A recent campfire at Front Door Politics headquarters burns safely.

Case in point: A proposed law about residential fire sprinklers provides an intriguing confluence between personal liberty, public safety and local control. When the N.H. House votes later today on Senate Bill 91, it will offer one perspective on the cost of liberty.

Fire Codes

The Senate passed SB 91, sponsored by Sen. Boutin (R-Hooksett), back in February. If it becomes law, the bill would disallow any town or city in New Hampshire from requiring “automatic fire suppression sprinklers” in one- or two-family homes.

New Hampshire is just one of many states having this same debate. In Pennsylvania and Georgia, for example, lawmakers are either enacting similar bans or delaying enforcement of existing laws. Meanwhile, fire protection and home building organizations are fighting it out to influence public and political opinion on the economic costs and benefits of such fire protection systems.

And the subject isn’t new in New Hampshire. Another bill this session would prevent planning boards from requiring fire sprinklers in one- or two-family homes. House Bill 109, having passed the House without debate, now awaits Senate committee recommendation. And in 2010, the Legislature removed fire sprinklers for the same sized dwellings from the state fire code with House Bill 1486.

For and Against

In the majority committee report supporting the bill, Rep. John Burt (R-Goffstown) writes that the measure is “consumer friendly” to homebuyers in the state and “is a safeguard to personal liberty by preserving an individual’s choice whether or not to purchase such a system for their home.”

But in the minority report, Rep. Kris Roberts (D-Keene) says SB 91 strips away a local government’s ability to achieve public safety ends. Roberts also says that a “one size fits all” approach doesn’t work for all communities and can ultimately increase costs through higher insurance rates and more municipal public safety spending. “We shouldn’t be using the power of the government to require the majority to assume the cost of the moral hazard,” Roberts said.

>> The House will meet in full session beginning at 10 a.m. today in Representative’s Hall at the State House.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

Would having to install a $4500+ fire sprinkler system in a new house discourage you from building? Do you want your town or the state to decide if fire sprinklers are required?

Is this bill even about fire sprinklers?

(Comments below, policy here.)

Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry) has proposed a new way to settle the JUA controversy.

Senate Bill 170 first forbids the state from claiming any surplus funds from the Joint Underwriting Association — either through legislation or taxation. It also orders that any “excess surplus” funds be distributed to policyholders. That excess measures at least $110 million, according to the bill. And that $110 million is at the core of the two-year controversy.

A House committee will hold a public hearing on SB 170 Tuesday.

the backstory

The JUA (officially known as the New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association) is an otherwise unknown structure. Founded in 1981 by the N.H. Legislature, it was designed to help doctors, hospitals and other medical providers find affordable medical malpractice insurance through a state-administered not-for-profit agency.

Over the years, plenty of money has built up at the JUA from premium payments made by policyholders. The fund goes beyond a prudent reserve, some say, to the point of having “excess” surplus funds.

The JUA became a political flashpoint in 2009, when Gov. John Lynch and Democratic budget writers tried to transfer $110 million in surplus JUA money into the state’s general fund to help balance the budget for 2010 and 2011.

As we noted in an earlier post on SB 170, JUA shareholders were joined by Republicans in fighting the transfer, saying lawmakers had no right to the money. The Lynch administration countered that the people had a right to benefit from the surplus JUA funds because the state had established the entity in the first place.

Eventually, the JUA won a lawsuit that reached the N.H. Supreme Court. In its ruling, the Court said the tax-exempt JUA is a private agency, even though the IRS allows it to function within state government.

the new story

Senate Bill 170, sponsored by Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry), codifies the court’s ruling and goes a step further by prohibiting any possible taxation on the funds. It also orders that the current excess be distributed among shareholders, effectively emptying the cookie jar.

In a full Senate vote, even Democratic members who had formerly supported the Lynch administration’s stance on JUA supported SB 170 as it passed by a 23-1 vote. Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester) was the sole objector.

If SB 170 passes, that won’t mean that the JUA controversy itself is anywhere near over. Check out this Foster’s article on continued legal fallout.

Q&A

Is it about time for SB 170? Or does it go too far in prohibiting any possible taxation on the JUA’s surplus funds? And is it for the Legislature or the courts to order that excess money be distributed to shareholders?

