION OR THE TAXING DISTRICT. SO WITH THAT; I’M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT HERE THE DATE THIS WAS ORIGINALLY ON THERE SO IT’S TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION AND I REMEMBER THIS [INAUDIBLE] AGAINST THAT SO THANK YOU; MEMBERS.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE SENATE AMENDMENTS? REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON>>REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. MEMBERS; I COMMIT TO AGREE WITH THAT REPRESENTATIVE BACKER SAID. SOME COMMENTS AND CALLS FROM BACK HOME THAT PUTTING IN THIS FAIRLY CONTROVERSIAL P AND LEAST CONTROVERSIAL TO SOME FO ALLOWING FOR ASSESSMENTS TO BE MADE THE PEOPLE DON’T ACTUALLY BELONG TO THE DITCH AUTHORITY; IT’S A LITTLE BIT PROBLEMATIC TO ME. I ALSO OPPOSE THAT PORTION OF THE BILL. THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: THERE BEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION; ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] THOSE OPPOSED SAY; NAY. THE MOTION PREVAILS. THE CLERK WILL GIVE THE BILL ITS THIRD READING AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE>>CHIEF CLERK: THE THIRD READING HOUSE FILE NUMBER 1244 AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE BE ONE THIRD READING AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE>>[GAVEL]>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: DISCUSSION ON THE BILL? SEEING NO DISCUSSION ON THE BILL; THE CLERK WILL TAKE THE ROLL.>>>>[ROLL CALL VOTE]>>>>[ROLL CALL VOTE]>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: MEMBERS; PLEASE VOTE. THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL. THERE BEING 94 AYES AND 33 NAYS THE BILL IS PASSED AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE AND TITLE AGREED TO>>[GAVEL]>>CHIEF CLERK: MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. MME. SPEAKER I HEREBY ANNOUNCE PASSES BY THE SENATE THE FOLLOWING SENATE FILE HERE WITH TRANSMITTED. SENATE FILE NUMBER 322; 753; 1706; 2081; AND 2089. THE MESSAGE IS SIGNED; CAL R. LUDEMAN; SECRETARY OF THE SENATE.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: FIRST READING SENATE FILE>>CHIEF CLERK: FI RST READING SENATE FILE 322; AND ACT RELATING TO HUMAN SERVICES. SANDELL MOVES SENATE FILE 322 AND HOUSE FILE NUMBER 2012 21 NOW ON THE GENERAL REGISTER REFERRED TO THE CHIEF CLERK FOR COMPARISON.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: HEARING NO OBJECTION; SO ORDERED.>>[GAVEL]>>CHIEF CLERK: FIRST READING SENATE FILE 5753 AND ACT RELATING TO DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED IN THE BILL IS REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM FINANCE AND POLICY DIVISION. FIRST READING SENATE FILE 1706 AND ACT RELATING TO CIVIL ACTIONS. DAVIDS MOVES SENATE FILE NUMBER 1706 AND HOUSE FILE NUMBER 2065 NOW ON THE GENERAL REGISTER BE REFERRED TO TO THE CHIEF CLERK FOR COMPARISON>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: HEARING NO OBJECTION; SO ORDERED.>>[GAVEL]>>CHIEF CLERK: FIRST READING THE SENATE FILE 28 HE WENT IN AND ACT RELATING TO HEALTH. ZERWAS MOVES SENATE FILE 2081 AND HOUSE FILE 2027 NOW ON THE GENERAL REGISTER BE REP HER TO THE CHIEF CLERK FOR COMPARISON>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: HEARING NO OBJECTION; SO ORDERED.>>[GAVEL]>>CHIEF CLERK: FIRST READING SENATE FILE 29 AND ACT RELATING TO HUMAN SERVICE APPEARED KOZNICK MOVES SENATE FILE 2089 AND HOUSE FILE NUMBER 2252 NOW ON THE GENERAL REGISTER BE REFERRED TO THE CHIEF CLERK FOR COMPARISON.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: HEARING NO OBJECTION; SO ORDERED.>>[GAVEL]>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER>>CHIEF CLERK: THE SPEAKER ANNOUNCES APPOINTMENT OF THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE TO A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE FILE NUMBER 653; AND ACT RELATING TO LEGACY. LILLIE; MURPHY; WAZLAWIK WORK; HANSEN AND LILLIE.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND LEGISLATIVE ADMINISTRATION>>CHIEF CLERK: WINKLER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND LEGISLATIVE ADMINISTRATION; PURSUANT TO RULE 1.21 AND 3.33 DESIGNATES THE FOLLOWING BILLS BE PLACED ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE DAY FOR MONDAY; MAY 13; 2019 AND ESTABLISHES A PREFILING REQUIREMENT FOR AMENDMENTS OFFERED TO THE FOLLOWING BILLS. HOUSE FILE NUMBERS 2097; AND 2515 AND SENATE FILE NUMBER 326.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: CALENDAR FOR THE DAY. FIRST BILL ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE DAY IS HOUSE FILE 1262. THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE BILL.>>CHIEF CLERK: HOUSE FILE NUMBER 1262; NUMBER TWO ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE DAY; AND ACT RELATED TO HEALTH OCCUPATIONS FIRST ENGROSSMENT.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM RAMSEY REPRESENTATIVE MORAN>>REPRESENTATIVE MORAN: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. MEMBERS; HOUSE FILE 1252 IS A BILL THAT MAKES TECHNICAL CHANGES TO THE CHAPTER IN STATUTE THAT GOVERNS THE BOARD OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY. THE MISSION OF THE BOARD OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC THROUGH EFFECTIVE LICENSURE AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE AND RULES GOVERNING THE PRACTICE OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS. IN ORDER TO ENSURE A STANDARD OF COMPETENT AND ETHNICAL PRACTICE. HOUSE FILE 1262 WAS HEARD IN DISCUSSED IN MY COMMITTEE. I BEL SERVICE POLICY [INAUDIBLE] THIS BILL REMOVES UPDATES AND CLARIFIES VARIOUS OUTDATED PROVISIONS THROUGHOUT THE CHAPTER BUT DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE LAW. THESE CHANGES WERE RECOMMENDED BY NONPARTISAN HOUSE RESEARCH AND THE Y ALSO OFFICE OF THE REVISOR. THANK YOU SO MUCH AND I ENCOURAGE A GREEN VOTE. THANK YOU SO MUCH.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: THERE ARE NO AMENDMENTS AT THE DESK. THE CLERK WILL GIVE THE BILL ITS THIRD READING.>>CHIEF CLERK: THIRD READING; HOUSE FILE NUMBER 1262.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: THE THIRD READING>>[GAVEL]>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: DISCUSSION TO THE BILL? REPRESENTATIVE DISCUSSION TO THE BILL? SEEING NONE; THE CLERK WILL TAKE THE ROLL.>>>>[ROLL CALL VOTE]>>>>[ROLL CALL VOTE]>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: MEMBERS; PLEASE VOTE. THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL. THERE BEING 130 AYES AND ZERO NAYS THE BILL IS PASSED AND TITLE AGREED TO.>>[GAVEL]>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: NEXT BILL ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE DAY IS SENATE FILE 270. THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE BILL>>CHIEF CLERK: SENATE FILE NUMBER 278 NUMBER THREE ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE DAY AND ACT RELATING TO HEALTHCARE.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL THE MEMBER FROM DAKOTA REPRESENTATIVE MANN TO EXPLAIN THE BILL>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: C SPEAKER MEMBERS; SENATE FILE 278 DEALS WITH THE LICENSURE AND TRANSPARENCY OF THE PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGERS OR PBM’S. A PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGER FUNCTIONS AS A MIDDLEMAN BETWEEN THE DRUG MANUFACTURER AND HEALTH CARRIER OR PHARMACY. INITIALLY; THEY WERE HIRED TO MAKE DEALS WITH THE MANUFACTURE BY [INAUDIBLE] FOR PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION. AND PASSED THE PRICE DOWN TO THE PATIENT. UNFORTUNATELY; IN MANY CASES THAT IS NOT THE CASE ANYMORE. SO WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW IS THAT THE PBM GO TO THE MANUFACTURE AND TAKE THEM I WILL PUT YOUR DRUG ON THE FORMULA WHICH IS A LIST OF MITIGATIONS AND KEEP YOUR COMPETITOR’S OFFICE LIST BUT I WILL NEED AN INCENTIVE TO DO THAT. SO THEY WILL GET WHAT THEY WE CALL A KICKBACK AND I COULD B E A [INAUDIBLE] PERCENTAGE OF THE DRUG IT PLACED ON THE FORMULARY. BECAU SE OF THIS; IN ORDER FOR THE MANUFACTURES TO KEEP THEIR PROFIT MARGIN HAVE TO INCREASE THE PRICE OF THE DRUG. AND BECAUSE OF THESE INCENTIVES; PBM’S CAN ALSO CHOOSEMORE EXPENSIVE DRUGS TO PUT ON THE FORM THAT CHOOSING BRAND-NAME DRUGS VERSUS THE GENERIC DRUGS. WHICH; OF COURSE; INCREASE THE PRICE OF THE DRUG FOR THE PATIENT. THESE PRACTICES HAV E ONLY BEEN INTENSIFYING OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS AS WE NOW HAVE A SYSTEM THAT IS BEEN MONOPOLIZED BY ONLY THREE PBM’S. WHO OWN NOW OVER 75% OF THE BUSINESS. THESE TWO PRACTICES HAVE TWO SIGNIFICANT OUTCOMES BUT ONE IS COST LIKE I TOUCHED UPON ALREADY IN THE SECOND RESULT WHICH IS MOST IMPORTANT TO ME; THE MEDICAL OUTCOMES. – WHEN THE FORMULARY IS CHANGED; TO START THE PATIENT HAS TO START A NEW DRUG. THIS MEANS THAT MEDICAL DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE MEDICALLY NECESSARY; NOT BECAUSE THE DOCTOR WANTS HIM TO CHANGE; NOT BECAUSE THE PATIENT WANTS THEM TO CHANGE BUT THEIR MAIN MADE FOR MONETARY REASONS. WHE N A MEDICATION CHANGES; PATIENTS NOW HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE OFFICE FOR REPEAT BLOOD WORK TO MAKE SURE THEY’RE NOT HAVING ANY SIDE EFFECTS; TO MAKE SURE THE MEDICATION IS WORKING . THEY HAVE TO MISS WORK AND POTENTIAL ANY CHILD CARE. OF COURSE THIS INCREASE THE COST OF HEALTHCARE AS A WHOLE. THE PBM’S ARE ESSENTIALLY MAKING SOME VERY BIG MEDICAL DECISIONS THAT DIRECTLY IMPACT PATIENT CARE IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THEY ARE DOING THIS WITHOUT ANY OVERSIGHT. SO ONE OF THE MANY THINGS THAT THIS BILL WILL DO IS TO LICENSE PBM SAID NURSES; DOCTORS MANUFACTURES HOSPITALS EVERYONE IS LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN THE STATE EXCEPT FOR THE PBM. THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE A TRANSPARENCY IN THE DEALINGS OF THE PBM . WHAT REBATES DID YOU GET? HOW MUCH WOULD YOU CHARGE FOR THE DRUG? WOULD YOU PAY THE PHARMACY FOR THE DRUG AND WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING? THIS BILL WILL PROHIBIT PBM FROM SHORTCHANGING PHARMACIES WHICH ARE REALLY PUTTING OUR FAMILY ON PHARMACIES IN THE STATE. THEY WILL PROHIBIT PBM SOME CHARGE A PATIENT A HIGHER COST AT THE POINT-OF-SALE TO ALLOW PATIENTS TO SYNCHRONIZE THE MEDICATIONS WILL MAKE THEIR LIVES EASIER. IT WILL ALLOW THE PHARMACIST TO DISCUSS CHEAPER ALTERNATIVES WITH THE PATIENT. THIS IS A REALLY GREAT BIPARTISAN BILL. IT WILL BRING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY TO A VERY OBSCURE PLAYER IN OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM . IT WILL PUT PRESSURE ON PBM’S MO RE FAIR ACTRESSES AND BRING ON THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: THERE ARE NO AMENDMENTS AT THE DESK. THE CLERK WILL GIVE THE BILL ITS THIRD READING.>>CHIEF CLERK: THIRD READING SENATE FILE NUMBER 278>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: THE THIRD READING>>[GAVEL]>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: DISCUSSION TO THE BILL? REPRESENTATIVE MUNSON..>>REPRESENTATIVE MUNSON: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. I GUESS; I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE BILL’S AUTHOR. WE ARE VOTING ON THE SENATE FILE AND NOT USING THE HOUSE LANGUAGE?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. SO IT’S CALLED THE SENATE FILE BUT I N THE LAST COMMITTEE STOP WE ADOPTED THE HOUSE LANGUAGE FOR OUR VERSION.