House Bill 113, which passed the House 263-102 in February, has received closer scrutiny in the Senate. Sponsored by Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester), the measure would stop all state funding for NHPTV (Channel 11), including contracts with state agencies for educational and broadcasting services.

Vaillancourt and supporters of HB 113 have said that NHPTV does not fit into the state’s budget priorities. Vaillancourt has also staked out ideological ground, saying the state has no business using taxpayer money to fund public media.

The debate here in New Hampshire is not isolated, as a handful of states and Republicans in Congress have introduced proposals to either cut of defund public radio and television.

Impact

The fight is more than whether Big Bird will survive on free television in the state. At stake for NHPTV is a loss of an estimated $5.5 million over a two-year budget cycle, along with other funding that is jeopardized if NHPTV isn’t allowed to contract with state agencies. NHPTV is also involved in the state’s enhanced 911 system used by public safety agencies, in expanding broadband in the North Country, and in offering free educational programming to school systems throughout the state.

“HB 113 will have far-reaching and negative impacts on our other sources of support,” said Peter Frid, NHPTV president, in testimony to lawmakers. “Our work with state agencies is supported by general funds, and if we were to do a project with them we couldn’t receive revenues.”

Fate

The Senate Finance Committee has recommended against passing HB 113, in part because the station does not received funding directly from the state; NHPTV is funded and overseen by the University System of New Hampshire, which receives money from the state.

Senate Finance Committee member Robert Odell (R-Lempster), one of three Republicans to recommend killing the bill, told New Hampshire Public Radio that lawmakers shouldn’t tell the university system how to run its operations. “We didn’t want it in the budget that way. And it’s not going to be,” Odell said.

We ask readers for feedback on whether the state should the state defund New Hampshire Public Television, including barring it from service contracts with state agencies. Should lawmakers tell the university system how to budget its operations? How Senators answer those questions likely will determine the fate of HB 113.

(Comments below, policy here.)

>> Wednesday, May 6, full Senate session beginning at 10 a.m. at the State House.

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.

3 sides of the nickel

Gov. John Lynch dismissed the last-minute tax cut proposal that was trumpeted by House leadership (see “Speaking of Gas Prices“). Lynch said he wouldn’t have to veto Senate Bill 78 because the Senate won’t pass this “political gimmick” that could chop an estimated $6.5 million out of the state’s Highway Fund, which is used for road and bridge construction and maintenance.

House Majority Leader Rep. D. J. Bettencourt (R-Salem) countered with enthusiasm, suggesting an economic development chain reaction would unfold if the measure passes. While New Hampshire already has the lowest gas tax and prices in the region, Bettencourt said, “Expanding this margin by another 5 cents would result in more out-of-state residents coming to New Hampshire to fill their gas tanks. While they are here, visitors will also take advantage of our low tax environment and purchase other goods, including cigarettes, liquor and lottery tickets. This will help to drive up state revenues, as will the business profits taxes of the local gas stations benefiting from the additional business.”

On the other hand, Senate Finance Chair Chuck Morse (R-Salem) told the Concord Monitor he wondered whether oil producers would benefit most from the gas tax reduction. The Senate also wasn’t ready to embrace the math attached to the House cigarette tax reduction bill (lower taxes = greater revenues) when it tabled House Bill 156 yesterday (see “The Price of Taxing Tobacco“).

Steps of the dance

While it may appear that the Senate is playing bad cop to the House’s good cop when it comes to tax cuts, this is a traditional legislative dance of differing assumptions and priorities. It can and does work both ways, as Sen. Lou D’Allensandro (D-Manchester) found out in 2010 when he managed to get an expanded gambling bill through the Senate — only to run into a wall of opposition and skepticism in the House.

The reality is that this stage of the game is nearly all political posturing. The tax cuts that have been passed by the House or tabled in both the House and Senate remain very much in play. It’s the final House-Senate conference committees, where the two chambers’ differences are worked out, that will reveal the Legislature’s final revenue priorities come June.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

If you’re in retail, we want to know: Do you see more business with lower taxes?