Let us know your thoughts using the comments box below. (Comments Policy)

>> Tuesday, April 19, 10 a.m., House Executive Departments and Administration Committee public hearings on SB 170 and other legislation. An executive session is scheduled at 1:15 p.m . (Legislative Office Building, Room 306).

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord, with contributions from Hilary Niles.

Most state senators and representatives think so. The N.H. House and Senate have both passed bills to get state Attorney General Michael Delaney to join a multi-state lawsuit fighting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which President Obama signed into law in March 2010. So far, more than two dozen other states have joined the lawsuit, which challenges the constitutionality of the federal law.

The difference between the House and Senate’s persuasive approaches is the difference between “must” and “should.”

The House Approach

House Bill 89, sponsored by Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R-Kingston), is short and to-the-point: “The attorney general shall, no later than July 1, 2011, move to join the state of New Hampshire as a plaintiff in the lawsuit pending in federal court captioned State of Florida et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al.”

Weyler’s bill passed two House committees (including a new committee on constitutional review) and two floor votes with a veto-proof majority.

The Senate Approach

Sponsored by Sen. Tom DeBlois (R-Manchester) and 16 of his Senate colleagues, Senate Bill 148 takes a slightly different tack. It makes more of a suggestion that Delaney “should, as soon as practicable, join the lawsuit …”

It also undermines a key provision of the federal health care reform approach, asserting that no resident of New Hampshire can be required to obtain health insurance, nor be fined for going without coverage. That essentially would void the applicability of the federal mandate that individuals must have insurance (which is scheduled to be in place in 2014 at the earliest).

Having passed the Senate with a veto-proof majority, SB 148 will get its second public hearing of the session, today in the House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee.

The Debate

Democratic critics of the House measure have called it a waste of time and money, as well as an unconstitutional encroachment of the Legislature into executive branch functions.

If passed, Delaney says he would fight the law in state court. And that brings up an interesting note: The final House budget bill, which is now being tweaked in the Senate, included a provision preventing the N.H. Department of Justice from taking any legal action against the state Legislature.

Even if passed, either law may be rendered moot depending on the final outcome of pending federal court challenges. So far, two federal district courts have upheld the health care reform law and two district courts have struck part or all of the law.

Q&A

What do you think about states fighting the federal insurance mandate: wasted time or principled stands?

Share your thought using the comments box below!

>> Thursday, April 14, 10:00 a.m., House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee public hearings on SB 148 and other legislation (Legislative Office Building, Room 302).

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord, with contributions from Hilary Niles.

These medical screening panels were established in the Granite State in 2005, based on a similar Maine law. They finally got rolling in 2007 after a challenge to the program’s constitutionality was defeated in court. They’re made up of a judge, a lawyer, and a clinician.

Paul Newman in the 1982 film The Verdict, about a lawyer who fights the odds to try a medical malpractice case. (This may have no bearing whatsoever on NH's current medical screening panels, but we do like Paul Newman.)

In addition to saving judicial resources, advocates of the screening process point to health care cost savings and accessibility as an advantage: If fewer malpractice suits go to jury trial, fewer dollars will be awarded to plaintiffs for damages they suffered due to malpractice. This may bring down the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and make it available to more doctors, especially in underserved areas.

The question is: Are the screening panels working?

A recent report by the state’s Medical Malpractice Panel and Insurance Oversight Committee couldn’t come to a conclusion on that. The committee officially lapsed on Jan. 1, but a bill moving through the Legislature would give it more time to work.

According to a recent story by New Hampshire Business Review reporter Cindy Kibbe, “separate reports released by a legislative oversight committee present inconclusive, and often contradictory, evidence about the effectiveness of screening panels…” And even a cursory examination of legal web sites in New Hampshire (see here and here) show no shortage of opinions about the panels and their impact on both legal costs and justice.

Sponsored by Sen. Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro), Senate Bill 12 would extend the Medical Malpractice Panel and Insurance Oversight Committee. Dec. 31, 2013, would become the new due date for its final report to, according to the bill’s text, make a “recommendation to terminate, continue or amend” the current statute defining New Hampshire’s medical screening panels.