>>REPRESENTATIVE MUNSON: OKAY; THANK YOU MME. SPEAKER. I GUESS I’M WORKING OFF A SECOND ENGROSSMENT OF THE HOUSE FILE 278; BUT I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT UNDER SECTION 4 THE THAT IT STILL HAS THE LANGUAGE THAT THE PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGER IS A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE HEALTH CARRIER. I’M GETTING A NOD FROM THE BILL’S AUTHOR. I HAVE A CONCERN IN COMMITTEE WHEN I HEARD THIS LANGUAGE BECAUSE I KNOW IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR JOB I DEAL WITH CLIENTS HAVING A FIDUCIARY DUTY BUT THE FIDUCIARY DUTY IS ALWAYS TO THE CLIENT OR THE CUSTOMER AND NOT TO ANOTHER HEALTH CARRIER WHICH IS WHAT IT IS LISTED IN THIS BILL. SO I KNOW THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT CAN BE WORKED OUT IN CONFERENCE COMMITTEE; BUT I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH THE PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGER; THE PBM; HAVING TO KEEP CONTROL ON THE FIDUCIARY THE BOTTOM LINE FOR ANOTHER PRIVATE ENTITY. AND WE REALLY SHOULD BE FOCUSING WHEN WE CREATE LEGISLATION; THAT’S GOING TO BRING BRING TRY SPENCER HE TO THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY THAT’S GOOD WE DO THIS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PATIENT OR THE ENROLLEE. AND I DO SUPPORT MANY PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL. THERE’S LEGISLATION I CARRIED OUT LAST YEAR AND REMOVING THE GAG ORDER FOR PHARMACIES AND ALLOWING PATIENTS TO GO TO THE PHARMACY AND ACTUALLY SEE WHAT THINGS COST. THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT. FOR LOWERING THE COST OF PHARMACEUTICALS IN THIS COUNTRY; IT’S A VERY IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COSTS ARE.. NOT JUST TO THEIR CO-PAY; BUT TO THE UNDERLYING HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN BECAUSE OUR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS ARE JUST A COLLECTION OF WHAT THE HEALTHCARE COSTS ARE ROLLED INTO ONE. SO UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GENERICS AND NAMEBRAND DRUGS; THE ACTUAL COST OF THE INSURANCE IS VERY IMPORTANT. SO REPRESENTATIVE MANN; THANK YOU FOR OFFERING THIS BILL AND THEIR SMALL PROVISIONS IN THIS BILL I DISAGREE WITH. I DO SUPPORT THE BILL AND ITS PURPOSE AND I HOPE WE CAN REALLY DRIVE SOME CHANGE.. I DO WANT TO SAY THAT I DON’T TYPICALLY VOTE FOR REGULATIONS INCLUDING THE LEVEL OF BUREAUCRACY AND AN INDUSTRY; BUT I CONSIDER MYSELF A CAPITALIST AND I SUPPORT THE INNOVATION THAT’S DRIVEN THROUGH FREE MARKET COMPANIES AND NOT JUST RUNNING THINGS BY THE GOVERNMENTS. BUT THE PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGERS ARE DOING AND WHAT THEY’VE DONE TO THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY; IS NOT CAPITALISM. THIS IS CRONY CAPITALISM. THIS IS BUYING LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWS THEM TO OPERATE AND CONTROL PRICING THIS INDUSTRY TO DRIVE THE COST OF PHARMACEUTICALS UP AND TO PROFIT FROM THAT. SO THIS IS A RESULT. WHEN YOU TAKE ADVANTAGE OF LEGISLATION TO MASK PRICING FROM THE CONSUMERS; THIS IS THE REPERCUSSION. WE GET REGULATIONS ON YOUR INDUSTRY. AND THIS IS A NECESSARY REGULATION. A NECESSARY LEVEL BUREAUCRACY TO BRING PRICE TRANSPARENCY TO THE PUBLIC AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN DO MORE TO ALLOW CONSUMERS TO SEE THESE INDIVIDUALS KICKBACKS AND THAT WE WORK IT OUT IN COMMITTEE SO IT’S NOT JUST AT A GENERAL PBM LEVEL FOR THEIR COST BUT WE CAN ACTUALLY DRIVE DOWN TO SEE TO GIVE THE INFORMATION TO THE INSURANCE CARRIER SO THEY CAN SEE HOW THEIR CUSTOMERS;; THEIR PATIENTS; BEING DRIVEN TO BUY NAMEBRAND PHARMACEUTICALS OVER GENERICS. SO THANK YOU MME. SPEAKER MEMBERS COULD I URGE YOU TO VOTE YES ON THIS BILL>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM STEARNS REPRESENTATIVE O’DRISCOLL>>REPRESENTATIVE O’DRISCOLL: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. MEMBERS; AYE; TO ALSO BELIEVE THERE ARE NUMBER OF PROVISIONS IN THIS BILL THAT OFFER REFORMS ARE NEEDED IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY AND THE WAY THAT WE PROVIDE SERVICES TO MINNESOTANS AS RELATES TO HEALTHCARE. MY NUMBER ONE HANGUP ON THIS BILL AND WHY I’M GOING TO BE VOTING NO TODAY; IS THE PROVISIONS THE DEAL WITH FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY. VERY QUICKLY; CONTRACT LAW IS AT ONE LEVEL IT I INTO A CONTRACT WITH SOMEONE COULD I EXPECT IT GOING TO BE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH. BUT THERE ALSO TO BE BEHAVING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAW. IN A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP ALL THOSE THINGS ARE REQUIRED. PLUS; PLUS; PLUS; AND THE PLUS; PLUS; PLUS ON THIS IS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE YET TO ADVOCATE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY ON BEHALF OF ONE INDIVIDUAL. SO THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE AN EFFORT FROM MEMBERS IN THIS CHAMBER; I’VE HEARD FROM MEMBERS IN THE CHAMBER ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE; THEY HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT INSURANCE I SHOULD SAY HEALTH CARE INSURANCE DENYING CLAIMS DENYING MEDICAL AXIS LIMITED NUMBER OF TRIPS ONE CAN NEVER CERTAIN KINDS OF SERVICES AND THE LIKE. AND WE POUND THE DEATH WE POUND THE TABLE AND SAY THIS JUST ISN’T RIGHT. THE STRESSES AND RIGHTS. WITH THIS BILL DOES IS THIS BILL WAS A FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION FOR THE PHARMACIES TO PHARMACEUTICALS I SHOULD SAY; TO ENTER A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP WITH HEALTHCARE INSURANCE PROVIDERS. MY QUESTION IS DO WE MOVE THE PROBLEM FROM ONE AREA TO ANOTHER . IF THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE GETTING BETWEEN THE PATIENT AND THEIR DOCTOR. DOES THIS HELP OR DOES THIS HURT THAT RELATIONSHIP? I AM BEEN UP THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PHARMACEUTICALS WITH THE HEALTH INSURANCE PROVIDER. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE’S ALREADY TOO MUCH THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE DOING; TO LIMIT ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE; TO LIMIT ACCESS TO PATIENT NEEDS; HOW DOES THIS FIX THAT PROBLEM? IT DOESN’T. AGAIN; I DO BELIEVE THAT ARE VERY IMPORTANT PROVISIONS THAT ARE FOUND IN THIS BILL IN AN AREA THAT NEED SOME SHOWING UP IN SOME REGULATION. BUT NOT WITH A FIDUCIARY. THAT’S PROBLEMATIC. I BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL BECOMES LAW THE WAY IT’S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW; THEY’LL BE SOME PEOPLE WILL BE HAPPY WITH THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE IN THEIR BUT WILL BE RIGHT BACK HERE IN THIS CHAMBER FOR ONE; TWO MAYBE THREE YEARS FROM NOW POUNDING THE TABLE ONCE AGAIN FOR THOSE WH O SAY HEALTH CARE INSURERS ARE GETTING THE WAY OF DOCTOR AND PATIENT RELATIONSHIPS. THEY ARE LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF THIS KIND OF MEDICAL PROCEDURES; FIRED HI FROM CYNICAL OPTIONS COULD I USED NOW I HAVE TO HAVE. ALL THE THINGS THAT REPRESENTATIVE MANN HAD TALKED ABOUT HAVING TO GO BACK TO SEE HOW THIS IS WORKING;; I ENCOURAGE SIMPLY MOVING IT FROM ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE TO ANOTHER. IT DOESN’T SOLVE A PART OF THE PROBLEM. MEMBERS; I WISH I COULD BE VOTING YES FOR THIS TODAY. AGAIN AS I SAID I THINK THIS AREA IS RIGHT FOR SOME REFORM. BUT I REALLY HAVE HEARTBURN OVER THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY ONCE AGAIN; IT’S HIGHER THAN CONTRACT LAW. RIGHT NOW; WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH CONTRACT LAW IS SOMEWHAT SAY WITH A HEALTHCARE INSURER RECEIVING A CONTRACT ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT;. WHY DO WE THINK IT’S GOING TO BE BETTER IF WE AMP UP THE RELATIONSHIP AND MAKE IT A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP? PLEASE; MEMBERS; VOTE NO. THANK YOU.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM SCOTT REPRESENTATIVE ALBRIGHT.>>REPRESENTATIVE ALBRIGHT: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. MEMBERS; REPRESENTATIVE O’DRISCOLL AND I HAVE SOMEWHAT UNIQUE EXPERIENCE FROM FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE; PERSPECTIVE WITH REGARD TO THEIR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY .. REPRESENTATIVE O’DRISCOLL LAID OUT I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES WITH A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY. LET ME SHARE WITH YOU ANOTHER ONE. RIGHT NOW; IN STATE STATUTE THERE IS NO DEFINITION FOR A FIDUCIARY AS WOULD PERTAIN TO THE SUBJECT MATTER. SO I THINK THAT IN LIGHT OF TRYING TO IMPOSE A FINANCIAL LEVEL OF FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY ON THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY; AS REPRESENTATIVE O’DRISCOLL HAS STATED; YOU ARE TRYING TO PUT A ROUND PEG IN A SQUARE HOLE. NOW IF YOU GO TO THE FEDERAL LEVEL; I KNOW WE WON’T HAVE TO REALLY ARGUE ABOUT THIS; BUT IF YOU WANT TO THE FEDERAL; BECAUSE THE BILL ITSELF SAYS THE STATE OR FEDERAL DEFINITION. IF YOU GO TO THE FEDERAL LEVEL; AND THEN YOU ARE DOING WITH THE ORISSA ; AND OTHER SUBJECT MATTER THE PROBABLY ONLY A FEW IN THIS CHAMBER APPRECIATE REPRESENTATIVE O’DRISCOLL. YOU HAVE THREE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY . NONE OF WHICH PERTAIN TO THE SUBJECT MATTER. WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY NEXT POINT. IN THE BILL; IT TALKS ABOUT RULEMAKING. BUT IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT THE PROBATION OF PROVIDING LICENSES AFTER A SET TIME.. I BELIEVE IT’S JANUARY 1 OF 2020. THAT WOULD LITERALLY GIVE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FIVE MONTHS T O PUT RULEMAKING IN PLACE BEFORE THEY COULD PROVIDE LICENSES TO REPRESENTATIVE MANN; AS YOU TAKE THIS INTO CONFERENCE COMMITTEE; I HOPE THAT YOU CONSIDER CORRECTING THOSE PROVISIONS SO THAT THEY ALIGN. IN MOST CASE; RULEMAKING IS GOING TO TAKE A LOT LONGER THAN FIVE MONTHS AND THERE IS GOING TO BE A GAP IF THAT IS NOT CORRECTED. I SHARE THE CONCERNS THAT REPRESENTATIVE O’DRISCOLL HAS ENUMERATED HERE. ON THE BALANCE THERE’S A COUPLE OF OTHER ISSUES I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT AS WELL. IN THE BILL; IT TALKS ABOUT THE PROHIBITION AGAINST MAIL ORDER PHARMACIES. WELL; I UNDERSTAND THE SELF-SERVING NATURE OF HAVING A MAIL ORDER PHARMACY ATTACHED TO THE PBM; W HAT WE ALSO NEED TO ASCRIBE TO IS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ALSO FOUND THROUGH THEIR MAIL ORDER PHARMACY THAT THERE WAS A 23 TIMES GREATER ACCURACY RATE IN THE DELIVERY OF THOSE PRESCRIPTIONS; PLUS IT ACTUALLY DRILLS DOWN THE COST OF THO SE PRESCRIPTIONS. PLEASE; CONSIDER THAT REPRESENTATIVE MANN. MAYBE ONE OF THE LARGER ISSUES THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AS YOU WALK INTO CONFERENCE COMMITTEE IS THE ISSUE OF DATA COLLECTION. UNDER THE BILL; YOU WILL COLLECT INFORMATION ON EVERY SINGLE PRESCRIPTION ISSUED IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.I THINK THAT THE NUMBER IS ROUGHLY; 57 MILLION PRESCRIPTIONS. AND BY WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR BILL; REPRESENTATIVE MANN; THAT RISK IS AN INSURED IN TERMS THAT IS IN SHORT IN TERMS OF DATA COLLECTION. IT IS VOLUMINOUS TO NOW WHILE WE APPRECIATE FOR DISAGGREGATION; FOR DEDUCTING THE POTENTIAL PRIVACY; I ALSO BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE WAY TOO MUCH IN TERMS OF INFORMATION FOR ANYONE TO DIGEST .. AND SO THE PERTINENCE OF ANY OF THOSE PIECES OF INFORMATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PARTICULARLY; IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO COLLECT AND RETAIN THE PRIVATE PRESCRIPTIONS FOR MINNESOTANS AN D RIGHT NOW; THAT STANDS AT 57 MILLION DIFFERENT PIECES OF INFORMATION. NOT ONLY IS THAT CUMBERSOME; BUT I THINK AS OTHERS IN THE CHAMBER WOULD PROBABLY ELABORATE ON; YOU HAVE GOT AN IT PROBLEM OF A MAGNITUDE OF OTHER NATURE IN TERMS OF SECURITY; MANAGEMENT; ACCESSIBILITY; AND SECURITY. SO PLEASE; CONSIDER THAT. THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY ITSELF HAS BEEN POINTED UP AND IT’S ALSO BEEN PROVIDED IN THREE OTHER STATES. NONE OF WHICH HAS USE IT EFFICIENTLY AND IN ONE STATE I BELIEVE WAS MAINE; THEY HAD IT ON THE BOOKS BUT IT WAS NEVER ENFORCED AND ACTUALLY THEY TOOK IT OFF THE BOOKS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE. SO THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY;; AS A KEY FEATURE OF WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO; IS WELL INTENDED ;; BUT I THINK YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH THE METHODOLOGY OF PROVIDING MORE ENFORCEMENT AGAINST THE PBM’S WITHOUT THE FIDUCIARY NATURE OF WHAT YOU’RE PUTTING IN THERE . MEMBERS; WHEN WE LOOK AT BILLS WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THEM IN THE BALANCE. THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE WELL-MEANING; THE ONES THAT ARE PROBLEMATIC. AS WE DEBATE AND VOTE ON THIS BUT GOING OFFICE FLOOR; I THINK AS I WOULD SEE IT AND I REPRESENTATIVE O’DRISCOLL HAS ARTICULATED; THE BALANCE SHIFTS THIS ONE FOR ME INTO NOT VOTING FOR IT BECAUSE OF THESE PROVISIONS. THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM COTTONWOOD REPRESENTATIVE HAMILTON.