Nanny rates

On Wednesday, the House defeated a bill to re-allow a variation of so-called “payday loans” — short-term, high-interest loans — that lawmakers banned in 2009. The vote on Senate Bill 160 was narrow at 186-179, and the issue generated passion and contrasting views on the role of government.

“What have we come to? We were elected to get government off our backs and no more nanny states. I’m really disturbed,” said Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester).

“This will make loan sharking an acceptable business,” said Rep. Donna Schlachman (D-Exeter). “It’s state-regulated usury.”

Stuck in the middle

A Senate committee has voted to kill a House measure that would withdraw New Hampshire from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Sen. Jeb Bradely (R-Wolfeboro) is trying to keep RGGI alive, but make it a whole lot different.

“There are people who want to keep the program exactly as is, and there are people who want to repeal outright. We’ve got a long way to go with this,” Sen. Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro) told the Concord Monitor about the amendment to House Bill 519 he plans to introduce on the Senate floor next Wednesday.

The article says his plan would lower the cap for the price of carbon from $9 per ton to $1 per ton (it’s currently $1.86). It would also turn that money back over to utilities, rather than use it to fund a state-administered grant program for renewable and efficient energy projects.

Power pleas

The House voted 261-104 to pass its version of Senate Bill 148, which would return any federal grant money for health care reform and force the state Attorney General to join the multi-state lawsuit against the law. The debate on the House floor was pointed and sharp.

“We don’t want to do anything, anything that will allow this federal law to plant its poisonous seeds in our state,” said Rep. Andrew Manuse (R-Derry).

“I urge you to read article 37 (of the state Constitution), use your common sense, deny this lust for power and defeat this amendment,” said Rep. Gary Richardson (D-Hopkinton).

Accounting jujitsu

Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester) was puzzled by a Senate Finance Committee amendment to House Bill 635. It would cut the Department of Corrections budget by $10.5 million by sending 600 prisoners from the state prison in Concord to an as-yet unknown location run by private companies.

“I really didn’t see any materials that indicated we could save $10.5 million. I didn’t know where they were going, how they were going to get there, what the costs would be,” said D’Allesandro, who was the only Finance Committee member to vote against the bill.

On Wednesday, the full Senate did not take up the amendment and the bill was returned to the Finance Committee.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

Sen. Tom De Blois (R-Manchester) sponsored the Senate's bill to fight the feds on health care reform.

The House version of Senate Bill 148, sponsored by Sen. Tom DeBlois (R-Manchester) requires the Attorney General to join the multi-state lawsuit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and requires New Hampshire to reject some $600,000 in federal grant money to help the state set up a health care exchange as provided for in last year’s law.

“This bill sends the Obamacare money back to Washington with specific instructions to use it to reduce our massive federal deficit,” O’Brien said in a press release. “Obamacare has been found unconstitutional by two federal courts and we are awaiting the final decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Spending that sort of money to comply with a mandate that is three years away and stands on very shaky ground makes no sense.”

Daily Briefing notes that the reform act’s unconstitutionality is far from a foregone conclusion; the law been upheld by two different federal district courts. Also, if the state doesn’t use the federal money to set up a health care exchange network, the federal government will set up an exchange of its own. And finally, New Hampshire can suggest, and even suggest nicely, but Granite State legislators have no legal authority over what the federal government does with money the state returns.

Senate Bill 148 now returns to the Senate, which may or may not take a dim view of the House amendments — especially because the Senate had merely suggested (not required) that N.H. Attorney General Michael Delaney join the lawsuit.

Lynch will have a couple weeks before he has to make a decision either way on SB 148. But whether he simply lets the bill become law or risks an override, Daily Briefing believes this one ultimately will be decided in state court.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

>> During the next few weeks as more bills are hashed out between the House and Senate, the Daily Briefing will highlight some of the more controversial, interesting and frankly obvious decisions awaiting lawmakers and Lynch.

We’d also like to hear from you: What bills are you tracking and which ones should Lynch sign or veto? (Comments below, policy here.)

We’re tracking an effort by New Hampshire lawmakers to get the Attorney General to join other states in challenging the constitutionality of last year’s federal health care reform law.