The legislation passed the Senate last month, and the House Judiciary Committee will hold its public hearing on the bill Tuesday, April 12. Senate Bill 12 enjoys strong bipartisan support and is headed for almost certain passage. Meanwhile, debate about the screening panel law’s legal and economic effectiveness continues.

>> Tuesday, April 12, 10:00 a.m., House Judiciary Committee public hearings on SB12 and other bills (Legislative Office Building, Room 208).

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

Have you had an experience with medical malpractice in New Hampshire? Do you know someone who’s been before a Medical Screening Panel? How does the system work? What could make it work better?

Share your thoughts in the comments box below. (Comments Policy).

The captain of this rowboat will no longer have to check his speed if Senate Bill 27 is passed.

The proposals include eliminating the state motor vehicle registration surcharge, repealing boating speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee, and establishing a managed care platform for the state’s Medicaid program.

Kill the Surcharge

Senate Bill 78 – A motor vehicle registration surcharge enacted in 2009 as a two-year temporary funding measure could die sooner.

Sponsored by Sen. Andy Sanborn (R-Henniker), SB 78 would immediately repeal a 2009 provision that raised registration fees and surcharges for certain vehicles — from $35 to $75 depending on the size of vehicle. The resulting revenue is designated for “highway and bridge betterment.” Sanborn’s proposal would reinstall the previous fee structure and eliminate the surcharges, which are due to expire June 30.

The bill’s fiscal note says revenues for the Department of Transportation would decrease by about $6.59 million. That reduction would decrease state highway fund expenditures and local revenue an estimated $791,000 for fiscal year 2012.

Senate Bill 78 passed in the Senate Ways and Means Committee by a 6-0 vote with an “Ought to Pass” recommendation to the full Senate.

Lake Speed

Senate Bill 27 – Two years ago, lawmakers enacted a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee: 45 mph during the daytime and 30 mph at night. Now, a proposal sponsored by Sen. Lou D’Allensandro (D-Manchester) would replace that with no speed limit at all.

D’Allesandro’s bill would instead require boaters on any body of water to “proceed at a safe speed that is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions,” with conditions like visibility, weather, and radar use to be considered in determining a safe speed.

The bill’s supporters say common sense boating shouldn’t be replaced by limits of personal freedom, while opponents say safety has been enhanced and the lake is more family-friendly with the current speed limit in place.

The bill was reported out of the Senate Transportation Committee with an “Ought to Pass” recommendation by a slim 3-2 vote.

Managed Shift

Senate Bill 147 – Sponsored by Sen. Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro), SB 147 would set up a five-year contract with private vendors to manage the state’s Medicaid program.

Supporters say the long-term savings with a managed care program could amount to tens of millions of dollars not spent in administrative costs. In the bill’s fiscal note, the Department of Health and Human Services said it was difficult to determine what costs could be saved at this time. The Department provided the following information:

• In 2009, a leading health care actuarial firm, Milliman, Inc., reviewed NH Medicaid claims and conducted actuarial analysis to determine the viability of Medicaid managed care in NH. Their report identified factors that impact the ability of the state to achieve savings utilizing managed care. The existing reimbursement rates, size of the Medicaid caseload, administrative costs, and wrap-around responsibility were factors.
• New Hampshire’s reimbursement rates and administrative costs are comparatively low.
• The federal law requiring states to offer choice to recipients would require at least two managed care organizations to serve Medicaid enrollees.
• States must provide wrap around services; all services required by federal law including services which may not be included in the managed care benefit package.
• The Department issued a Request for Information in July, 2010 to solicit ideas from the managed care industry. Twelve entities responded and none of the responses offered savings. Most of the respondents stated they would need 6 to 9 months from the date of contract approval to program start up. Therefore the Department assumed there could be no fiscal impact until FY 2013.
• The New Hampshire Medicaid program currently utilizes most of the tools used in managed care including prior authorization, care management, and pharmacy benefit management.
• Based on the experience of other states, an up front investment is necessary as two claims adjudication systems are needed for the first 6 months after the transition date. The old MMIS system would continue to operate for 6 months since providers have 6-12 months to submit claims for services provided and new the claims would be processed through the new managed care system.
• Federal approvals required at various points in the procurement process may increase the timeline for implementation.