>>REPRESENTATIVE HAMILTON: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. REPRESENTATIVE BAKER’S GONNA HOLD ME UP IF I NEEDED. THAT’S WHAT HE SAID. A LITTLE HUMOR TO IT IF I WILL. FRIENDS; THIS BILL IS LONG OVERDUE. I’VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO TO KEEP ME FROM NOT GETTING EMOTIONAL; TOO. THAT’S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY THERE; TOO. OUR SPIRAL SMALL ROLE PHARMACIES ARE BEING DESTROYED I SAY IT’S BY PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGERS; BY PBM SO AGAIN; THIS LONG OVERDUE. I SHARE WITH YOU MY STORYAND HOW I’VE BEEN DIRECTLY IMPACTED. NEGATIVELY.. A PBM INTERFERED WITH A DELICATE SITUATION OF MY HEALTH AND THE INTERFERED WITH THE DOCTORS PRESCRIBING TO ME AND I’VE SHARED IT AND SAID I PLAY THEM COME IDLY THEM STRAIGHT OUT PUTTING ME IN THE WHEELCHAIR. IT’S WRONG. IT’S ABSOLUTELY WRONG WAS TAKEN PLACE IN THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED ANY TO BE ARRAIGNED IN . AGAIN; SHARE MY STORY ARE A NUMBER OF TIMES I’M NOT GOING TO BORE YOU WITH ALL THE DETAILS; BUT THIS IS ONE BIG STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE RIGHT THING AN D TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE THAT SENT US HERE TO MAKE TH ESE TOUGH DECISIONS; IF YOU WILL. REPRESENTATIVE MANN; THANK YOU. YOU BEEN ABLE TO GET THIS BILL FARTHER THAN I HAVE IN THE PAST. I THANK YOU FOR THAT. OBVIOUSLY; THIS IS A BIG ISSUE AND VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. THAT IS; I’M SSIMPLY GOING TO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM DAKOTA REPRESENTATIVE GAROFALO. THE>>REPRESENTATIVE GAROFALO: WITH THE AUTHOR YIELD FOR A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS? THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. TO THE AUTHOR; THIS IS A SENATOR FILE. IN YOUR CONVERSATION WITH THE SENATE AUTHORS YOU IS YOUR EXPECTATION THEY WILL BE CONCURRING WITH A NEW LANGUAGE FOR THAT TO BE REQUESTING A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. I’VE SPOKEN TO THE AUTHOR OF THE SENATE FILE AND WE WILL CONFERENCE THIS BILL.>>REPRESENTATIVE GAROFALO: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. SO OBVIOUSLY THIS ANOTHER STEP IN THE PROCESS RATHER THAN AS LOOKING AT FINAL PASSAGE AND WITH THE AUTHOR YIELD FOR ANOTHE R QUESTION? THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. TO THE AUTHOR; IN THE EVENT THAT GOVERNMENT WOULD STEP IN IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EXISTING PBM’S ARE ENGAGED IN; WITH THESE REGULATIONS MAKE CHANGES APPLY TO GOVERNMENTS?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. ARE YOU I’M NOT QUITE SURE YOU ARE ASKING ARE YOU LIKE ASKING GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAMS LIKE MEDICAID OR>>REPRESENTATIVE GAROFALO: MME. SPEAKER IF THE AUTHOR WOULD CONTINUE TO YIELD? THEM TO THE AUTHOR; THERE’S BEEN EXTENSIVE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT MANAGING THEIR OWN FORMULARY LIST IN PROVIDING SOME THE TRADITIONAL ROLES THE PBM’S HAVE ENGAGED IN. SO IN A CASE WITH A CHANGES IN THE BILL BY TWO GOVERNMENT SHOULD GOVERNMENT TO DEVELOP THEIR OWN EXCLUSIVITY LIST?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. IF PBM’S ARE INVOLVED THEY WOULD REQUIRE THE SAME DATA FROM PBM’S.>>REPRESENTATIVE GAROFALO: MME. SPEAKER OF THE AUTHOR WOULD YIELD? BETTER TO THE AUTHOR; UNDERSTAND IT APPLIES TO PBM TO WHAT I’M SAYING IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT STEPS IN REGARD AS A PEOPLE’S POSITIONS ON PBM’S; THE GOVERNMENT WAS TO STEP IN AND ASSUME THE ROLE THAT CURRENTLY THE PRIVATE SECTOR PBM’S ARE ENGAGING IN; THESE WITH THIS BILL PRIOR TO THAT ENTITY?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. TH IS BILL DEALS SOLELY WITH PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGERS.>>REPRESENTATIVE GAROFALO: MME. SPEAKER AND MEMBERS I THINK WHAT THAT MEANS IS THE ANSWER IS; NO. IF YOU SEE GREATER MOVEMENT TOWARDS THE IDEA OF GOVERN MENT MODEL; WE SEE THAT WE ARE CREATING YET ANOTHER INCENTIVE TO MOVE TOWARDS A SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH C ARE MODEL. FOR THAT AND OTHER REASONS MEMBERS I WOULD ASK FOR A NO VOTE ON THIS BILL.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM SCOTT REPRESENTATIVE VOGEL.>>REPRESENTATIVE VOGEL: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. THANK YOU; AUTHOR FOR THE BILL. I DO BELIEVE AS HAS BEEN SPOKEN TO; THAT A LOT OF THESE THINGS ARE NECESSARY BUT I DO RISE AND I KNOW YOU ARE GETTING SICK OF HEARING THE WORD; FIDUCIARY; BUT DOING IN THE BUSINESS IS IDEAL IN; THAT HAS A BIG CONNOTATION AND ALTHOUGH IT SEEMS LIKE JUST ONE WORD AND NOT A REASON TO VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL; MY CONCERN IS THAT WE ARE TAKING THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO HEALTH CARRIERS. IF THE AUTHOR WOULD YIELD FOR A QUESTION MME. SPEAKER?>>TESTIFIER: THANK YOU. THE QUESTION I HAVE IN A .3 IT’S A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO HEALTHCARE CARRIER I’M CURIOUS WHY YOU WOULD PUT THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO THE CARRIER NOT TO THE PATIENT?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. WELL AT THIS POINT THE PBM WORKS AS A SUBSIDIARY OR SUBCONTRACT TO HEALTHCARE YOU ARE NOT THE PATIENT DIRECTLY.>>REPRESENTATIVE VOGEL: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. MY CONCERN THERE IS THAT BY DOING THIS I THINK WE ARE CREATING AN INHERENT CONFLICT BECAUSE WE ARE TELLING THE PBM THAT THEY HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO A HEALTHCARE CARRIER . THEREFORE; IF THEY ARE LOOKING AT HOW THEY ARE GOING TO EITHER OFFER THE DRUG OR DEAL WITH CO-PAYS OR DEAL WITH OTHER PRODUCTS; THAT FIRST AND FOREMOST THEY FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY IS TO THE HEALTHCARE CARRIER; NOT TO THE PATIENT. THAT’S WHY I LIKE THE IDEA OF THIS BILL BECAUSE IT’S GETTINGTO THE PATIENT AND GIVING THEM THE INFORMATION AS WELL AS PUTTING IN STATUTE MORE PROTECTIONS FOR THEM. IF THE AUTHOR WOULD IT YIELD AGAIN MME. SPEAKER? THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. SO I SAID THAT I BELIEVE THAT IT IS GOING TO CREATE AN INHERENT CONFLICT BECAUSE WE ARE TELLING THE BENEFITS MANAGER TO HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO HEALTH CARRIER . DO YOU SEE ANY POTENTIAL FOR THAT TO BE A CONFLICT WITH THE PATIENT SINCE THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY IS TO THE CARRIER WHO IS ACTUALLY MAKING A PROFIT OFF THE INSURANCE PRODUCT THAT THE PATIENT IS PAYING FOR?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: SO THIS PART OF THE ISSUE. IT’S THE CHAIN THAT GOES ALL THE WAY FROM THE MANUFACTURE ;; THE INSURANCE; THE OTHER WAY DOWN TO THE PATIENT. AND WE NEED TO START SOMEWHERE STOPPING THE CHAIN FROM PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT PATIENTS. SO RIGHT NOW; WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS ASKING THE PBM FOR A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO HEALTHCARE AND THE HOUSE GARY SHOULD ACT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PATIENT AND WERE TAKING ONE STEP IN THE CHAIN TO MAKE THINGS BETTER. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TAKING STEPS TO MAKE THINGS BETTER WE OFTEN HEAR THIS NARRATIVE OF WELL; IF YOU ARE GOING TO FIX THE ENTIRE PROBLEM RIGHT NOW AND NOT BEHIND IT. SO I JUST DON’T THINK THAT HOLDS MUCH WATER.>>REPRESENTATIVE VOGEL: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. AN D THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: MEMBERS PLEASE BE QUIET DURINGDEBATE SO MEMBERS CAN HEAR ONE ANOTHER. REPRESENTATIVE VOGEL>>REPRESENTATIVE VOGEL: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. I STILL CONTEND THAT WHEN WE ARE MAKING THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO HEALTHCARE CARRIER AND NOT TO THE PARENT THE PATIENT AND I DON’T DISAGREE THAT THE CARRIER HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PATIENT. I’M NOT SO SURE IT’S A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY MAY BE ENCODED I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH ALL THE STATUTES; BUT IN THIS CASE; WHAT WE ARE SAYING HERE IS THAT IF THE PBM HAS TO MAKE A DECISION ; THEY HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO HEALTHCARE CARRIER EXCLUSIVE OF THE PATIENT BECAUSE THERE’S NOTHING IN HERE THAT IS SAYING DEAL WITH THE PATIENT. SAME DEAL WITH THE CARRIER. SO MME. SPEAKER; MEMBERS; IS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO VOTE FOR THIS BECAUSE I REALLY BELIEVE THE GOOD IDEA AND IT’S TIME HAS COME; I REALLY THINK WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHEN WE USE WORDS LIKE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY; BECAUSE AND ESPECIALLY IN THIS CASE WHERE WE COULD BE IMPACTING NEGATIVELY THE PEOPLE THAT IT’S MEANT TO HELP. THANK YOU.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM OLMSTED REPRESENTATIVE QUAM.>>REPRESENTATIVE QUAM: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. MEMBERS IT’S PRETT Y OBVIOUS THAT WE ALL FEEL THERE’S A NEED FOR REFORM ON THIS PART OF HEALTHCARE. THE BIG RISK WHEN WE ARE ALL FOR IS THAT WE RUSH AND WE DON’T TRY TO AVOID STUMBLING STONES AND DELAYS. I THINK THERE ARE SOME ISSUES IN LANGUAGE THAT COULD CAUSE IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS. IT’S BEEN TOUCH ON IN RULEMAKING CAN IT’S BEEN TOUCHED ON THE PART OF THE LANGUAGE SIMILAR LANGUAGE IS BEING USED IN OTHER STATES. I FEEL THATTHERE IS A LITIGATION RISK TO PART OR THIS WHOLE BILL WITH THE CURRENT LANGUAGE. I ALSO FEEL THAT THERE IS RISK IN THE IMPLEMENTATION AND QUICK IMPLEMENTATION IS NOT ALWAYS THE BEST AND MOST EFFECTIVE. AND WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT SO IT WILL WORK. SO IT WON’T IN THE LONG RUN CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS THAN WE ARE SOLVING WERE DELAY THE FACT THAT WE ACTUALLY GET A GOOD SOLUTION IN. I AM HEARING A LOT OF CONCERN IN THAT; WE LOOK AND TRY AND FIX PORTIONS OF THIS AND THAT WE ARE FOR THE IDEA BUT WE DON’T WANT TO GO; WE PASSED SOMETHING IN THE NEXT YEAR OR THE YEAR AFTER; WE ARE REVISITING BECAUSE WE DID NOT TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THESE ISSUES. AND I HOPE WE LOOK AT THE ISSUESTHAT ARE IN HERE COULD I REALLY HOPE THE DEBATE BETWEEN THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE CAN SOLVE THIS BUT I DON’T THINK THE LANGUAGE IN THE CURRENT BILL IS THERE YET. THANK YOU.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM ANOKA REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT . THE>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT:>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM POCO REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON>>REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. MEMBERS; THERE’S A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL BUT WITH THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL YIELD FOR A QUESTION? THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THE BILL FORWARD. WE ALL AGREE IS BADLY NEEDED TO MY CONCERN IS THAT WE ARE IN A SECOND TO THE LAST WEEK OF SESSION AND YOU ARE TELLING US IT’S GOING TO GO TO A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE . CAN YOU GIVE US SOME LEVEL OF ASSURANCE THAT THIS BILL IS GOING TO IN FACT COME BACK AND NOT GET LOST THESE LAST HECTIC DAYS OF SESSION? BECAUSE AGAIN A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR IT AND WANT TO SEE IT COM E BACK AND HAVE A FINAL PASSAGE. SO WHAT LEVEL OF ASSURANCE CAN YOU GIVE USTHAT IS GOING TO COME BACK OUT OF CONFERENCE?