(Comments below, policy here.)

It was slipped into the House budget proposal, but the N.H. Senate has stripped the controversy from its version of the budget. And now, a Senate committee has reshaped House Bill 580, which also included a collective bargaining provision that organized labor strongly opposed.

House Bill 580

When it passed the House last month, HB 580 was one of a handful of comprehensive proposals this session to reform New Hampshire’s public pension system. Daily Briefing took notice of one particular provision in the original text of HB 580. Bear with us here — the legalese is followed by regular English. It said when a collective bargaining agreement has lapsed, or during negotiations:

“the status quo shall be maintained as to the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of employees in good standing. Except where required by statute, the continuation, after the expiration of the agreement, of the provision of any medical, dental, and life insurance benefits, retirement or pension benefits, and any other fringe benefits, shall be subject to the exclusive authority of the public employer.”

In other words, while employees and their wages would not revert to “at will” status when a contract ends, their benefits would.

Another clause would have allowed public employees to opt out of all “medical, dental and retirement benefits in order to instead receive an increase in his or her base salary or wage.”

With that kind of change in law, collective bargaining negotiations and group insurance calculations would become a whole new ball game.

They’ll look into it

So, the Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee acted in the time-honored legislative tradition of dealing with radioactive issues by creating a study committee.

Actually, they replaced everything in the bill with a provision to create this collective bargaining study committee. As amended, HB 580 would have three Senate members and four members of the House study the issue of public sector collective bargaining agreements.Their report would be due by December 1.

The measure passed the committee by a unanimous 5-0 vote. The bill now heads to a full Senate vote Wednesday.

It ain’t over till it’s over

But this may not be the end of the story. House Bill 580 — the one that got turned into a study committee — was sponsored by Rep. Neal Kurk (R-Weare). He’s the same representative who inserted the “at will” measure into the House budget bill, which the House passed by a sizable 228-139 vote.

Any changes the Senate makes to both the budget and HB 580 will have to be approved by the House. Stay tuned.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

Should they study collective bargaining, leave it alone, or change it now?

(If you haven’t commented before, check out our Comments Policy first, please.)

If it seems like politicians want to cut the gasoline tax every time fuel prices begin to skyrocket, as we’ve seen during the past month, well you’re right.

You may recall, for example, how the massive gas price hikes during the summer of 2008 (during a presidential election season, by the way) brought out urgent political calls for a gas tax cut. Last week, the N.H. Republican House leadership said one solution to today’s high gas prices is a temporary 5 cent per gallon cut in the tax through June 30.

Naturally, Gov. John Lynch disagrees.

The proposal

To compensate for reduced revenue stemming from the tax cut, money would be collected from the $30 car registration surcharge, which is also set to lapse after June 30. The registration surcharge money goes into the Department of Transportation’s Highway Fund budget, so the tax cut would essentially take away money that would otherwise go for road and bridge construction and maintenance. It’s estimated the temporary tax cut would cost at least $6 million.

New Hampshire’s gas tax is 18 cents per gallon, ranking in the bottom third of the country’s gas tax rates, and hasn’t been raised in two decades.

The proposal will be attached as an amendment to Senate Bill 78, which would eliminate the registration surcharge immediately upon passage — and which Lynch has threatened to veto.

Back-and-forth

House Speaker William O’Brien (R-Mont Vernon), according to the Concord Monitor, seemed to dare Lynch when he said, “Does he see the same pain that we see in the economic life of New Hampshire?”

“This proposal is simply a political gimmick and would offer no relief at the pumps for the people of New Hampshire,” Lynch’s spokesman Colin Manning also told the Monitor. “What it would do is provide less money for the people of New Hampshire to maintain our roads and bridges.”