Senate Bill 147 unanimously passed Senate Finance Committee with an “Ought to Pass” recommendation.

>> Wednesday, March 23, full Senate session beginning 10 a.m. at the State House.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

The Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee will hold a public hearing Thursday on Senate Bill 170, sponsored by Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry). The bill would prohibit the state from using any JUA funds and allow the organization to distribute surplus funds back to shareholders — medical providers who buy their malpractice insurance policies through the JUA.

The political controversy erupted in 2009 when Gov. John Lynch and Democratic budget writers tried to transfer $110 million from the JUA into the state’s general fund to help balance the budget for 2010 and 2011. The move became a political flashpoint as JUA shareholders were joined by Republicans in fighting the transfer, saying lawmakers had no right to it. But, the Lynch administration said the people of New Hampshire had established the JUA and had a right to benefit from those surplus funds.

The JUA sued and won. The N.H. Supreme Court essentially said that the tax-exempt JUA is a private agency, even though the IRS allows it to function as a tax-exempt part of state government. A bid to change JUA rules last fall through the state insurance department, which administers and appoints board directors to the JUA, also ran into resistance by a joint legislative committee and was eventually abandoned.

The JUA was founded in 1981 by the Legislature to help medical providers find affordable medical malpractice insurance through a state-administered non-for-profit agency. Senate Bill 170 proposes that any of its excess funds be distributed to shareholders after all tax liability issues have been settled. Any excess funds that have not been distributed “shall be used to provide grants in aid to health care providers servicing medically underserved populations to assist in the NHMMJUA coverage.”

Already, eight senators and four representatives have joined Sen. Carson as co-sponsors of SB 170.

>> Thursday, Feb. 10 — Public Hearing of SB 170 before the Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee, Room 100 at the State House, 9:50 a.m. Executive session may follow.

>> You can find out more about SB 170 in a recent New Hampshire Business Review story and read state Insurance Commissioner Roger Sevigny’s explanation of how NHMMJUA works and his defense of using the agency’s funds by the state here.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

Front Door Politics will keep up on the pulse of New Hampshire's health care and insurance debates this year.

Stopping federal health care reform is the goal of at least seven health care-related bills that will be considered when New Hampshire’s 2011 legislative session opens Jan. 5.

Today, we continue our survey of newly proposed laws with a snapshot look at the health care bills and some particular developments to keep an eye on.

No Thanks, Mandates

The most (in)famous health insurance mandate right now is the individual mandate portion — requiring people to purchase health insurance — of the recent federal health care reform law. Plenty of energy is now being garnered to derail this aspect of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

On the House side, Rep. Neal Kurk (R-Weare) has proposed a bill that would mandate the state to opt out of the federal act. Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester) has filed legislation requiring the state attorney general to join a lawsuit by other states (all with Republican attorneys general) to stop the reform bill on constitutional grounds.

On the Senate side, 14 senators have sponsored legislation similar to Vaillancourt’s.

One common topic in New Hampshire’s ongoing health care and insurance debates is the requirement that insurance companies cover a range of specific health conditions — ranging from mental health services to pregnancy to bariatric surgery. Current proposals on this topic will become more clear when the full text of all proposed legislation is made available next month.

Fine Print

Six Republican House and Senate members — including the father and son team of Reps. Marshall and Matthew Quandt of Exeter — are proposing new bills that would establish “a committee to study contract negotiations between health insurance companies and health care providers.”

The Quandts need to look no further than the very public and acrimonious negotiations between the state’s largest insurer, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and Exeter Health Resources, the parent company of Exeter Hospital. The current contract between the two expires Dec. 31 and negotiations are at an impasse. (You can read all about it in the Portsmouth Herald here.)

Crossing State Lines

Individuals and some businesses would be allowed to purchase health insurance from out-of-state carriers according to a bill proposed by Sen. Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro). With no less than 14 fellow co-sponsors from the Senate, this near-perennial topic promises an interesting debate this year.

Fluoride Check

Rep. Lars Christiansen (R-Hudson) has proposed legislation to establish “a committee to study the health and environmental effects of using industrial-grade silicofluorides and industrial-grade sodium fluoride for water fluoridation in New Hampshire.”