The proposals may or may not amount to anything more than political posturing and a lengthy court battle. But as they play out, they illustrate tension between the states and the federal government, plus a debate within New Hampshire about separation of powers.

the campaign

The next step comes Wednesday when the House meets in full session to vote on — and likely approve — Senate Bill 148, which Republican House leadership has heavily amended.

The Senate version says the attorney general “should, as soon as practicable, join the lawsuit” in federal courts. The House’s amendment orders the AG to do so, saying he “shall, no later than July 1, 2011,” move to join the suit.

The House would also order the executive branch to return more than $600,000 in federal grant money coming to New Hampshire under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The reason for returning those funds, as stated in the amendment itself, is “for the purpose of reducing the federal budget deficit.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, after full implementation of the law in 2014, it will save more than $1 trillion in federal spending during the following decade.

You can see the full amendment and original version below.

In his majority “ought to pass” recommendation report for the amended House version, Rep. Andrew Manuse (R-Derry) said SB 148 sends “a clear message that New Hampshire will neither be a willing participant in this health care scheme that will rob consumers of freedom and drive up costs to state and federal taxpayers, nor will it waste federal taxpayer dollars on implementing a law that will likely be invalidated ultimately.”

The crux of the legal battle is the individual mandate provision, of which Manuse said, “No resident of the ‘Live Free or Die’ state should ever be forced to buy health insurance or face a penalty.”

the resistance

Gov. John Lynch will likely veto whichever version reaches his desk. Attorney General Michael Delaney has said any measure to require his office to join the multi-state legal battle (which is being pursued exclusively by Republican governors) is an unconstitutional breach of separation of powers that he will fight in state court.

In her minority report rebuttal, Rep. Donna Schlachman (D-Exeter) said consumers are already benefiting from the law’s provisions now in effect. Those provisions include small business tax credits for offering health care coverage, payments to seniors for Medicare drug prescription coverage, allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance coverage to age 26, and a halt to pre-existing condition restrictions for children.

Beyond its symbolism, she said, “this bill does nothing to improve health care access or affordability for businesses and individuals in New Hampshire.”

the federal case

It’s too soon to know which constitutional, political and policy arguments will prevail. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined a request for an expedited hearing by Virginia’s attorney general. The legal fight will make its way through the federal courts in the coming months.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

>> Wednesday, May 4, full House vote on SB 148, Representative’s Hall at the State House, 10:00 a.m.

Here is the House’s amended version of SB 148:

Amend the title of the bill by replacing it with the following:

AN ACT relative to health insurance coverage, requiring the attorney general to join the lawsuit challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and requiring federal grant moneys received by the state for implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be returned to the federal government.

Amend the bill by replacing all after section 1 with the following:

2  Statement of Findings.  The general court finds that:

I.  Several federal courts have ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional and at least one federal court has ruled the act nonseverable.

II.  The New Hampshire insurance department has accepted federal moneys for implementation of a law which is likely to be ruled unconstitutional and therefore is likely to be invalidated.

III.  The general court is concerned with the spending of all tax dollars, whether at the state or federal level, when the federal government is running a massive structural deficit.

3  Lawsuit Challenging the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  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.

4  Funds From Grants Returned to Department of Health and Human Services.  The state treasurer shall return any grant funds received by the insurance department for purposes of implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to the federal Department of Health and Human Services for the purpose of reducing the federal budget deficit.

5  Effective Date.

I.  Section 1 of this act shall take effect July 1, 2011.

II.  The remainder of this act shall take effect upon its passage.

AMENDED ANALYSIS 
  This bill:

I.  Provides that a resident of New Hampshire shall not be required to obtain, or be assessed a fee or fine for failure to obtain, health insurance coverage.

II.  Requires the attorney general 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.

III.  Requires certain grant moneys received by the New Hampshire insurance department for the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be returned to the federal government.

Original version of SB 148:

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven

AN ACT relative to health insurance coverage and declaring that the attorney general should join the lawsuit challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Section; Insurance Department; Health Insurance Coverage. Amend RSA 400-A by inserting after section 14 the following new section:

400-A:14-a Health Insurance Coverage. No resident of this state, regardless of whether he or she has or is eligible for health insurance coverage under any policy or program provided by or through his or her employer, or a plan sponsored by the state or the federal government, shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage except as required by a court or the department of health and human services where an individual is named a party in a judicial or administrative proceeding. No provision of this title shall render a resident of this state liable for any penalty, assessment, fee, or fine as a result of his or her failure to procure or obtain health insurance coverage. This section shall not apply to individuals voluntarily applying for coverage under a state-administered program pursuant to Title XIX or Title XXI of the Social Security Act. This section shall not apply to students being required by an institution of higher education to obtain and maintain health insurance as a condition of enrollment. Nothing in this section shall impair the rights of persons to privately contract for health insurance for family members or former family members.