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. SO I’VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS BILL SINCE PRETTY MUCH AT THE MOMENT I GOT HERE. WHEN THE MAIN REASONS I RAN FOR OFFICE. AND SO IF I HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT; THIS BILL WILL COME BACK AND IT WILL BE PASSED OFF THE FLOOR.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM GOODHUE REPRESENTATIVE HALEY.>>REPRESENTATIVE HALEY: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. JUST A FEW QUICK COMMENTS BUT I JUST WANT TO BE ON RECORD THAT I SUPPORT THESE REFORMS AND TAKE YOU TO REPRESENTATIVE HAMILTON FOR YEARS OF WORK ADVOCATING FOR PATIENTS RIGHTS. AND TO REPRESENTATIVE MANN; JUST AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE; AND SERVING WITH YOU ON HHS COME I KNOW HOW PASSIONATE YOU ARE ABOUT YOUR PATIENCE ABOUT PATIENT RIGHTS AS WELL. SO I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE A LOT OF COMPROMISE IN THIS AGREEMENT ON MOST OF THE COMPONENTS OF THIS BILL AND ALL THE THINGS THAT WILL DO TO HELP WITH PATIENT RIGHTS. AND MANY OF THE PROVISIONS IN FACT WERE PASSE D LAST SESSION AND WERE CAUGHT UP IN A VETO. SO I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT YOU HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT HERE REPRESENTATIVE MANN AND THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE ABOUT THE FIDUCIARY LANGUAGE IS REALLY THE TROUBLESOME PIECE. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE A SINCERE WORK ON THE PEAS SO THAT YOU CAN BRING IT BACK OUT OF CONFERENCE AND WE CAN HAVE GREEN ON THE BOARD. TO HELP ALL MINNESOTANS. THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE DEMAND. THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM HENNEPIN REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD.>>REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. I WANT TO THANK REPRESENTATIVE MANN FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD AND REPRESENTATIVE HAMILTON FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE. THIS IS A FANTASTIC BILL. AND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION THIS SESSION ABOUT THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG.. A LOT OF LEGISLATIVE EFFORT MOVING FORWARD AND I BELIEVE THIS BILL HAS THE GREATEST ABILITY TO GO DOWN THE PATH OF MAKING THIS SYSTEMIC CHANGE WE NEED IN OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM TO PUT PATIENTS FIRST. IT’S THE MOST IMPORTANT BILL; I BELIEVE. AND I’M REALLY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE CONVERSATION WE HAD THE SESSION AROUND PRESCRIPTION DRUGS BUT WE ARE DOING GREAT WORK TOGETHER ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS THIS SESSION WHEN IT COMES TO THE OPIOID BILL; WHEN IT COMES TO WORK TO ADDRESS AFFORDABLE INSULIN. AND I THINK THERE’S A SEACHANGE HAPPENING AND WHEN WE ARE RECOGNIZING THAT THE TIME IS NOW. THE TIME IS NOW TO STAND UP FOR MINNESOTANS THAT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY AS LEGISLATORS TO STAND UP FOR THE MINNESOTANS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY SICK AND TIRED OF THE SYSTEM THAT IS NOT WORKING AT A SYSTEM THAT IS DRIVING UP THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND ENFORCING JOY SO THAT NO ONE SHOULD BE CONFRONTED WITH. IN THIS BILL IS AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY. AND SPECIFICALLY; I WANT TO MENTION THAT; AS WE TALK ABOUT PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGERS; THESE ARE BEHEMOTHS. THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY THREE THAT ARE CONTROLLING THE LION SHARE OF THE MARKET MINNESOTA AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY THREE OF THESE PBM’S THAT HAVE REVENUES OF OVER $100 BILLION A YEAR WITH A B ; AND JUST ONE OF THOSE WHEN THEY WERE RELEASING THEIR EARNINGS IN THE LAST QUARTER IN 2018; HIGHLIGHTED THAT IN THE FOURTH QUARTER IS A GROWTH OF 13% AND FOR THE FIRST TIME THEY’RE GOING TO TOPPLE OVER $100 BILLION AND GET YOU DO YOU KNOW THE REASON WHY? ON THE STRENGTH OF HIGHER PRICES FOR BRAND-NAME DRUGS. THAT’S HOW THE PBM WAS ABLE TO SEE THEIR EARNINGS SKYROCKET TO LEVELS THEY ARE NOT SEEM TO FORGET MEMBERS; THIS SYSTEM NEEDS REFORM. NEEDS ACCOUNTABILITY. AND TRANSPARENCY. IN THIS BILL IS AN EXCELLENT STEP AND WE ABSOLUTELY SHOULD PASS IT THIS SESSION. THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM HENNEPIN REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS.>>REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. I BEEN WORKING IN THE OFF YOUR INDUSTRY FOR ABOUT A DECADE NOW AND FAIRLY FAMILIAR WITH THE BUSINESS MODEL INVOLVED HERE. THE BASIC BUSINESS PROPOSITION BETWEEN THE PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGER AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY IS THAT THE PBM GOES TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND SAYS; LOOK; WE KNOW THE PHARMACY FACING BACKWARDS AND FORTH TO WORK; WE CAN NEGOTIATE BETTER DISCOUNTS WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS THAT YOU CAN THEN YOU CAN NEGOTIATE THEMSELVES. AND TO PROVE IT; WE ARE GOING TO HAVE YOU PAY US BY SHARING THE COST SAVINGS THAT WE ARE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE. SO THE REASON WHY THE PBMSHOULD BE A HAVE A FIDUCIARY LATE PATIENT UP TO THE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN IS BECAUSE THE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN IS THE CUSTOMER AND THE NATURE OF THE THREE-WAY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURER; IS THE PBM’S; AND THE HEALTHCARE INSURERS IS SUCH THAT THE PBM MAY BE PLACED IN A POSITION BETWEEN THE NEGOTIATIONS THEY HAVE WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS NEGOTIATIONS THEY HAVE HEALTH INSURERS; WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURER MAY PLACE THEM IN A POSITION WOULD HAVE GOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. AND IN THOSE SITUATIONS; THE FIDUCIARY PROVISION IN THIS BILL WOULD ENSURE THAT WHATEVER CONFLICT OF INTEREST HAVE TO TAKE THE INTEREST OF THE CUSTOMER TO HEART AND NOT NECESSARILY THEIR OWN WHEN THE MANUFACTURER OFFERS THEM A DEAL THAT MIGHT ENRICH THEM BUT NOT TO WORK PERSON THE FROM THEIR WORKING ON BEHALF OF. I DON’T THINK WE SHOULD MAKE A BIGGER DEAL OUT OF THE FIDUCIARY THINK IT I THINK IT IS ACTUALLY APPROPRIATE IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE WAY THIS PART OF THE INDUSTRY WORKS AND OVERALL; THIS A REALLY GREAT BILL. IT MAY NOT SOLVE EVERYTHING THIS WHOLE VALUE CHAIN IS BROKEN BUT THIS IS A HUGE STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND I URGE EVERYONE TO CAST A GREEN VOTE>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM ANOKA REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. I WAS INTERESTED IN WHAT SOME OF WHAT REPRESENTATIVE ALBRIGHT’S COMMENTS WERE REGARDING THE DATA AND I DID LOOK AT THE BILL; AND IT DOES HAVE A REFERENCE TO SECTION 13.37 THE DATA PRACTICES ACT IN REGARDS TRA DE SECRET INFORMATION. SO I’M WONDERING IF THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL WOULD YIELD TO A QUESTION? C SPEAKER REPRESENTATIVE MANN; IT TALKS ABOUT THE WITHIN 60 DAYS UPON RECEIPT OF THE TRANSPARENCY REPORT THE COMMISSIONER SHALL PUBLISH THE REPORTS FROM EACH PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGER TO THE DEFERMENT OF COMMERCE WEBSITE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DATA CONSIDERED TRADE SECRET INFORMATION I N OUR 13.37. I AM WONDERING FIRST OF ALL; DID YOUCONSULT WITH REPRESENTATIVE LESCH; CHAIR LESCH; TO SEE IF THIS BILL WOULD’VE NEEDED TO COME TO THE JUDICIARY AND CIVIL LAW COMMITTEE?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. I DID NOT TO REPRESENTATIVE LESCH ABOUT THAT BUT WE HA VE BEEN SPEAKING WITH THE PBM’S AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO REALLY GET THAT LANGUAGE DOWN AS FAR AS WHAT IS OR NOT TRADE SECRET SO THEY WILL RUN INTO ANY ISSUES.>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. WELL GOT TO HEAR THAT. IF YOU COULD YOU SHARE WITH THE BODY WHAT YOU’VE LEARNED ABOUT THAT; OTHER GOVERNMENT PASSED BY TRACY GETS? BECAUSE WHAT I’VE LEARNED WITH A WHOLE TRADE SECRET LANGUAGE IS THAT THAT’S AN END AROUND HAVING TO REPORT CERTAIN INFORMATION. AND THAT IS HAPPENED WITH SOME OTHER ENTITIES WITHIN THE HEALTHCARE SPACE SHALL I SAY. AND IT’S ALLOW THEM TO REALLY SKIRT TRANSPARENCY TO THE LEGISLATURE AND TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. SO I AM WONDERING WHAT YOU’VE LEARNED IN THE PROCESS BUT THIS WHOLE TRADE SECRET LANGUAGE BECAUSE I DON’T WANT TO BE IN OUT FOR THEM .>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH ISO-DO NOT WANT THIS TO BE IN OUT FOR THEM. SO THIS HAS BEEN REALLY BIG PART OF THE CONVERSATION AND WE ARE STILL ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT IT TO THE STATE OF ANOTHER MEETING TOMORROW ABOUT IT BECAUSE A; WE DON’T WANT IT TO BE IN OUT FOR THEM AND B WE DON’T WANT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO HAVE ANY ISSUES EITHER.>>REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. I WILL BE INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THAT IS AND IN ALL REALITY WILL PROBABLY NOT GOING TO KNOW WHEN TO THE FIRST REPORT COMES IN WHETHER THEY ARE USING THAT AS AN END AROUND REPORTING INFORMATION OR NOT. IT IS VERY CONCERNING UNDERSTAND PROTECTING TRADE SECRET THAT I DO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT’S IN THE DATA PRACTICES ACT ; BUT I ALSO KNOW THE HISTORY OF THAT WITHIN HEALTHCARE SPACE. SO THAT IS CONCERNING; BUT MEMBERS; I DO THINK THIS IS A GOOD BILL. FOR THE MOST PART IT BUT I THINK IT STILL DOES NEED WORK. THERE ARE SOME PROVISIONS HERE THAT I THINK DO CAUSE SOME PROBLEMS WITH IT AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WE CAN CAST A NO VOTE TODAY IN HOPES IT WILL COME BACK BETTER FROM CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM CHISAGO REPRESENTATIVE NEU>>REPRESENTATIVE NEU: C SPEAKER MEMBERS; THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT REFORM. I ACTUALLY SIGN ON AS A CO-AUTHOR TO THE BILL. I LIKE IT. IT’S A GOOD BILL. BUT; IT DOES NEED JUST A LITTLE BIT OF WORK. THERE’S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ARE PARTICULARLY CONCERNING THAT WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY. AND I THINK MAYBE TO PUT THAT IN A LITTLE BIT MORE OF LAYMAN’S TERMS; WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THE PBM’S WILL BE LOOKING OUT FOR THE BOTTOM LINE OF INSURERS RATHER THAN CONSUMERS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT AND FIXED FOR FINAL PASSAGE. THAT’S A BIG DEAL. LET’S BE CLEAR; THAT WILL RAISE THE COST OF HEALTHCARE FOR CONSUMERS. SO WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT THIS. WE USE THESE BIG WORDS AROUND HEREIN THIS LEGAL LANGUAGE AT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THIS MEANS THAT THE PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGERS BE LOOKING OUT FOR THE BOTTOM LINE OF INSURERS RATHER THAN CONSUMERS. THAT RACE IS THE COST OF HEALTHCARE. IN ADDITION TO THAT; THERE IS SOME QUESTION ABOUT THE KINDS OF RELATIONSHIPS THAT THE PBM’S WILL BE ENTERING WILL BE ABLE TO ENTER INTO. FOR EXAMPLE; RIGHT NOW; THEY ARE ABLE TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS;; ABLE TO MAKE AGREEMENTS; WITH A MAIL ORDER PHARMACIES; THINGS LIKE THIS. TO FIND BETTER DEALS FOR THE CONSUMER TO RIGHT NOW; WE GET SITUATIONS WHERE IF YOU PURCHASE A 90 DAY SUPPLY OF A MEDICATION; YOU CAN PAY TO CO-PAYS RATHER THAN THREE CO-PAYS. BY ENTERING INTO THESE DEALS BUT THERE IS A VERY I MEAN THE LANGUAGE IS NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR BUT IT APPEARS THAT THAT MAY BE PREVENTED IN THE LANGUAGE CURRENTLY IN THIS BILL AND IN ORDER TO GET THAT 90 DAY SUPPLY YOU WILL NOW BE PAYING FOR THREE COPAYMENTS. THAT IS A VERY DIRECT INCREASE IN THE COST OF HEALTHCARE. NOW; THE SAME TIME I THINK THESE ARE RELATIVELY MINOR FIXES THESE ARE FIXED IN THE SENATE LANGUAGE BUT I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS BILL TODAY AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THIS COMING BACK FROM CONFERENCE COMMITTEE CLEANED UP SO WE CAN HAVE A UNANIMOUS VOTE ON THIS. I THINK THAT IS WHAT IT WILL BE WHEN THIS LANGUAGE IS CLEANED UP. THANK YOU.