The last major overhaul on water fluoridation came in 2004 with Senate Bill 449, which put in place procedures for communities to vote on whether or not to allow fluoridation of public water supplies.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord, with contributions from Hilary Niles.

>> Tomorrow we will take a look at a wide range of social issues, including gay marriage, abortion, death penalty and medical marijuana.

Hospitals will make their case today to the Commission on Health Care Cost Containment.

The Commission on Health Care Cost Containment stemmed from Senate Bill 505, which passed earlier this year. Members are charged with creating a first-of-its-kind study of general health care costs in the state. The commission lost the two Democratic legislative members — including SB 505’s main sponsor, former Sen. Maggie Hassan of Exeter — in the November elections and their replacements will be named today. There are 11 commission members including four elected officials: two from the House and two from the Senate with equal political party participation. (You can read our earlier dispatch about the commission here.)

Hassan told Front Door Politics that she has been asked to “stay involved” with the commission by Chairman Phil Steiss, but she’s not sure what form that will take.

“I plan to attend meetings as a member of the public and give my two-cents worth from time to time,” Hassan said. The long-term goals of the commission include:

• promoting health insurance competition in the state
• reducing or eliminating payment differentials to hospitals and health care providers
• fairly allocating the burden of charity care
• promoting public access to cost information
• and containing the increase in health care costs

The commission, which heard from health insurance providers in November, is studying the health care reimbursement system throughout the state along with the impact of federal health care reform — which in itself may be in legal limbo after a federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that it’s unconstitutional to mandate the purchase of health insurance. The commission will also investigate options for implementing a common payment system for hospitals, and seek methods for incentives that will enhance better health care quality and efficiency.

The commission is expected to hear testimony today from the New Hampshire Hospital Association and the non-profit New Hampshire Citizen’s Health Initiative. The commission will issue a final report by July 1, 2012.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

>> Commission on Health Care Cost Containment will meet in Room 100 in the State House on Tuesday, Dec. 14, at 9 a.m.

Understanding the impact of health care economics is important given its growing influence across the economy. According to the N.H. Center for Public Policy Studies, personal health care costs made up 18 percent of the state economy in 2009. That’s double the amount from 1989, and it could grow to 25 percent or more in another 20 years.

The Commission on Health Care Cost Containment was originally designed as a permanent, three-member team funded by hospitals and insurers to review hospital costs. But, after significant political turmoil in the spring, Senate Bill 505 emerged in its final version as a commission charged with creating a first-of-its-kind study of general health care costs in the state. It passed the Senate 24-0 in March and the House 209-113 in April.

The commission chair and main sponsor of SB 505, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-Exeter), said members will study the health care reimbursement system throughout the state. They will also examine the impact of federal health care reform, consider options for implementing a common payment system for hospitals, and look for ways to incentivize better quality and efficiency.

Hassan said their ultimate goals include promoting competition in health insurance, reducing or eliminating payment differentials to hospitals and health care providers, fairly allocating the burden of charity care, promoting public access to cost information, and containing the increase in health care costs.

The commission has 11 members, including two each from the House and Senate; two from the state departments of insurance and health and human services; and five public members with expertise in health care and small business, appointed by Gov. John Lynch. The commission’s activities are funded at $250,000 by a one-time assessment, with half paid by insurers and the other half paid by hospital and ambulatory surgical centers in proportion to their net operation revenue.

“Funding to support a professional staff with the background and qualifications to analyze complex health care financing data is essential to the commission’s success,” Hassan said earlier this year.

The commission will have its next regular meetings Nov. 16 and Dec. 14. Its final report is due July 1, 2012.

>> Commission on Health Care Cost Containment will meet in Room 100 in the State House on Tuesday, Oct. 19, at 9 a.m.

This Daily Update was written by Michael McCord.

The House and Senate teams working on the budget agreed on how to fix $270 million of a nearly $300 million shortfall, but neither is budging on the final $30 million. Gov. John Lynch has said he’ll keep lawmakers working until the job is done.

Lynch has also said he’ll refuse to sign any legislation that calls for expanded gambling before regulations are in place to manage it. The Senate has taken a very strong stance in support of new gaming ventures this session, while the House has voted it down three times.

