Wellwellwell,guess what issue has resurfaced with no warning whatsoever. Yep, it’s the slush fund for Del-Tech, this time with no automatic property tax provision. The bill allegedly was reported out of committee yesterday even though no notice was provided that the bill would even be considered in committee. None. Which is contrary to President Pro-Tem McBride’s rules about transparency. Oh, and the bill has been placed on today’s agenda. That in and of itself should tell you that McDowell and ‘Doctor’ Brainard are pulling another fast one. Anyway, the bill would:
This Act gives the College’s Board of Trustees the authority to issue bonds to finance the cost of major and minor capital improvements, deferred maintenance, and the acquisition of related equipment and educational technology and establishes the Community College Infrastructure Fund (“the Fund”) to pay the principal and interest on such bonds. This Act is a substitute for and differs from Senate Bill No. 50 by deleting the property tax component and capitalizes the Fund instead by an annual appropriation equal to 10% of the amounts appropriated to public education in the previous year’s bond and capital improvement act(???), together with such other funds as may be deposited by the College from sources including, but not limited to, tuition and fees, private funds, grants and federal support. This Act also provides a mechanism, but not an obligation, for the state to provide matching funds for minor capital improvement projects consistent with existing matching provisions for public education.
I’m slow on the uptake, but shouldn’t such a bill require a fiscal note? I mean, isn’t the annual appropriation coming from state coffers?
So, what we have here is a bill that was introduced yesterday in lieu of the original, was passed through committee w/o proper public notice, lacks a fiscal note, and has been placed on today’s Senate Agenda. Is it possible to even reach any other conclusion than that McDowell and Brainard are trying to push this bill through without any oversight whatsoever? I don’t know what that alternative conclusion could be. This is as cynical as it gets. Will the Senate put the brakes on this blatant rush job? We’ll see.
Here is yesterday’s Session Activity Report. Still no sign of the criminal justice reform bills. Perhaps today.
There’s one notable bill on today’s House Agenda. HB 24(Bennett) ‘would prohibit insurers and pharmacy benefit managers from engaging in the practice of “clawbacks”. When the total cost of a prescription drug to an insurer or pharmacy benefits manager is less than a patient’s co-pay, the insurer or pharmacy benefits manager keeps the difference in a practice known as a “clawback” ‘. A good bill supported by research:
According to a March 2018 report issued by the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics based on the Center’s analysis of 2013 data from a large commercial insurer combined with data on national average drug reimbursements, almost 25% of filled pharmacy prescriptions involved a patient co-payment that exceeded the average reimbursement paid by the insurer by more than $2.00. The report further noted that overpayments were more likely to occur on claims for generic drugs than brand drugs and that the total overpayments in the Center’s sample amounted to $135 million.
I also like HB 88(Carson) , which:
…removes the automatic suspension of a driver’s license for failure to provide proof of insurance. The Division of Motor vehicles will continue to suspend the registration of the uninsured vehicle. The removal of the automatic license suspension will allow the vehicle owner to get to work, keep a job, so that the driver will be able to obtain vehicle insurance.
Here is today’s Senate Agenda, which, other than Del-Tech’s sleight-of-hand, is relatively bland. I just have one question: Among other things, SB 18(McDowell) ‘…’reduces regulatory burden on motor vehicle dealers and electric suppliers by removing unnecessary administrative requirements and reporting’. My question: According to whom? Sen. McDowell used to be one of the more trustworthy of public officials, but I don’t think that’s any longer the case. Which is why I ask questions that I might not previously have asked.
Whaddayathink?