2 Lawsuit Challenging the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The attorney general should, as soon as practicable, join the lawsuit (State of Florida et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al.) challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

3 Effective Date.

I. Section 1 of this act shall take effect July 1, 2011.

II. The remainder of this act shall take effect upon its passage.

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.

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.

Today and Monday, we offer a pair of dispatches checking in on the legislation Front Door Politics has highlighted so far this session. For more background on each bill, click the links to the corresponding dispatches in the bolded heading.

And for a calendar check: In less than two weeks, all bills have to be “reported” out of committee, meaning committee members must recommend specific action on each bill, which is then voted on by the entire chamber. Then comes Crossover on March 31, the deadline for all bills from the House “cross over” to the Senate, and vice versa. To brush up more on how new laws get made in New Hampshire, visit the primer in our Online Learning Center.

Wetlands

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee considered two wetlands bills in mid-January that would change the definition of wetlands. The goal of Senate Bills 19 and 21 was to help making permitting and development easier for the construction industry. Both bills passed the Senate earlier this month and have moved to the House Resources, Recreation and Development Committee.

Time Discrepancy

We reported in January on the bill that would correct an anomaly in the time-space continuum: New Hampshire state law doesn’t match federal law when it comes to the correct dates for Daylight Savings Time. A remedy was approved by the House with a voice vote on Feb. 15. The Senate is the next stop for House Bill 61.

No Referendum

We highlighted in January a pair of election law proposals. One would have created a recall process for U. S. Senators (House Bill 73) and the other was a Constitutional amendment request (CACR 3) for a referendum statute. Both measures were deemed Inexpedient to Legislate by the House Election Law Committee. The full House concurred by defeating both in voice votes earlier this month.

Pharmaceutical Programs

In January, the House Health, Human Services & Elderly Affairs Committee began considering a pair of bills on recycling of unused drugs and a pharmaceutical take-back program. House Bill 111 (reuse) passed by a voice vote in the full House on Feb. 9 and has moved to the Senate. Despite a unanimous “Ought to Pass” recommendation by the committee, House Bill 71 (take-back program) was sent back to the committee. Another public hearing has been scheduled for March 3.

Very Cold Case

A bipartisan proposal (House Bill 138) to establish a permanent State Police “Cold Case” unit to work on unsolved homicide cases has been put in the legislative equivalent of the freezer. The measure is being “retained” in the Criminal Justice & Public Safety Committee.

Require or Encourage?

A Republican-sponsored bill ordering the N.H. Attorney General to join the multi-state lawsuit opposing last year’s federal health care reform law passed the House 267-103 on Feb. 9. House Bill 89 was then sent to a second committee, Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification, where a public hearing was held Tuesday and an executive has been scheduled for March 1. The measure faces a semantic hurdle in the Senate, where a majority of Republicans said Tuesday they promise to pass their own version that would encourage but not require the attorney general to join the lawsuit. Stay tuned.

Kindergarten Stays

The full House turned back a measure to repeal the 2007 law mandating kindergarten in all New Hampshire’s school districts. The House Education Committee deemed House Bill 631 Inexpedient to Legislate, and the full House concurred by a 223-134 roll call vote to defeat the measure.

>> March 10: Deadline for all bills to be reported out of their first committees.

>> March 31: Crossover

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.

N.H. Attorney General Michael Delaney refutes the Legislature's authority to demand that he take action against "Obamacare."

Republican-sponsored House Bill 89, which passed out of committee on a party line vote, would require the Attorney General to join some 26 other states in a lawsuit challenging the federal health care reform act passed last year. Attorney General Michael Delaney testified last month that the proposal itself was unconstitutional because the legislative branch can make laws but not tell the executive branch how to enforce them. He promised to challenge the law in court if it passes.