Gas tax talk usually drives economists to the extremes. Supporters cite economic benefits to consumers and convenience store owners. Opponents believe the quickest way to bring down gas prices is to cut demand by driving and buying less, which they say is what happened in 2008 when gas prices spiked at around $4 a gallon and demand dropped.

The big picture

In his budget proposal, Lynch kept the surcharge in place through 2013 to help pay for tens of millions of dollars in road and bridge construction projects.

But since last fall’s election campaign season, Republicans have focused on the $30 vehicle registration surcharge as a political issue. Last week, they issued a report showing the surcharge’s impact on towns and cities across the state.

The House report offers no plan for making up the lost revenue to pay for scores of projects the Department of Transportation says will be put on hold if the House budget plan — without the surcharge — is passed.

In other tax cut news, the Senate Ways and Means and Committee has come out against a House proposal to cut the tobacco tax, House Bill 156. The bill is scheduled for a full Senate vote on April 27. It could be an early preview of how the Senate and House approaches to revenue reductions compare. (You can see an earlier report on HB 156 here.)

Q&A

Would you rather have a 5-cent reprieve in the gas tax for two months, or see that money go to roads and bridges? Let us know in the comments box, below. (See the comments policy here.)

>> A public hearing on eliminating the registration surcharge and temporarily cutting the gas tax by 5 cents (SB 78) will be held in the House Finance Committee, Room 210 of the Legislative Office Building, on Tuesday, April 26, at 10:00 a.m.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

Expect a long list of speakers to line up in Representatives Hall to support or oppose the myriad proposals for revenue and spending in 2012-2013. Senate budget writers have until June 2 to complete their version of the budget, at which point the House and Senate will have to hammer out any differences.

The committee is scheduled for two (2) two-hour sessions this afternoon and this evening on the main budget bills, House Bill 1 and House Bill 2.

Senate Finance Committee Chair Sen. Chuck Morse (R-Salem) has said that some of the spending cuts proposed in the House budget — especially programs for the developmentally disabled and mentally ill — would be either partially restored or given close examination. But, as he said last week, some $200 million in restored funding to those programs would have to be matched by cuts in other areas.

Senate Finance has already made recommendations to change a few notable proposals:

Last week, the committee decided to eliminate a controversial measure that would turn public employees into at-will employees when their contracts have ended. Morse said such a collective bargaining measure, which was added in the House at the last minute without public hearings by House budget writers, did not belong in the budget bill and should be vetted and debated separately.

The committee also recommended removing a House proposal to abolish the state Department of Cultural Resources moving its divisions into other state agencies and cutting the correlating budget — from the $427,000 proposed in February by Gov. John Lynch to $4,700 recommended by the House.

The House measure would also defund the New Hampshire Arts Council. If passed, that would make New Hampshire the only state in the country without an arts council or commission.

Q&A

What state programs are worth keeping, which should be gutted, and why?

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

>>Thursday, April 21, 2-4 p.m. and 6-8 p.m., Senate Finance Committee public hearings and public testimony on HB 1 and HB 2 (State House, Representatives Hall). The hearings also will be streamed live online. Go to http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

Assuming a big increase in sales due to the lower tax rate, that’s the idea behind a bill that’s getting its second public hearing today. House Bill 156 passed the House last month, and is now with the Senate Ways & Means Committee. But the bill’s fiscal note, prepared by the N.H. Dept. of Revenue Administration, predicts a different future.

Sponsored by the Chair of the House Finance Committee, Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R-Kingston), HB 156 would cut the Granite State’s tax on cigarettes by ten cents, from $1.78 to $1.68 per pack. The tax on other tobacco products would also drop, from 65 to 48 percent of the wholesale price.

Writing for the majority of the House Ways & Means Committee, where the bill was recommended 14-5, Rep. Patrick Abrami (R-Stratham) said reducing the tobacco tax would “re-establish New Hampshire’s competitiveness with Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont.”

Also factoring in more sales of non-tobacco products when people shop for cigarettes at New Hampshire stores, Abrami writes, “small convenience store owners, large grocers, and restaurants will have positive sales in relation to lowering the tax” due to increased cross-border traffic. State revenues through increased business taxes could receive a boost, supporters say.