Budget aside, there’s still more at stake on Wednesday, with final votes due on more than 60 bills that went to Committees of Conference two weeks ago to find a compromise between House and Senate positions.

In the meantime, several bills relating to health insurance, family law and the criminal justice system have already made it through the Committee of Conference process and await Lynch’s signature.

health insurance
Health insurance providers will have to include both hearing aids and certain autism treatments in their coverage plans, thanks to House Bills 561 and 569. They were sponsored by Rep. Susan Emerson (R-Rindge) and Rep. Suzanne Butcher (D-Keene), respectively.

Mandated coverage requirements like these apply to Health Maintenance Organizations and Health Service Corporations, but not to any self-funded health insurance policies, such as those the state operates for its own employees. Therefore, the state would not necessarily take on any increased costs if these bills become law.

But some skeptics still have concerns.

Rep. Neal Kurk (R-Weare) spoke during a brief floor debate on the hearing aid bill.

“In the past, even though by law (mandates like these) don’t need to apply, they get adopted,” he said.
Kurk and Rep. Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) both questioned how much these requirements would cost the state in that case, and Packard also asked how much they will cost policyholders whose plans will be subject to the mandates.

The answer: up to $17 per year per policy for the hearing aids, according to Rep. Edward Butler (D-Harts Location). He delivered both bills’ Committee of Conference reports to the House. The potential increase to premiums under the bill mandating autism treatments would be a bit lower, at $9 to $10 per member per year, according to Rep. Susi Nord (D-Candia), who assisted Butler with the reporting.

Dollar limits to the autism benefits were added by the Senate and ultimately agreed to in the Committee of Conference. These helped keep the projected premium increases down to about .2 percent, Nord said, as opposed to a potential .4 percent increase.

“It’s minimal to the amount of benefit for families who are paying the premiums but not getting the benefits for their children,” she argued. Butler also maintained that the benefits could ultimately save schools and communities millions of dollars because children with autism would get more health care from insurance.

Nord said an independent study suggested 300 to 350 families would benefit from the mandate, which includes a treatment approach called “applied behavioral analysis.” The practice is said to produce significant improvements in functionality with life skills, communication and socialization. Prescriptions and counseling, as well as speech, occupational or physical therapy, would also be required under HB 569.

family law
Divorced parents will no longer have to go to court to recalculate child support when one child in the family turns 18, provided Gov. Lynch signs House Bill 1420. Sponsored by Rep. David Bickford (R-New Durham), the new law will allow child support to be automatically recalculated for remaining children when an older child becomes an adult.

“(It) keeps people from having to go to court as much and takes some of the burden off the courts,” Bickford said.

The House and Senate also have voted in a new task force on work and family. Proposed in House Bill 1271 and sponsored by Rep. Mary Gile (D-Concord), this will replace a similar task force that was created in 2007. The new 29-member body will try to identify ways the state can help citizens attend to both work and family in a productive way.

The task force will hold a series of public hearings throughout the state to get feedback on the issue from workers and employers, as well as state agencies and interested organizations.

The task force will also collect data on employers’ family-related policies and practices, develop an incentive-based program to reward employers for offering family-friendly benefits, and offer public education on how such policies can help the state’s economy prosper.

criminal justice
The Justice Reinvestment Initiative that passed the Legislature this spring has potential to bring comprehensive changes to criminal justice codes. It aims to simultaneously lower recidivism rates and save the state money by reducing jail time and increasing community supervision for nonviolent criminals. Senate Bill 500, sponsored by Senate President Sylvia Larsen (D-Concord), benefited from wide support in both the House and Senate.

The Parole Board, however, expressed grave concerns about public safety if current practices change. According to John Eckert, executive assistant to the Parole Board, who spoke out against SB 500, it would be a mistake to grant parole according to a formula. He says the Parole Board should instead be allowed to exercise judgment regarding whether or not an offender is safe to release.

The Parole Board itself will be the subject of a special study created by House Bill 1167. Sponsored by Rep. Laura Pantelakos (D-Portsmouth), the committee will compare New Hampshire’s Parole Board to those of other states to gauge its effectiveness. They’ll look particularly at the board’s make-up and procedures for hearings, with a report due in November.