“We called upon our attorney general to join with other states in filing a lawsuit challenging ‘Obamacare,’ but Governor Lynch and the Democratic leadership at the time refused to join with us in standing up for the citizens of our state,” said House Majority Leader D. J. Bettencourt (R-Salem), a co-sponsor of HB 89, in a statement Monday. “I call upon my colleagues in the Legislature to support HB 89 when it comes to the floor of the House on Wednesday so that we may join the fight against expensive mandates.”

Supporters of HB 89 applauded Monday’s ruling by a Federal District Court judge in Florida that struck down federal health reform law as unconstitutional. In four federal court decisions, two have found that the law is constitutional and two other have struck down either part or all the law’s provisions on constitutional grounds.

While the majority report from the House State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee urged passage of HB 89, saying it was “a concern worthy of action by the attorney general,” the dissenting minority report said the “symbolic” measure was legally irrelevant, a waste of taxpayer money and unconstitutional.

“Just as the attorney general has no constitutional authority to require the legislature to pass or defeat particular bills, the legislature has no constitutional authority to require the attorney general to mount legal challenges against particular laws,” said Rep. Theodoros Rokas (D-Manchester) “If the legislature can compel the attorney general to challenge particular laws, the traditional independence of the attorney general is compromised.”

If the law passes the House Wednesday, it would then go to the Senate. If it is approved by the Senate later this session, it faces an almost certain veto by Gov. Lynch, who in turn faces veto-proof majorities in both legislative chambers.

>> The State House plans to remain open tomorrow, Feb. 2, but the legislative sessions are called off. As of 12:30 today, the Senate has rescheduled for Thursday, Feb. 3, at noon, and the House will likely postpone to next Wednesday, Feb. 9.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

Unused pharmaceuticals increasingly fuel addiction and environmental concerns, but two new bills could help keep New Hampshire’s excess medications off the streets and out of the water supply — while getting some of them to patients for whom costly pills are largely out of reach.

Unused, costly and life-saving medicines don't have to go to waste. (photo Hilary Niles)

Following up on a statewide effort last September to help communities safely collect and dispose of unused prescription drugs is House Bill 71. Sponsored by Rep. Chris Nevins (R-Hampton), the bill has bipartisan support. It would have state agencies (Department of Justice, Pharmacy Board, Department of Safety, and Department of Environmental Services) set up rules and guidelines to allow communities and private entities to establish pharmaceutical take-back programs.

Rep. Donna Schlachman (D-Exeter) is a co-sponsor of HB 71. She says it the product of an interim study committee recommendation. The original bill called for pharmacies to establish take-back programs, but that was considered unrealistic for liability reasons, she explains. But, last year a pilot project collected more than one ton of unused pharmaceuticals from homes across the state. Properly collected, these drugs can’t be abused or create environmental damage to water supplies.

“We use one or two pills (of a prescription) for pain but not the rest,” says Schlachman. “We just get lazy and don’t dispose of them. They just sit around and all too often fall into the wrong hands,” Schlachman tells Front Door Politics. “We don’t need ‘Pharm Parties’ where kids bring prescription drugs from home and share them with friends.”

The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy says that prescription drug abuse ranks second behind marijuana for teenagers.

Following its first public hearing on Jan. 11, HB 71 was sent to a subcommittee of the Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee, where it will be discussed today at 2:30. Schlachman isn’t sure why HB 71 was sent to subcommittee, which usually means the committee chair wants further study.

“I believe we had crossed all the Ts and dotted all the Is,” she says. But, overall, she is confident the bill will become law.

Also today at 2:00 p.m., the full committee will have its first look at another bill Schlachman co-sponsored, House Bill 111. This proposal would expand a law passed last year (HB 1184) that allowed unused drugs to be stored and re-presecribed in places like nursing homes. HB 111, whose prime sponsor is Rep. Sandra Keans (D-Rochester) would add unopened samples to that program. (You can see a 2010 Front Door Politics report on HB 1184 and a pilot prescription drug recycling program here.)

>> The Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee meets today in the Legislative Office Building, Room 205, for the following public hearings and work sessions:

2:00 p.m.         HB 111, relative to redispensing unused drugs, Room 205.

2:30 p.m.         Subcommittee work session on HB 71, authorizing establishment of pharmaceutical drug take-back programs, Room 207.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.