But the fiscal note attached to the very same bill paints a different picture. The Dept. of Revenue Administration estimates that lowering the tobacco tax could cost New Hampshire between $7.7 million and $14.8 million in 2012. That’s part of the reason the committee’s minority opposed the bill.

In her minority report, Rep. Susan Almy (D-Lebanon) said, the “current tobacco tax rate is competitive with neighboring states and … it is unlikely a reduction of 10 cents per pack will result in increased sales sufficient to outweigh the lost revenue.”

Almy also questioned whether a decrease of 10 cents a pack would really lead to greater sales from out-of-state buyers, especially if manufacturers and retailers don’t pass the savings on to consumers.

Mostly along party lines, HB 156 passed the House overwhelmingly by a 236-93 vote.

The closest tobacco tax rate to New Hampshire is Maine, at $2 a pack. Vermont taxes $2.24 and Massachusetts taxes $2.51 per pack. Since 2005, New Hampshire has raised the per pack tax from 52 cents to the current $1.78. The tobacco tax is one the top five revenue generators for the state.

Gov. John Lynch does not support a decrease in the tobacco tax, and he’s joined by the New Hampshire chapter of the American Cancer Society and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, which is concerned that a lower price for cigarettes could lead to increased youth smoking. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, New Hampshire is slightly above the national average with 20.8 percent of high school students smoking.

If you smoke, would you buy more cigarettes if they were ten cents less per pack? If you’re a retailer, would you pass a tax savings on to customers? Are you concerned that it could cost the state, and individuals, more in increased health care costs if cigarette consumption increases? What questions do you want Senators to ask about lowering the tobacco tax rate?

Share your thoughts and questions in the comments box below. (Read the Comments Policy here.)

>> Tuesday, April 12, 1:00 p.m, Senate Ways and Means Committee public hearing on HB 156 and an economic forecast briefing (State House, Room 100).

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.

In particular, we’ll focus on the state Senate, which meets in session Wednesday to consider more than 34 bills and amendments.

The proposals cover a wide range of issues — from a constitutional amendment giving the governor line item veto authority over the state budget to increasing the allowable size of off-highway recreational vehicles on state trails.

It’s all a part of government, folks.

Charge It

Senate Bill 56 >> This would allow the Department of Revenue Administration to accept tax payments by credit and debit card. Sponsored by Sen. Robert Odell (R-Lempster), SB 56 also would allow the DRA to enact a usage service charge.

The bill’s fiscal note says New Hampshire currently handles some 265,000 checks every two years, at a cost of $592,553 annually. Plus, the note indicates, the state pays about $87,000 annually for armored car services and $18,550 in bank fees. Senate Bill 56 passed the Senate Finance Committee with a unanimous 7-0 vote.

Line Item

CACR 5 >> New Hampshire is one of six states in which the governor does not have line item veto power over the state budget, but CACR 5 sponsor Sen. Chuck Morse (R-Salem) would like to change that.

In short, a line item veto allows a governor to edit a bill line by line. In this case, it would only apply to spending bills, meaning the governor would be able to take some spending provisions out of a budget, while leaving other parts intact. And the “veto” implies that the governor could only take certain provisions out of a budget, but wouldn’t be able to add any in.

The issue has had far more attention at the Congressional level than in Concord over the years. If CACR 5 passes through the Senate and House by a 3/5 margin in each body, it would go before the voters in 2012. The measure passed the Senate Internal Affairs Committee with a 3-0 vote.

Wider Trails

Senate Bill 100 >> Sponsored by Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry), this would increase the allowable size of off-highway recreational vehicles (OHRVs) on any designated state-owned trail.

The OHRV size limit would increase from 50 to 65 inches in width and from 1,000 pounds to 1,600 pounds in weight. The bill passed unanimously out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee by a 5-0 vote.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.