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM ROCK REPRESENTATIVE SCHOMACKER>>REPRESENTATIVE SCHOMACKER: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. MEMBERS; THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE NEU FOR BRINGING UP SOME OF THE POINTS ON THEM MAIL ORDER PHARMACY PIECE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN TALKED ABOUT TOO MUCH TO DO I JUST WANT TO HIT A COUPLE OF POINTS ON THE MAIL ORDER PHARMACY PIECE AND REALLY JUST EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE FISCAL NOTE HAD IN IT THERE ON PAGE 10 [INAUDIBLE] IN THIS BILL WE TALK ABOUT THE MAIL ORDER PHARMACIES AND WHAT IMPACT THAT HAVE. THEY DO TALK ABOUT REPRESENTATIVE NEU; THE 90 DAYS THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THEIR IN THE CHANGING FROM THE TWO CO-PAYS TO THREE CO-PAYS. 50% MORE CO-PAYS IF YOU DO THE MATH THAT WAY. SO; [INAUDIBLE] MMB RAISE CONCERNS WITH [INAUDIBLE] OR WHAT KIND OF COST WILL BE RAISE BECAUSE OF THE CO-PAYS THAT ARE ADDED TO THAT. AND THEY ALSO NOTED MMB; DID ON BEHALF OF THE USE OF DIRECT MAIL DOES INCREASE PATIENT ADHERENCE TO THE DRUG RECEIVED AND THE BILL RESTRICTIONS ON THAT COU LD RESULT THIS WITH THE FISCAL NOTE SAYS COULD RESULT IN LOWER AND SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER COST OF THE MEDICAL SIDE. THAT’S WHAT MMB IS REPORTING ABOUT THE OTHER [INAUDIBLE] MEMBERS COME I WOULD ASK THE REST OF THE PUBLIC WASABI EXPANSION THIS WOULD ASK YOU TO VOTE NO TODAY ON THIS BILL.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM OLMSTED REPRESENTATIVE LIEBLING.>>REPRESENTATIVE LIEBLING: MME. SPEAKER AND MEMBERS; I RISE TO RESPOND TO A COUPLE THINGS THAT ARE BEEN RAISED . FIRST OF ALL SOME TIME AGO THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT GOVERNMENT DOING THIS. I WANT TO TELL THE BODY THAT GOVERNMENT DOES THIS ALREADY IT ALREADY MANAGES THE FORMULARY.. I SEE REPRESENTATIVE GAROFALO IS NOT ON THE FLOOR ANY LONGER. THIS WAS HIS QUESTION BUT IN A MEDICATED FEE FOR SERVICE PROGRAM; PEOPLE ARE NOT ON MANAGED CARE; WE ALREADY AS A STATE DIRECTLY MANAGE PHARMACEUTICALS BUT WE DO IT WITHOUT A PBM AND WE DO IT IN A VERY TRANSPARENT WAY. ALL KINDS OF PUBLIC INPUT AND PUBLICLY PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT ARE HELD. SO THERE IS QUITE A MODEL FOR THIS ALREADY AND THERE IS IN FACT A PROPOSAL THIS YEAR TO EXPAND THIS. THE GOVERNOR HAS THIS IS PART OF IS ONE CARE PROPOSAL . THE BENEFIT PACKAGE TO PUT ALL OF OUR PUBLIC PATIENTS INTO ONE POOL AND MANAGE IT THE WAY WE DO NOW WITH OUR FEE-FOR-SERVICE PROGRAM. SO THE ANSWER IS; THIS WOULD NOT APPLY. WERE NOT HAVE TO APPLY BECAUSE WE ALREADY DO THIS IN A VERY TRANSPARENT PUBLIC WAY. SECONDLY; MEMBERS COME I JUST WANT TO RISE TO RESPOND TO SOME OF WHAT I HAVE BEEN HEARING HERE ON THE FLOOR. SOMEBODY WAS WORRIED ABOUT; THAT THIS BILL IS LOOKING OUT FOR THE BOTTOM LINES OF INSURERS. BUT LOOKING OUT FOR THE BOTTOM LINES OF INSURERS. EMBERS; IF YOU DON’T WANT TO DO THAT YOU SHOULD NEVER HAVE PASSED REINSURANCE. WE TOOK PUBLIC MONEY; GIVE RIGHT TO THE INSURERS TO UP THEIR BOTTOM LINE. SO BOY; THAT YOU NUMBER YOUR CONCERN. BUT OKAY; I DON’T THINK THIS BILL IS DOING THAT. BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS; TOO; REMEMBER; WE’VE MEDICAL LOSS RATIOS IN THE STATE.. SO YES; WE WANT TO CUT OUT THE PBM’S WHICH ARE REALLY SKINNING A LOT BUT LOT OF MONEY AWAY FROM THE INSURERS. THAT ENDS UP IN HIGHER PREMIUMS TO RAISE THE COST TO THE INSURERS AND ENDS UP AS BUYER PART OF HIGHER PREMIUMS NOT TO MENTION A HIGHER OUT-OF-POCKET COST FOR PEOPLE TRYING TO GET THE MEDICATIONS THEY NEED. AND SO; THIS BILL WOULD HELP TO REDUCE THE COST OF INSURANCE. THAT’S A BIG REASON TO DO THIS. A BIG REASON.. FINALLY; JUST WANT TO SAY I HEAR A LOT OF MEMBERS SAYING; I LIKE TO VOTE FOR THIS BILL BUT IT ISN’T PERFECT. I SURE WOULD LIKE TO VOTE FOR THIS BILL DOES A LOT OF REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME BUT IT IS IMPORTANT. IN MY EXPENSE; IF I WANT WITH THE BILL IS TRYING TO DO AND IT IS IMPERFECT TO MY VOTE FOR THAT BILL. BECAUSE THAT’S HOW YOU GET A BILL TO CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. NOT BY VOTING NO. VOTING NO MEANS DON’T SEND THE BILL TO CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.THE LEAST THAT’S WHAT’S ALWAYS MEANT TO ME. SO I SUGGEST TO MEMBERS; IF YOU THINK THIS A REALLY IMPORTANT; WHICH OBVIOUSLY; A LOT OF US DO; A LOT OF US REALIZE BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE AND BOTH BODIES; LOT OF US REALIZE THIS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM AND IT’S TIME TO START SOLVING IT. I THINK THAT WILL MEAN A NICE GREEN BOARD. THERE SHOULD BE A COMPLETELY GREEN BOARD UP THERE . NOT ONE MEMBER SHOULD VOTE NO BECAUSE THAT USUALLY MEANS; DON’T SEND IT TO CONFERENCE. IT SHOULD DIE HERE. THAT’S WHAT IT MEANS TO ME. AND I WOULD THINK THE PUBLIC WITH THINK THAT; TOO.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM WRIGHT REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. MY QUESTION IS FOR THE BILL AUTHOR IF YOU’D BE WILLING TO ANSWER? THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. TO THE BILL AUTHOR; WAS LISTENING TO THE EXTENT BETWEEN YOURSELF AND REP RESENTATIVE SCOTT AND I BELIEVE I HEARD YOU SAY THAT IN REGARDS TO TRADE SECRETS THAT LANGUAGE IS STILL UNDER DISCUSSION THAT YOU HAVE MADE A MEETING TOMORROW. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS; IF THE BILL LANGUAGE IS STILL UNDER DISCUSSION; TOMORROW DO YOU THINK IT’S THE BEST THAT WE VOTE ON IT TODAY?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. I MAY BE NEW HERE BUT I KNOW THIS ONLY BILL THAT PASSED OFF THE FLOOR THAT STILL BEING WORKED ON. SO ABSOLUTELY; WE SHOULD VOTE ON IT TODAY.>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. WITH THE BILL AUTHOR CONTINUE TO YIELD; PLEASE? THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. SO IS THIS A CASE WHERE I NEED TO EITHER VOTE FOR OR AGAINST IN ORDER TO FIND OUT WHAT’S IN THE BILL?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. I CANNOT HEAR YOU REPRESENTATIVE.>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: 22 VOTING FOR THIS BILL TO FIND OUT WHAT’S IN IT?>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. NO; YOU CAN JUST READ IT.>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: MME. SPEAKER WELL YOU JUST SAID REPRESENTATIVE MANN THAT THE LANE WHICH IS STILL IN DISCUSSION. SO IF I READ IT NOW AND VOTE ON IT NOW; IT’S GOING TO BE DIFFERENT TOMORROW POTENTIALLY. SO READING IT NOW DOESN’T NECESSARILY HELP ME WHEN YOU ADMITTED THIS IS STILL WORK IN PROGRESS. MME. SPEAKER; WOULD REPRESENTATIVE LIEBLING YIELD FOR A QUESTION? MENACE SPEAKER; REPRESENTATIVE LIEBLING I’VE BECOME INCREASINGLY FRUSTRATED WITH YOUR USAGE OF SOME THE GENERALIZATIONS YOU CONTINUE TO SPEAK ABOUT ON THIS FLOOR. MOST RECENT ONE YOU JUST SAID IN THE MOST RECENT COMMENTS WAS IN REGARDS TO REINSURANCE. YOU KEEP SAYING SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF YOU PEOPLE; YOU GUYS; THAT SIDE. AND YOU AND I HAVE HAD MME. SPEAKER; CONVERSATION ON REINSURANCE WERE I’VE CORRECTED YOU COULD I DO NOT SUPPORTED LAST YEAR. I VOTED AGAINST STATE THIS YEAR. SAMANTHA SPEAKER; REPRESENTATIVE LIEBLING; WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO MAKE ERRORS IN YOUR REMARKS WHEN YOU GENERALIZE?>>REPRESENTATIVE LIEBLING:>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: REPRESENTATIVE GENERALLY NO LONGER WISHES TO YIELD REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO>>REPRESENTATIVE LUCERO: MME. SPEAKER [INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE JURGEN>>REPRESENTATIVE JURGENS: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. MANY OF THE COMMENTS I HAVE OF ARTY BEEN MADE SO I WANT TO GRANNY GRADY JOHNNY THEM BUT THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE MANN FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD APPEARED THIS IS IN GENERAL A VERY GOOD BILL. WITH RESPECT TO MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE REPRESENTATIVE HAMILTON FOR THE WORK YOU’VE DONE ON THIS IN THE PAST I APPRECIATE THAT AND THANK YOU.. MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE SAME AS WHAT WE HAVE HEARD HAVING TO DO WITH SECTION 4 AND THE FIDUCIARY TO THE INSURERS. MY FEAR AS REPRESENTATIVE NE U SAIDIT WILL RAISE THE COST OF HEALTHCARE BIC WHEN YOU TO CHOICE AND WE CAN EITHER VOTE YES TO GET THIS TO CONFERENCE COMMITTEE AND HOPEFULLY IT GETS FIXED OR WE CAN VOTE NO. KNOWING THAT’S GOING TO LIKELY GETS TO CONFERENCE COMMITTEE AND HOPE THAT IT GETS FIXED. I EXPECT AND I HO PE THAT IF AND WHEN IT DOES COME BACK TO CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WITH THE LANGUAGE SPECIFIC TO THE FIDUCIARY BEING RESPONSIBLE TO THE INSURERS; THAT WE WILL HAVE AN ALL GREEN BOARD BUT TODAY; BECAUSE OF THAT SECTION I’LL BE VOTING NO HOPING THAT THAT LANGUAGE GETS CLEANED UP BECAUSE I THINK THAT ALL AND ALL; THIS IS A GOOD BILL.. ALL IN ALL; THE REFORMS ARE MUCH NEEDED. SPECIFICALLY I’M HAPPY TO SEE THAT THE GAG CLAUSE IS BEING REMOVED. I THINK IT’S VERY GOOD AND VERY LONG OVERDUE. SO I’LL BE VOTING NO TODAY AND HOPEFULLY THIS COMES BACK WE WILL ALL BE ABLE TO VOTE GREEN ON IT. THANK YOU.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM REPRESENTATIVE BAHNER>>REPRESENTATIVE BAHNER: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. THANK YOU MEMBERS. FIRST I WANT TO THANK REPRESENTATIVE HAMILTON. I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE PUT A GREAT DEAL OF EFFORT INTO THIS BILL AND I KNOW THAT A LOT OF THAT HARD WORK IS THE RESULT THAT WE SEE TODAY. I KNOW YOU’RE PASSIONATE I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT. I ALSO WANT TO THANK SEN. JENSEN FOR ALL OF HIS HARD WORK. THIS IS BEEN A VERY LONG BUT BIPARTISAN EFFORT AND I KNOW THAT REPRESENTATIVE LONG HAS CONTINUED TO WORK TIRELESSLY DAY AFTER DAY AND REALLY WORKING TO REFINE THIS LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REALLY VOTE FOR AN LIGHT THAT BOARDED GREEN. THIS BILL IS ABOUT PUTTING PATIENTS FIRST. IT’S ABOUT OUR SENIORS. IT’S ABOUT OUR FAMILY. OUR YOUNG FAMILY. PUTTING THEM FIRST. NOT SECOND; NOT THIRD AND DEFINITELY NOT LAST. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN DOING AND IT’S TIME FOR REFORM. THIS IS NEEDED. MEMBERS; WE KNOW THIS. THIS IS NOT GOING TO SHOCK ANYONE IN THIS ROOM. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST SWEEPING REFORMS WE’VE EVER SEEN ON THIS FRONT. THIS IS BEEN WORKED ON FOR YEARS . IT IS TIME TO PASS IT.. IT’S TIME TO PUT OUR PATIENTS BACK IN THE DRIVER SEAT AND PUT MONEY BACK IN THE POCKETS OF THE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITIES THAT WE REPRESENT. THIS BILL ISN’T JUST ABOUT FLOWERY LANGUAGE. IT’S ABOUT REAL PEOPLE. AND I DON’T KNOW ABOUT ALL OF YOU IN THIS ROOM BUT WHEN I WE NT DOOR-TO-DOOR TALKING TO FOLKS IN MY DISTRICT; I HEARD SENIORS WHO WERE [INAUDIBLE] THEY CAN’T AFFORD TO PAY THEIR PRESCRIPTION DRUG. THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR OTHER GET TO MANAGE THEIR EXPENSES. THEY CAN MANAGE THEIR HEALTH CARE. THE SE ARE FOLKS WHO SHOULD BE WORRYING ABOUT WHEN THEY ARE GOING TO SPEND THEIR NEXT DAY OUT WITH HER GRANDCHILDREN; NOT WHETHER THEY CAN AFFORD THEIR PRESCRIPTION. THESE ARE YOUNG FAMILIES WERE WORRIED ABOUT PUTTING MONEY ON THE TABLE AND PAYING FOR DAYCARE. THEY CAN’T BE PUT LAST ANYMORE.. THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE MEMBERS; I URGE YOU NOT ONLY TO VOTE GREEN FOR THIS BECAUSE IT IS TIME BUT BECAUSE IT IS TIME FOR US TO RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS TIME TO PUT PATIENTS BACK IN THE DRIVER SEAT AND PUT THEM FIRST. THANK YOU.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM FILLMORE REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDS.>>REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDS: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON A COUPLE OF ISSUES HERE. THE FIRST ONE IS A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO WE HAD A BILL ON LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONS BUT I THINK IT HAD TO DO WITH SOME LANGUAGE FROM REPRESENTATIVE NOOR. I BELIEVE IT WAS. AND ONE OF THE MEMBERS FROM THIS BODY STOOD UP AND SAID WELL I DO WANT TO YOUR FROM LANDLORDS OR SLUMLORDS BECAUSE I DON’T HEAR FROM THEM BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. HERE; WE HAVE A CASE WHERE WE HAVE A MEDICAL DOCTOR CARRYING LEGISLATION ON MEDICAL ISSUES. NOW; IS THAT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST TO THE MEMBER WHO BROUGHT THAT UP EARLIER? I SAY; NO IT’S NOT. I OWN A FARM BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AG STUFF MY TO HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BECAUSE I VOTE ON FARM BILLS IN THE FINANCIAL SERVICE; ETC. I THOUGHT IT WAS PRETTY RECKLESS WHEN I WAS BROUGHT UP SAYING THAT LANDLORDS TALKING A BILL OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. OF COURSE THAT SIMPLY NONSLIP NOW AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF REINSURANCE; REINSURANCE WORKS. IT WORKED BEAUTIFULLY.. INSTEAD; THERE ARE THOSE FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE OTHER WANT TO SET UP A SYSTEM HIGHER 50 PEOPLE TO SEND CHECKS DIRECTLY TO INSURANCE COMPANIES. SO OBVIOUSLY; THAT ARGUMENT HAS A ZERO MERIT WHATSOEVER. THEN I WAS A BIT PERPLEXED BY SOME OF WHAT REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD’S COMMENTS HAVING TO DO WITH THIS BILL NEEDS TO BE PASSED BECAUSE COMPANIES WE ARE DOING WITH OUR REALLY REALLY BIG. WHO CARES? WHO CARES ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE COMPANY? MCDONALD’S IS BIGGER THAN A PBM AND THEY PUT OUT A REALLY GOOD PRODUCT THEY LIKE I LIKE AND I MADE A LOT OF MONEY OFF ME. A LOT. SO I DON’T UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF BECAUSE THE COMPANY IS BIG IT’S BAD. BECAUSE THAT’S NOT THE CASE BUT NOW; ON THIS BILL; THERE ARE SOME REALLY BAD THINGS IN THIS BILL BUT THERE’S A LOT OF REALLY GOOD THINGS IN HERE; TOO. AND SO I THINK YOU HAVE TO I’M VOTING FOR THE BILL TODAY HOPEFULLY; THE SENATE CAN CLEAN UP THE FIDUCIARY ISSUES THAT ARE VE RY PROBLEMATIC THEY ARE PROBLEMATIC AND I WOULDN’T DIMINISH THOSE ISSUES WHATSOEVER. AND OF COURSE; I MUST CLOSE ON SOMETHING THAT IS VERY PERSONAL TO ME BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL BEEN THROUGH IT HERE. EVERYBODY AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER WAS A FRESHMAN. IS WHEN A FRESHMAN GETS UP ON THIS LAWRENCE AS WELL IT’S BECAUSE I AM A FRESHMAN ; PLEASE DON’T SAY THAT BECAUSE IT’S QUITE OBVIOUS TO US.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: WITH ANY OTHER MEMBER WAS TO SPEAK ON THE BILL BEFORE ANYONE WANTS A SECOND BITE AT THE APPLE? I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM HENNEPIN REPRESENTATIVE HERTAUS>>REPRESENTATIVE HERTAUS: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THIS BILL AND THE DISCOURSE THAT’S GOING ON TODAY. I JUST WANT TO COMMENT ABOUT THE ABUNDANT KNOWLEDGE AND WEALTH OF INFORMATION THAT EACH OF THESE MEMBERS IN THIS BODY HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE WITH REGARD TO THE DECISIONS WE MAKE ON LEGISLATION. REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS; APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT YOU GOT UP AND TALK ABOUT YOUR 10 YEARS IN THE INDUSTRY AND YOU ARE GIVING YOUR TESTIMONY IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE IN YOUR OPINION ABOUT HOW THIS LEGISLATION COULD BE INFLUENCED BY WHAT YOU HAD TO CONTRIBUTE TO THOSE COMMENTS. AND LIKE REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDS IT JUST MENTIONED;AYE; TOO; WAS THINKING ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION AND DEBATE AND SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND WE SHOULD RESPECT EACH OTHER A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT WE CAN CONTRIBUTE; WHETHER YOU ARE A BUILDER OR WHETHER YOU ARE A YOUR SCHOOLTEACHER OR WHETHER YOU ARE AN INSURANCE AGENT OR WHETHER YOU ARE A LANDLORD OR DOCTOR. WE ARE REPRESENTATIVES AND A MERE OF THE PEOPLE WHO SENT US HERE. SO WE SHOULD TAKE WHAT WE HAD TO CONTRIBUTE; WHAT WE HAVE TO OFFER THEM ABOUT LEGISLATING AND THE COMMENTS THAT OTHER MEMBERS HAVE SERIOUSLY. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO COMMENT ABOUT THE STATE BEEN MADE ABOUT REINSURANCE. REINSURANCE IS NOT A HANDOUT TO INSURANCE COMPANIES COULD REINSURANCE IS THERE FOR THE EXPLICIT PURPOSE OF REDUCING RISK AND THEREFORE; PRICING A PRODUCT MORE CHEAPLY FOR THE PEOPLE THAT W E ARE REPRESENTING. SO WITH THAT MEMBERS; THANKS FOR THE DEBATE . YOU EACH WILL MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION WHETHER IT IS TIME TO VOTE GREEN OR RED ON THIS B UT IT CERTAINLY HAS BEEN BETTER THAN THE LAST FEW DAYS. THANK YOU.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE BILL? ANY CLOSING COMMENTS FROM THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL? REPRESENTATIVE TOO MANY>>REPRESENTATIVE MANN: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. SO FIRST OF ALL; THIS BILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE AND SINGLE-PAYER . JUST WANT TO CLEAR THAT UP.TWO; THERE IS A COMMON SURROGATE MADE ABOUT HOW IF WE FIRST ONE HE SAYS. CURRENTLY; THE PBM’S TO NOT HAVE ANY SENSIBILITY TO ACT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE HEALTH CARRIER OR THE PATIENT. SO THERE’S A COMMENT EARLIER MADE ABOUT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE THEM ACT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CARRIER VERSUS THE CONSUMER. THAT’S NOT THE TRUTH. WE ARE GOING TO ASK THEM TO ACT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CARRIER VERSUS THEMSELVES WHICH IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY IS HAPPENING. THIRD; AND THIS IS SOMETHING I SAID BEFORE; BUT THIS NARRATIVE OF THIS BILL DOESN’T DO ENOUGH ; IT DOESN’T GO FAR ENOUGH WITH THERE’S AN ISSUE WITH IT SO WE WOULD VOTE NO ON IT. WELL WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS VOTING TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO. WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS TO KEEP DETECTING THE BILLIONAIRES AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE. THAT’S WHAT IT MEANS . WHEN THINGS AREN’T GOOD ENOUGH. WHEN YOU WANT MORE FROM A BILL. BECAUSE HOW DO GET MORE IF YOU DON’T START SOMEWHERE? SO THE REASON WHY I RAN FOR OFFICE IS BECAUSE STORIES LIKE REPRESENTATIVE HAMILTON.. BECAUSE I COULD NOT HEAR ANY MORE STORIES OF PEOPLE SUFFERING AT THE HANDS OF BILLIONAIRES; A BIG PHARMA ; PBM’S IN THIS COUNTRY AND IN THE STATES. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT BIG PHARMA IS COMING AFTER ME AND HAS REACHED OUT TO MANY OF YOU HERE I N THE MINNESOTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND ALL THOSE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS; AND I WANT IT TO BE VERY CLEAR; THAT I DON’T CARE. AND THAT I’M GOING TO STAND UP FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SUFFERING IN MY COMMUNITY AND I WILL NOT STAND UP TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO AND TO KEEP PROTECTING PEOPLE WHO BENEFIT OFF OF THE SICK PEOPLE IN THE STATE. I AS K FOR YOUR SUPPORT.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: THE CLERK WILL TAKE THE ROLL ON THE BILL.>>>>[ROLL CALL VOTE]>>>>[ROLL CALL VOTE]>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL. THERE BEING 87 AYES AND 42 NAYS THE BILL IS PASSED AND TITLE AGREED TO>>[GAVEL]>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: THE NEXT BILL ON THE COUNTER FOR THE DAY IS HOUSE FILE 70. THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE BILL.>>CHIEF CLERK: HOUSE FILE NUMBER 70 NUMBER FOUR ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE DAY; AND ACT RELATED TO PUBLIC SAFETY FIRST ENGROSSMENT.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: THERE ARE NO AMENDMENTS AT THE DESK. THE CLERK WILL GIVE THE BILL ITS THIRD READING.>>CHIEF CLERK: THIRD READING HOUSE FILE NUMBER 70>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: THIRD READING>>[GAVEL]>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL THE MEMBER FROM RAMSEY REPRESENTATIVE KUNESH-PODEIN TO EXPLAIN HER BILL>>REPRESENTATIVE KUNESH-PODEIN: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. THANK YOU MEMBERS. MEMBERS; WE ARE HERE BECAUSE WE ARE PROBLEM SOLVERS BUT WE ARE HERE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS IN HEALTHCARE AND EDUCATION; AGRICULTURE; TRANSPORTATION. WE ARE HERE TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE TAKING THE VERY BEST CARE OF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN MINNESOTA. BUT UNFORTUNATELY COME IN MINNESOTA AND ACROSS THE NATION; WE HAVE A REALLY BIG PROBLEM. I WANT YOU TO IMAGINE THAT YOU AREA YOUN G NATIVE AMERICAN GIRL; MAYBE 13 YEARS OLD OR NATIVE AMERICAN WOMAN IN YOUR BIGGEST PROBLEM SHOULD BE GOING TO THE PROM; WHAT SHOULD I WEAR OR PLANNING YOUR FUTURE. BUT UNFORTUNATELY; FOR SO MANY OF OUR NATIVE AMERICAN WOMEN THEY ARE WORKING REALLY HARD TO STAY ALIVE BY THE TIME THEY REACH THEIR EARLY 30S. THIS IS A REAL ISSUE. THIS IS A TRUE ISSUE IN NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES AND UNFORTUNATELY; IT’S HERE IN MINNESOTA AS WELL. BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE THAT FOR ALL OF OU R MOTHERS; NATIVE MOTHERS; OUR AUNTS; OUR GRANDMAS; OUR SISTERS; THEIR GIRLFRIENDS; MURDER IS THE THIRD LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH FOR NATIVE AMERICAN WOMEN AGED 10 TO 24. IN SOME AREAS NATIVE AMERICAN WOMEN ARE MURDERED AT A RATE 10 TIMES THE NATIONAL AVERAGE. AND MEMBERS; WHAT IS REALLY HARD IS IT NATIVE AMERICAN WOMEN ARE ASSAULTED 2.5 TO 3.5 TIMES MORE T HAN ANY DEMOGRAPHIC OF WOMEN. NATIVE AMERICAN WOMEN; GIRLS; MEN; BOYS KNOW WHEN EXACTLY KNOWS HOW MANY ARE VICTIMS OF THIS – EXCUSE ME – THIS VIOLENCE. NOBODY KNOWS HOW MANY VULNERABLE [INAUDIBLE] ACROSS THE NATION OR IN MINNESOTA WE DON’T KNOW HOW MANY ARE DEAD. THIS IS A REAL HISTORIC ENDEMIC AND IS DIRECTLY LINKED TO A CONFUSING JURISDICTIONAL [INAUDIBLE] A LACK OF RESOURCES AND UNFORTUNATELY; IN DIFFERENCE IN MANY AREAS. SO I’M GOING TO TELL YOU ABOUT JOJO AND MAYBE SOME OF YOU HAVE HEARD HER ; HER SISTER’S TESTIMONY IN OUR COMMITTEE. JOJO WENT MISSING IN 2005. SHE WAS ARRESTED IN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND TAKEN TO OWATONNA. WHEN SHE WAS RELEASED SHE CALLED HER SISTER. AND THAT WAS THE LAST TIME HER SISTER EVER HEARD FROM HER. ON JULY 11 OF THAT YEAR; WHEN SHE WAS RELEASED SHE NEVER MADE IT BACK TO MINNEAPOLIS. AND WE DON’T KNOW WHY. HER SISTER DOLLY; REPORTED HER MISSING IT BUT SHE WAS TOLD SHE HAD TO WAIT ANOTHER 48 HOURS BY THE POLICE. SHE WAITED THOSE 48 HOURS AND GOT ALL JAMMED UP DUE TO THE DISCREPANCIES A ND THE RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN THE OWATONNA AND MINNEAPOLIS JURISDICTIONAL IN THE POLICE FORCE. IMAGINE HEARING FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT WHEN YOUR LOVED ONE HAS GONE MISSING TO BE TOLD; CALL ME WHEN SHE RETURNS HOME. JOJO NEVER RETURNED HOME. SHE’S NEVER BEEN SEEN FROM. SHE’S NEVER BEEN SEEN OR HEARD FROM SINCE THAT DAY. I’M GOING TO DO ABOUT MISTY. MISTY HAS BEEN AT EVERY ONE OF THE COMMITTEE TO TESTIFY AND SHE’S UP IN THE BALCONY TODAY. MISTY WAS JUST NINE YEARS OLD WHEN SHE WAS FIRST ASSAULTED BY THE BOYFRIEND OF HER FOSTER MOTHER. WHEN SHE WAS 12 YEARS OLD SHE WITNESSED HER GRANDMOTHER BEING MURDERED IN FRONT OF HER AND THEN SHE WATCHED HER ATTACKER GO AFTER HER MOTHER AND THEN AFTER HER. MISTY STILL HAS THE SCARS ON HER HANDS AS SHE DEFENDED HERSELF. WHEN SHE WAS 20 YEARS OLD SHE WAS KIDNAPPED HE WAS TAKEN OVER 6 0 MILES FROM HER HOME AND SHE WAS HELD AGAINST HER WILL. IT WAS RAPED . BUT SHE FINALLY GOT AWAY. MISTY IS FROM MINNESOTA. JOJO IS FROM MINNESOTA. MISTY IS CONTINUING TO FIGHT FOR INDIGENOUS RIGHTS TODAY. THEN COME I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER SAVANNA FROM FARGO SOUTH DAKOTA. ON AUGUST 19; 2070; SAVANNA WENT MISSING. SHE VANISHED WITHOUT A TRACE. SHE WAS EIGHT MONTHS PREGNANT. WE; THE NATIVE COMMUNITY; ARE VERY TIGHTLY CONNECTED WHEN IT COMES TO SOCIAL MEDIA. WE KNEW ABOUT HER MISSING. WE HEARD ABOUT IT. WE READ TO PLEASE FIND SAVANNA. BUT IT WAS DAYS BEFORE THE MEDIA PICKED UP ON THAT. THEY PICKED UP NOT BECAUSE IT WAS A NATIVE AMERICAN GIRL. THA T WENT MISSING BUT HERE WAS A WOMAN WHO IS PREGNANT;; WHO’S GONE MISSING. SOME HEARTBREAKINGLY; SAVANNA’S BODY WAS DISCOVERED EIGHT DAYS LATER THROWN IN THE RED RIVER CAN IT WAS THREE DAYS AFTER HER FIVE-DAY-OLD DAUGHTER WAS FOUND IN AN UPSTAIRS APARTMENT BUILDING. SAVANNA’S BABY HAD BEEN CUT FROM HER WOMB ; KEPT BY THIS FAMILY FOR THIS COUPLE; AND SAVANNA’S BODY WAS JUST DISCARDED INTO THE RIVER. CLOSER TO HOME IN MOST RECENTLY; AMBER HOPKINS. I’LL BE REALLY CURIOUS TO KNOW IF ANY OF YOU HAVE HEARD HER NAME OR IF YOU KNOW HER STORY. BECAUSE THIS HAPPEN JUST THIS MONTH IN JANUARY. JANUARY 14 . AND AMBER WAS FIVE AND PREGNANT WHEN SHE DISAPPEARED. AGAIN; I WONDER HOW MANY OF YOU KNOW THE STORY. HER BODY WAS FINALLY FOUND ON MARCH 26 IN THE BACKYARD OF A VACANT HOUSE IN ANOTHER PART OF THE CITY SUMMER SHE LIVES. I IMAGINE THAT THERE ARE VERY FEW ARE FAMILIAR WITH THESE TRAGEDIES BUT UNFORTUNATELY; IT IS THE STORY THAT IS SO MANY NATIVE AMERICAN FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES UNDERSTAND SO WELL. I CAN’T TELL YOU HOW MANY OF THE STORIES ALONG THE WAY THAT I HAVE HEARD. OVER A YEAR AGO WERE LAST SESSION; I INTRODUCED THIS BILL WITH THE HELP OF SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE. IN I SO APPRECIATED THE SUPPORT THAT ALL OF YOU GAVE ME AND GAVE ALL OF THESE VICTIMS AND THIS BILL AS WE’VE GONE ON. SO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AT LONG LAST TO JOIN AN INTERNATIONAL DISCUSSION . IT’S NOT JUST LOCAL. IT’S NOT JUST NATIONAL BUT THIS IS AN INTERNATIONAL ISSUE. CENTERED ON THE DISAPPEARANCE AND MURDER OF INDIGENOUS WOMEN. MEMBERS; WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TODAY TO BE A PROBLEM SOLVER. WITH JOURNALISTS AND ADVOCATES PRESENTING ALARMING EVIDENCE OF THAT CANOLA COULD BE IGNORED; AND I WOULD ASK YOU TO JOIN ME IN DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY. IN MINNESOTA; THERE ARE SEVEN MINUTES AND I’LL BE RESERVATIONS IN [INAUDIBLE] AMERICAN INDIANS IN MINNESOTA NUMBER APPROXIMATELY OVER 60;000 OR 1.1% OF MINNESOTA’S TOTAL POPULATION. YET; THE URBAN INDIAN HISTORY INSTITUTE RANKS MINNESOTA THE NINTH HIGHEST IN THE MISSING AND MURDERED INDIGENOUS WOMEN INCIDENCES. RESEARCH HAS FOUND THAT 50% ; 56%; OF NATIVE WOMEN EXPERIENCE VIOLENCE IN THEIR LIFETIME. IN ACTUALITY; THOSE [INAUDIBLE] OF NATIVE WOMEN ARE NOT NATIVE MEN. NINE OUT OF 10 [INAUDIBLE] DESIGNATE THEIR FEELINGS TO BE NON-NATIVE ASSAULTS. MANY WILL NEVER BE CAUGHT; WILL NEVER BE PUNISHED; WH O WILL CONTINUE TO DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT NATIVE AMERICAN WOMEN ARE VULNERABLE. THEY ARE INVISIBLE. AND THEY ARE AFRAID HALF THE TIME TO REPORT THE INJUSTICES THAT ARE DONE TO THEM. WE KNOW SOME OF THE REASONS THAT SO MANY MURDERED AND MISSING INDIGENOUS WOMEN CASES GO UNREPORTED UNINVESTIGATED AND UNSOLVABLE WE DON’T KNOW HOW MANY WOMEN ARE ACTUALLY MISSING OR HAVE BEEN MURDERED. I T IS ESTIMATED THAT THOUSANDS OF NATIVE WOMEN HAVE DISAPPEARED OR HAVE BEEN KILLED AND MEMBERS; WE OWE IT TO OUR NATIVE COMMUNITY . WE OWE IT TO THIS NATION TO RECOGNIZE AND ADDRESS THE HISTORIC TRAUMA. SO THIS BILL; HOUSE FILE 70; IS THE VERY FIRST STEP IN UNDERSTANDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF OUR MISSING AND MURDERED INDIGENOUS INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY AND BRINGING AN END TO THE REALLY REALLY HORRIFIC VIOLENCE. IT CREATES A TASK FORCE TO ADDRESS THE VIOLENCE AGAINST INDIGENOUS WOMEN AND IT DEFINES THE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THAT TASK FORCE. THIS TASK FORCE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EXAMINING AND REPORTING WAYS TO ADDRESS TH E CAUSES BEHIND THE VIOLENCE AGAINST INDIGENOUS WOMEN. IT APPROPRIATES METHODS FOR TRACKING AND COLLECTING DATA . IT EXAMINES GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND INSTITUTIONS THAT IMPACT VIOLENCE AGAINST INDIGENOUS WOMEN. AND IT IS GOING TO RECOMMEND APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE VIOLENCE AND ASSIST THE VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES. IT WILL ALSO INCLUDE VICTIMS; SURVIVORS; INDIAN COMMUNITY MEMBERS; AND ALSO THOSE THAT HAVE WORKED HARD WITH ERADICATING THIS VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN. IT WILL ALSO INCLUDE MEMBERSHIP FROM ALL 11 TRIBES. SO WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE THE INVISIBLE VISIBLE. WE DON’T WANT ANYMORE NATIVE AMERICAN FAMILIES TO WORRY AND WONDER IF THEIR LOVE ONES WILL RETURN HOME WHEN THEY WALK OUT THE DOOR. SO MEMBERS; I AM ASKING YOU TO BE PROBLEM SOLVERS. I’M ASKING YOU TO JOIN ME AND I KNOW MANY OF YOU HAVE COULD I’M ASKING YOU TO VOTE GREEN.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: DISCUSSION? I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM RAMSEY REPRESENTATIVE BECKER-FINN>>REPRESENTATIVE BECKER-FINN:>>[NATIVE LANGUAGE]>>REPRESENTATIVE BECKER-FINN: MME. SPEAKER MEMBERS [INAUDIBLE] DRAW THE SURVIVORS WHO COME FORWARD TO SHARE THEIR STORY GET THE SHERRIES STORIES OF YOUR MURDERED MOTHERS AND MISSING SISTERS DID I DON’T KNOW IN INDIGENOUS WOMEN IS NOT BEEN PERSONALLY IMPACTED BY VIOLENCE MYSELF INCLUDED. YOUR STORIES MATTER AND WE HEAR YOU. AS I SHARED THE FIRST HEARING FOR THIS BILL LAST YEAR; MY GREAT-GRANDMOTHER WAS MIGHT GREAT-GRANDMOTHER JOSEPHINE WAS BRUTALLY MURDERED AS A YOUR MOM. IN MY HOMETOWN OF CASS LAKE. EVEN MINOR CHILDREN INCLUDING MY THAN FIVE-YEAR-OLD GRANDMA. GRANDMOTHER VERNA. AND THAT TRAUMA IMPACTED BY GRANDMOTHER VERNA HER WHOLE LIFE AND IT IMPACTS MY FAMILY TODAY. B UT THE THING IS; MY FAMILY STORY IS NOT ABSOLUTE ACTUALLY UNIQUE. AS REPRESENTATIVE KUNESH-PODEIN SPOKE TO TO KNOW A NATIVE FAMILY THAT IS NOT BEEN IMPACTED SIMILARLY IMPACTED; BY VIOLENCE LIKE MINE . THE MOST IMPORTANT PART THOUGH IS THAT MY FAMILY AND EVERY NATIVE FAMILY; WE ARE MORE THAN OUR TRAUMA. WE ARE MORE THAN SAD STORIES AND VICTIMS OR RELICS OF HISTORY. WE ARE SURVIVORS. IF THERE IS ONE THING OUR PEOPLE ARE GOOD AT; IT IS SURVIVING IN THE FACE OF ALL ODDS. WE ARE STILL HERE. WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN HERE AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE HERE IN MINNESOTA. THAT’S WHAT WE DO. THE TRUTH IS THAT THE SYSTEM; THE CULTURE WE ALL LIVE IN I S MORE ACCEPTING OF INDIGENOUS WOMEN AS VICTIMS THAN AS LEADERS. THE TRUTH IS THAT THE SYSTEM IS MORE ACCEPTING OF INDIGENOUS WOMEN AS INVISIBLE THEN AS SPEAKING UP AND SPEAKING THE TRUTH. AND I REFUSE FOR THAT REALITY TO THE CONTINUED REALITY FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS OF NATIVE GIRLS. FOR MY DAUGHTER; VITA. FOR SIOBHAN AND MIKA AND EVIE AND ALL THE GIRLS WE ARE RAISING TODAY. I’M USING A LOT OF NAMES TODAY BECAUSE I DO WANT TO MAKE A POINT THAT THESE ARE REAL FULL HUMAN BEINGS WITH FAMILIES THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT THEY ARE NOT JUST STATISTICS THESE ARE FAMILIES AND LOVED ONES;; OUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS. AND THEY WILL BE IMPACTED BY THIS ISSUE AND THIS BILL. THIS BILL IS THE FIRST STEP TO WORKING TOWARDS MAKING THINGS RIGHT AND MAKING THINGS BETTER FOR OUR NATIVE COMMUNITY. SO FOR JOSEPHINE AND MY GRANDMA VERNAAND VITA AND SIOBHAN PLEASE; VOTE YES.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM HAD BEEN REPRESENTATIVE HERTAUS.>>REPRESENTATIVE HERTAUS: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. REPRESENTATIVE KUNESH-PODEIN; THANK YOU FOR BRING ING THIS BILL FORWARD. WHEN I SAW THAT YOU WOULD INTRODUCED IT I WAS QUICK TO BECOME A CO-AUTHOR AS WELL. TO REPRESENTATIVE BECKER-FINN THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFICACY ON THIS ISSUE AS WELL. MEMBERS;OUR AMERICAN CULTURE WE VALUE OUR WOMEN AND OUR CHILDREN. AND WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PROTECT THEM. AND FIND OUT WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE. WHETHER IT IS FGM OR SEX TRAFFICKING OR WHETHER IT IS PORNOGRAPHY OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT DEMEANS WOMEN; WE NEED TO RENOUNCE THAT AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT ENDS. THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE. AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO FIND THE PROBLEM HERE THAT AND THAT WE ADDRESS IT. THANK YOU.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM I SENT YOU REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON>>REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: MME. SPEAKER AND MEMBERS; THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE THAT’S HAPPENING. AND I WANT TO THANK REPRESENTATIVE KUNESH-PODEIN FOR BRINGING THIS BACK AGAIN LAST YEAR. THERE’S A LOT OF TRAGEDY HAPPENING IN THIS SITUATION BUT IT WHAT’S REALLY UNFORTUNATE; THIS TASK FORCE SHOULD ALREADY BE RUNNING IT SHOULD BE UP AND RUNNING. THERE WAS UNFORTUNATELY VETOED BY GOV. DAYTON LAST YEAR AND WITH WHAT IS HAPPENING IT’S VERY SERIOUS BUT WE NEED TO GET THIS TASK FORCE W I URGE EVERYONE TO VOTE GREEN.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM STEARNS REPRESENTATIVE TRAN O’DRISCOLL AYE O’DRISCOLL>>REPRESENTATIVE O’DRISCOLL: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. AS MANY OF YOU KNOW ON THIS HOUSE FLOOR REPRESENTATIVE [INAUDIBLE] HER BROTHER AND I GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL TOGETHER. I KNOW THAT KUNESH-PODEIN FAMILY VERY WELL. I ALSO HAVE COUSINS WHO ARE INDIGENOUS COULD I THINK ABOUT HOW FORTUNATE MY FOUR COUSINS WHO ARE FEMALES WHO DO NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TRAGEDY THAT WE ARE HEARING ON HOUSE FLOOR TODAY. LAST YEAR; WHEN I WAS A JOE THE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE IS LOOKING AT BILLS BUT I SAW REPRESENTATIVE KUNESH-PODEIN’S BILL COULD I WENT TO HER AND SAID WE CAN GET YOU A HEARING ON THAT AND GOT ONE IN OPERATIONS COMMITTEE. ENTERING THE TIME OF BILL HEARING BE SCHEDULED THE HEARING AND AS REPRESENTATIVE BECKER-FINN SAID; THEY WERE WITNESSES BROUGHT INTO THE FIRST COMMITTEE HEARING MEETING AND WE WERE THE FIRST WANT TO HEAR THAT. AND AS YOU COULD HAVE HEARD THOSE STORIES ; THEY LITERALLY WOULD’VE TURN YOUR STOMACH . IT’S HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT WE TREAT PEOPLE LIKE THIS IN THE 21ST CENTURY. THE BRUTALITY.. BUT IT’S BETTER STILL TOLERATED. THE PEOPLE AGAINST PEOPLE.. IT’S JUST UNBELIEVABLE. AS SOON AS I HAVE A HEARING ON THIS; I WANT TO THEN; CHAIR JOHNSON AN D I SAID; I KNOW EVERYBODY’S ASKING YOU FOR MONEY REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON; BUT THIS WHEN YOU HAVE TO FIND A SPOT FOR. WE NEED MONEY AND WITH MONEY IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGET. I BARELY GOT THE SENATE OUT OF MY MOUTH; AND HE SAID; WE ARE WITH YOU THAT WE WILL FIND A SPOT FOR IT. AS REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON SAID; THAT BILL PASSED OFF THE HOUSE FLOOR LAST YEAR . PART OF THE PUBLIC SIFT SAFETY OMNIBUS BILL. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE PROVISIONS THAT WAS IN THAT OMNIBUS LAST YEAR THAT GOT VETOED AND HERE WE ARE ANOTHER WHOLE YEAR LATER HAVING TO DEAL WITH THESE KINDS OF THINGS. ANOTHER WHOLE YEAR LATER WHEN WE DON’T KNOW HOW MANY IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS BILL TALKS ABOUT; INDIGENOUS WOMEN; WERE MURDERED AND MISSING THAT WE DON’T EVEN KNOW ABOUT. I’M HOPING THAT WITH GOV. WALZ WE’VE A FRESH START . AND THAT WE LOOK AT THESE KINDS OF BILLS ON THEIR MERITS. MEMBERS; I CAN’T ENCOURAGE YOU ENOUGH TO VOTE YES TO DO THE RIGHT THING IN THE 21ST CENTURY. THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. AND MEMBERS.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM DAKOTA REPRESENTATIVE HALVERSON.>>REPRESENTATIVE HALVERSON: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. REPRESENTATIVE KUNESH-PODEIN; REPRESENTATIVE BECKER-FINN;; FOR BEING HERE. WHEN WE HEARD THIS BILL IN COMMITTEE; IN GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; I STARTED TO CRY AND [INAUDIBLE] NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE STORIES THAT WE HAVE HEARD WHICH WERE HORRIBLE; BUT FOR THE FACT THAT WE HAD A PATH FINALLY FOR THESE WOMEN TO SPEAK TO POWER. THE STORIES ARE NOT NEW. THE STORIES HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR GENERATIONS AS REPRESENTATIVE BECKER-FINN SAID. BUT HERE WE ARE TODAY; WITH NATIVE WOMEN REPRESENTING COMMUNITIES AT THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE. AND SO I WAS STRUCK SO MUCH BY THE POWER THAT BRINGING NEW PEOPLE INTO OUR BODY HAS MADE WITH REGARD TO THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE. AND WITH REGARD TO THE DIFFERENCES THAT WE GET TO MAKE PEOPLE’S LIVES. AND I’M VERY PROUD AND VERY GRATEFUL TO BE ABLE TO STAND WITH THESE WOMEN AND LET OUR NATIVE SISTERS KNOW THAT WE SEE YOU AND WE HEAR YOU AND WE CARE. AND I’M VERY EXCITED TO VOTE YES FOR YOU AND FOR GENERATIONS OF WOMEN IN MINNESOTA.. WHO SPENT FAR TOO MUCH TIME IN THE SHADOWS. THANK YOU.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION THE CLERK WILL TAKE THE ROLL ON THE BILL.>>>>[ROLL CALL VOTE]>>>>[ROLL CALL VOTE]>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL. THERE BEING 128 AYES AND ZERO NAYS THE BILL IS PASSED AND TITLE AGREED TO. THE>>[GAVEL]>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: NEXT ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE DAY IS HOUSE FILE 2049. THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE BILL.>>CHIEF CLERK: HOUSE FILE 2049; NUMBER ONE ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE DAY AND ACT RELATING TO HIGHER EDUCATION FIRST ENGROSSMENT.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM ANOKA REPRESENTATIVE BERNARDY.>>REPRESENTATIVE BERNARDY: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. I STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY VERY PROUD OF THE WORK THAT WE HAVE DONE BIPARTISANLY IN THE HOUSE AS WELL AS IN THE SENATE. IT’S A VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE SOMETHING BAD HAPPEN TO OUR STUDENTS THIS LAST YEAR. THEY DEDICATED COUNTLESS HOURS AND SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WORKING TOWARDS A DEGREE TO HELP TAKE CARE THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES. THEY WERE LEFT STRANDED WHEN ARGOSY COLLEGE SUDDENLY CLOSED ITS DOORS IN MARCH. BECAUSE OF BUSINESS DECISIONS THESE HARD-WORKING MINNESOTANS WERE LEFT WITH NO PATH TO GRADUATION; NO REFUND TUITION MONEY; NOT EVEN A WARNING THAT WAS COMING. DU RING A CHEERFUL AND VERY CHEERFUL COMMITTEE HEARING WE HAD A PAST KLEENEX IS OUT TO MEMBERS AS WELL AS INTO THE AUDIENCE FOR PEOPLE WHO CAME THERE . AND I’M GUESSING SOME ARE WATCHING TODAY. SO WE HEARD YOU AND WE ARE HERE TODAY TO HELP YOU. WE HEARD FROM FACULTY STUDENTS [INAUDIBLE] TURNED UPSIDE DOWN . THAT [INAUDIBLE] WAS THERE AND SHE SHARED WITH US HOW SHE HAD TO SCRAMBLE TO FIND HOMES FOR THE FIT [INAUDIBLE] IN THEIR CARE. AN ADVISOR CAME TO WORK EVERY DAY HAVING NO IDEA WHAT TO TELL HER STUDENTS. A DENTAL HYGIENIST STUDENT CAN BEFORE US THEY WERE LITERALLY WEEKS AWAY FROM GRADUATION. THEY HAD SIX WEEKS OF CLINICALS TO GO AND THEY HAD JOB OFFERS WAITING FOR THEM THAT THEY HAD TO TURN DOWN BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO TO COMPLETE THEIR DEGREE ON TIME. JUST IMAGINE THAT HARD WORK; SACRIFICING TIME AND MONEY; MAKING [INAUDIBLE] WORK AND FAMILY LIFE AND HEADING TOWARDS AN ATTAINABLE GOAL; AND HAVING THE RUG RIPPED OUT FROM UNDERNEATH YOU. THAT’S WHAT THE STUDENTS 12. TO THE HARD WORK OF MANY MEMBERS IN THIS BODY; FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE; OUR OFFICE OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND THEIR INCREDIBLE STAFF AND COMMISSIONER; AND SEVERAL HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS; AROUND THE STATE; ALMOST EVERYONE IN THE STUDENTS HAS A PATHWAY TO THEIR FUTURE. I WANT TO THANK STAFF THAT INVOLVED IN THIS AS WELL AS THE MEMBERS WHO SIGN ON TO VARIOUS LICENSING AND ACCREDITATION BOARDS ARE FEDERAL COUNTERPARTS LETTERS TH AT WE’VE BEEN TO HELP THE STUDENTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BECAUSE OF THE HARD WORK NEARLY EVERY STUDENT WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THEIR COURSES ; FINISH THEIR CLINICAL HOURS AND TAKE THE NEXT STEP TOWARD THEIR DREAM CAREER. BUT THE WORK IS NOT FINISHED. THE COMPANY THAT OWNS ARGOSY IS CALLED DREAM CENTER EDUCATION HOLDINGS. THEY TOOK STUDENT GRANT MONEY FROM THE STATE INTENDED FOR STUDENTS BUT HELD IT FOR THEMSELVES. THIS BILL WOULD GIVE THE OFFICE OF HIGHER EDUCATION THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT SPRING SEMESTER LIVING MISCELLANEOUS MONEY DIRECTLY TO STUDENTS IT WAS INTENDED FOR. IT ALSO ALLOWS THE STUDENTS TO BE RELEASED FROM STUDENT DEBT LOANS FOR SPRING OF 2019. THIS MONEY IS NOT TAKING OUT OF GENERAL FUND. AND DOES NOT AFFECT OUR TARGETS. THAT WILL BE HITTING SHORT. THIS IS ONE-TIME FIX FOR THIS UNIQUE SITUATION. KEEP IN MIND; MEMBERS; THIS IS ONLY THE FIRST TIME FOR THIS? THIS BILL IS IMPORTANT TO PASS QUICKLY AND SO WE CAN MAKE A STUDENTS HOLE AND GET THOSE DOLLARS INTO THEIR HANDS SO THEY CAN MOVE ON AND FINISH THEIR DEGREES AND MOVE ON TO THEIR FUTURE. IT’S THE LEAST WE CAN DO. GOING FORWARD IN THE INTERIM WE WILL BE WORKING TOGETHER FOR A LONG-TERM FIXED TO ENSURE THE SITUATION CANNOT HAPPEN AGAIN IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. WE ALL VALUE EDUCATION IN MINNESOTA. AND WE ENCOURAGE OUR STUDENTS TO OBTAIN DEGREES AND CERTIFICATIONS WHEREVER THEY CAN. LET’S NOT LET THE IRRESPONSIBLE BUSINESS DECISIONS OF ONE COMPANY THE HOPES OF THE EDUCATION OF OUR MINNESOTA STUDENTS. VOTE YES TO MAKETHE STUDENTS HOLE. THANK YOU MME. CHAIR AND MEMBERS COULD I STAND FOR QUESTIONS BE ONE THERE ARE NO AMENDMENTS AT THE DESK. THE CLERK WILL GIVE THE BILL ITS THIRD READING.>>CHIEF CLERK: THIRD READING HOUSE FILE NUMBER 2849.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: THIRD READING>>[GAVEL]>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: DISCUSSION OF THE BILL? REPRESENTATIVE MILLER>>REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. I WONDER REPRESENTATIVE BERNARDY WOULD YIELD TO A QUESTION? THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. THIS JUST A CLARIFYING THING FOR ME. ARE THERE ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS BY THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT IS GOING AFTER WHOEVER THE PRINCIPLES ARE FOR ARGOSY ON THIS ISSUE?>>REPRESENTATIVE BERNARDY: MME. SPEAKER; REPRESENTATIVE MILLER OKAY. I WILL MAKE SURE I GOT THAT RIGHT. THE ATTY. GEN. IS INVESTIGATING THIS AS WELL AS THE OFFICE OF HIGHER EDUCATION HAS TAKEN ACTION AS WELL. IN DIFFERENT WAYS OF GETTING STUDENTS RECORDS AND THEY WILL BE MOVING FORWARD TO TRY TO RE-COLLECT THIS MONEY.>>REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. THANKS FOR THAT ANSWER. MEMBERS; I KIND OF HAVE A CONCER N. I WANT TO BE SUPPORTING THIS; VOTE GREEN. I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THIS PROBLEM; BUT I’VE KIND OF A CONCERN THAT THERE IS WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THERE’S THINGS IN PLACE THAT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. SO WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM AFTER THE FACT THAT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE AN UTTERLY WITHOUT LOOKS LIKE BUT THIS IS A VERY CONCERN FOR ME THAT BECAUSE I KNOW SOME OF THESE PRIVATE COMPANIES THAT ARE BEEN HIGHER EDUCATION HAVE CLOSED IN RECENT YEARS HAVE GONE OUT OF BUSINESS AND WE HEARD THIS KID AND THIS IS GOING TO BECOME I DON’T WANT TO SEE THIS AS FIXING THE PROBLEM AFTER THE FACT WHEN WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT. HOPEFULLY; THAT IS HAPPENING. COMING OUT OF THIS THAT NOT ONLY FROM LESSONS LEARNED BUT ALSO SOME FIXES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: I RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM FILLMORE REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDS>>REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDS: THANK YOU; MME. SPEAKER. WITH REPRESENTATIVE LIEBLING YIELD FOR A QUESTION? THANK YOU VERY MUCH IS NOT IN THE CHAMBER; APPEARED>>REPRESENTATIVE DAVIDS: SHE’S NOT ON THE FLOOR. OKAY. REPRESENTATIVE BERNARDY; GREAT BILL. I CAN’T IMAGINE WHAT THESE PEOPLE WENT THROUGH . IT’S HARD ENOUGH TO GRADUATE THE WAY I WAS. WELL I’LL HAVE MY SCHOOL CLOSED DOWN ON ME. AND IT’S PUT SOME PEOPLE AND REALLY REALLY BAD SITUATIONS I THINK THE WORK YOU’VE DONE ON THIS HAS BEEN EXEMPLARY. WP CLIENT IS WHEN YOU SAID; TARGETS WOULD BE OUT SHORTLY. DID YOU ADVISE THE BODY ON THAT?>>REPRESENTATIVE BERNARDY: ACTUALLY I CANNOT ADVISE YOU ON THAT IT I’M JUST HOPEFUL.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE BILL RELATED TO HIGHER EDUCATION? SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION THE AUTHOR’S BILL WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE? THE CLERK WILL TAKE THE ROLL.>>>>[ROLL CALL VOTE]>>>>[ROLL CALL VOTE]>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL. THERE BEING 125 AYES AND ZERO NAYS THE BILL IS PASSED AND TITLE AGREED TO>>[GAVEL]>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER.>>CHIEF CLERK: ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER. THE SPEAKER ANNOUNCE APPOINTMENT THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE TO A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE FILE NUMBER 148 AND ACT RELATING TO HEALTH. HUOT; FREIBERG; AND BACKER.>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: ANNOUNCEMENTS? REPRESENTATIVE WINKLER>>REPRESENTATIVE WINKLER: MME. SPEAKER I MOVE WHEN HOUSE ADJOURNS TODAY IT ADJOURNS UNTIL 10 AM FRIDAY; IT ADJOURNS UNTIL 10 AM FRIDAY; MAY 10; 2019>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: REPRESENTATIVE WINKLER MOVES WHEN HOUSE ADJOURNS TODAY IT ADJOURNS UNTIL 10 AM FRIDAY; MAY 10 FRIDAY; MAY 10; 2019. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] THOSE OPPOSED SAY; NAY. THE MOTION PREVAILS. REPRESENTATIVE WINKLER>>REPRESENTATIVE WINKLER: MME. SPEAKER I MOVE THE HOUSE DO NOW ADJOURN>>HOUSE SPEAKER HORTMAN: REPRESENTATIVE WINKLER MOVES THE HOUSE DO NOW ADJOURN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY; AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES.] THOSE OPPOSED SAY; NAY. THE MOTION PREVAILS. THE HOUSE STANDS ADJOURNED UNTIL 10 AM FRIDAY; MAY 10; 2019. AND WE ARTY ADJOURNED THE JOINT CONVENTION CENTERS WE DON’T NEED TO DO THAT AGAIN. THE MOTION PREVAILS. THE HOUSE IS ADJOURNED.>>[GAVEL]>>[ADJOURNMENT]>>

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *