SENATE SPECIAL
COMMITTEE ON THE OREGON HEALTH PLAN
June 2, 2003 Hearing
Room C
3:00 P.M. Tapes
21-23
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sen. Peter Courtney, Co-Chair
Sen. Jackie Winters, Co-Chair
Sen. Kate Brown
Sen. Margaret Carter
Sen. Bill Fisher
Sen. Lenn Hannon
Sen. John Minnis
Sen. Bill Morrisette
Rep. Jeff Kruse
Rep. Alan Bates
STAFF PRESENT: Marjorie Taylor, Committee
Administrator
Heather Gravelle, Committee
Assistant
MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD: SB
540 – Work Session
HB 3624 A – Public
Hearing
These minutes are in
compliance with Senate and House Rules.
Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact
words. For complete contents,
please refer to the tapes.
|
TAPE/# |
Speaker |
Comments |
|
TAPE 21, A |
||
|
005 |
Co-Chair
Courtney |
Calls
the meeting to order at 3:00 PM: Opens a work session on SB 540. |
|
SB 540 – WORK SESSION |
||
|
010 |
Holly
Robinson |
Legislative
Counsel. Discusses the -6 amendments to SB 540. Explains various services and
those who will receive services. Claims Legislative Assembly responsible for approving
and funding services. Presents -6 amendments dated 6/2/03 and written
material (EXHIBITS A, B). |
|
050 |
Robinson |
Addresses
health services various categories of individuals will receive. Discusses benefit
packages. States how it is structured currently. Notes Legislative Assembly
will decide which individuals will receive services and if benefits are to be
changed they must be done by benefit package with group of benefits that must
be presented as a package or group and cannot be broken up into sub sets. |
|
095 |
Robinson |
Discusses
when bill will become operative. Explains transition piece so if Legislative
Assembly is not sine die by July 1 there is a way of transitioning people
from old biennium into new biennium. |
|
100 |
Co-Chair
Courtney |
States
the bill has a ways and means referral. |
|
110 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Refers
to section 3, page 2, line 9. Asks for clarification on language that appears
to bind future legislators. |
|
115 |
Robinson |
Explains
the rational of the verbiage. Claims would like it to be parallel and be
clear the process is the same as section 1 where the pieces are going
together with approval of Legislative Assembly. |
|
135 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Asks
the meaning of subject to funds available. |
|
140 |
Robinson |
States
it means every time the phrase appears in statutes that the Legislative Assembly
has been directed by law to do certain things to the degree agency has been allocated
money to do it. |
|
|
Sen.
Minnis |
Asks
if it is inherent that is the level of funding that the legislature may or
may not approve. |
|
|
Robinson |
Responds
correct. |
|
150 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Refers
to page 3 section 5. Asks for clarification of Family Health Insurance Assistance
program (FHIAP). |
|
155 |
Robinson |
States
when 2519 was passed a piece of it was approved by the feds that public
subsidies could be used to purchase through FHIAP health insurance for OHP
standard clients. Comments not contingent on waiver being approved and so it
was left in. Claims in all provisions in 2519 it is not obsolete anymore
because the rest of it was primarily an application process. |
|
165 |
Sen.
Morrisette |
Asks
about the employed persons with disabilities. |
|
170 |
Robinson |
Responds
they would be on line 12, page 2. |
|
175 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Asks
if funds are not available are there any recommendations or mandatory ways to
scale back involved in this bill with the amendment showing how it would be
done. |
|
185 |
Robinson |
Responds
yes. Claims you can look at it as whether fund everything and back up or fund
at the beginning and add. Comments legislature has to fund a certain level of
minimal services but they can choose which population they will serve. Notes
a benefit package has to be provided and a population that has to receive
that benefit package. Adds once that happens that is the floor. Point out if
no additional benefits added on in a rebalancing process those services will
have to be continued and if it goes beyond the benefit package, services can
be subtracted. Concludes there is a floor where the assembly cannot go beyond
and assembly will decide and once the decision is made it cannot be
retracted. |
|
215 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Asks
what subject to funds available mean. Comments if we start something and
cannot continue it adjustments must be made. Discusses adjustments:
Claims
if we fund this that ends the subject of available funding. |
|
225 |
Robinson |
Responds
that is a correct assessment. Comments if the assembly funds only the basic
package that is correct and that level of funding to individuals would have
to be maintained in the way it was written through the biennium. |
|
235 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Asks
if it is correct that if there were other things funded than the basic benefit
package that is only way to reduce if that became necessary without special
session or new law. |
|
245 |
Robinson |
Responds
that is correct in the way that is drafted currently. ` |
|
250 |
Rep.
Bates |
Asks
for clarification on decision needing to be made July 1 of biennium through
the rest of the biennium. |
|
256 |
Rep.
Bates |
Asks
if the legislature is given the opportunity in making that decision to follow
section 3 in making that decision. |
|
258 |
Robinson |
Responds
that is correct. |
|
260 |
Rep.
Bates |
Claims
they can adjust the package through the biennium. Discusses what they can do.
Asks if it is true that they cannot decide on the other packages without
following guidelines in section 1. |
|
265 |
Robinson |
Responds
I do not think so if understand the question. Refers to the presentation.
Explains the way it is drafted certain services will have to be continued to
be provided as a block. Notes additional services are add-ons and
subtractions. |
|
285 |
Sen. Minnis |
MOTION: Moves to ADOPT SB 540 -6 amendments dated 6/2/03. |
|
290 |
|
VOTE:
10-0 |
|
|
Co-Chair Courtney |
Hearing no objection, declares the
motion CARRIED. |
|
340 |
Sen. Minnis |
MOTION: Moves SB 540 as AMENDED and referred to the committee on Ways
and Means without recommendation. |
|
350 |
|
VOTE:
10-0 AYE: In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye. |
|
|
Co-Chair Courtney |
The motion CARRIES. |
|
360 |
Co-Chair
Courtney |
Closes
the work session on SB 540 and opens a public hearing on HB 3624 A. |
|
HB 3624 A – PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
365 |
Co-Chair
Winters |
Expresses
appreciation that Representative Westlund is here today. |
|
385 |
Rep.
Ben Westlund |
District
53. States how great it is to see everyone after a long couple of weeks. Expresses
thanks to be a part of the process and to be back continuing to participate
in something important to everyone. |
|
395 |
Rep.
Westlund |
Testifies
in support of HB 3624 A. States history and provides an overview of those who
worked on the bill and names the organizations that were also part of the
process. States it has been an inclusive process. Names individuals who provided
assistance. |
|
TAPE 22, A |
||
|
005 |
Rep.
Westlund |
Comments
goal was to develop a more efficient delivery system to better serve Oregon
Health Plan (OHP) patients. States it has nothing to do with revenue or
determining population. Says system keeps improving. Explains costs in the
old structure the OHP did more than most with much less and was a good
system. Notes prior to HB 3624 A it wasn’t doing too bad which is contrary to
what most think. |
|
045 |
Rep.
Westlund |
States
how the plan began and how much money they had and the population targeted.
Realizes the only population that could be covered was the federal mandatory Medicaid
minimum populations. |
|
055 |
Rep.
Westlund |
Claims
still short by $30 40 million providing benefits. Notes tried to make the
benefits package look more like a commercial package. Comments there are a
list where they were all violated equally. Believes the hospital association and
Senator Brown were also included in the discussions. |
|
080 |
Rep.
Bates |
Mentions
the six month timeframe of working on the bill was a long and torturous
journey. Notes involvement in health care in Oregon for last ten to fifteen years,
specifically OHP for ten years. Feels last five to six years significant
changes in the plan have been needed to make it more efficient which this bill
does. |
|
095 |
Rep.
Bates |
Reviews
Saturday’s discussion of pharmaceutical benefits and provider care
organizations (PCO) situation across the state. Discusses ways to purchase
prescriptions. Comments looking for best prices. Notes decided in bill to use
fully capitated health plans to help manage costs of fee for service patients
for health care. Explains what happens when no longer fully capitated. Claims
do not want to lose money and want to keep costs down. Some may have had
concerns with the verbiage, but reassures the members there is oversight for
plans and how money is spent. |
|
125 |
Rep.
Bates |
States
what will happen without a possible fully capitated plan in the Portland
metro area. Comments how Kaiser is involved in the plan and willing to go to a
PCO if need to. Notes why HMO is not necessarily a bad idea. Explains the
need for guided care which the plans provide. |
|
155 |
Sen.
Brown |
Refers
to section 3 which lists exemptions. Asks what criteria were used in
establishing the exemptions under the bill. |
|
160 |
Rep.
Westlund |
States
good question. Feels helpful to get the background for her. Explains why Oregon
is very fortunate. Discusses Oregon’s multiple fully capitated health plans
meaning this care is provided by a local/regional providers. Notes Oregon
deserves credit for keeping high number of fully capitated health plans
changing the flavor of managed care. Describes why at first no exceptions process
in the bill. Discusses exceptions list. |
|
195 |
Rep.
Bates |
Refers
to section 3 stating people do not have to be in managed care:
Provides
an example of a pregnant woman. Claims few cases that are in the managed care
plan may affect future of the plan. States why they chose what they did and
how they made the decision. |
|
205 |
Sen.
Brown |
Refers
to section 11. Asks about anti –psychotic drugs and how decision was
made. |
|
225 |
Rep.
Bates |
Discusses
711 drugs which 70% of those are written from primary care physicians. States
there is a clear distinction between those and anti-psychotic drugs that should
be managed by those who are knowledgeable and trained in that area. Believes
should be exempted out at any attempt to management but commonly managed by
commercial plans. Feels it is the best way to approach a significant portion
of drugs written in the state and not impact mental health of seriously and
chronically mentally ill. |
|
265 |
Rep.
Westlund |
Comments
on still trying to carve out other types of drugs. Discusses pharmaceutical
class. Notes the last thing trying to do is restrict access to any
pharmaceutical severe and chronically mental ill patients may have need of. |
|
275 |
Rep.
Bates |
Comments
may find an individual patient taking tranquilizers or anti-depressants that are
psychotic which may not be managed drugs. Discusses difference in patients
with depression compared to a psychotic. |
|
285 |
Sen.
Brown |
Asks
for the purpose of including section 12 in the bill. |
|
290 |
Rep.
Westlund |
Responds
there was a lot of discussion. Claims the simplest answer is hospitals were
declining to see fully capitated patients and would not serve them. Feels
they should be required to see clients with fully capitated health plans.
Says working on concepts on how the hospitals would be reimbursed. Explains how
the process currently works. Discusses Tri-County area problem where fully
capitated health plans enter into negotiations with hospitals with no
incentive to negotiate where the fee schedule would go back to fee for
service level reimbursement. Notes trying to determine an appropriate
reimbursement rate. Believes part of the hospital social contract to take OHP
patients. |
|
330 |
Rep.
Bates |
Discusses
fully capitated plans in certain areas. Explains elected admissions to the
hospital. Provides example in Tri-County area. |
|
360 |
Rep.
Bates |
Explains
the hospitals felt they were not being properly reimbursed and plans felt
they should take the patients. Claims want to make sure patients on elected
basis would be seen and treated. Adds they struggled with it for weeks and
did not come up with the best language and this is part of the bill most have
concerns over. States expectations are to work and offer an amendment to the
section which may rate this on benchmark to Medicare rates with better language. |
|
375 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Refers
to prescription drug provisions on specifically section 15. Asks if any
provisions to change SB 819 from 2001 session specifically with respect ton
preauthorization. |
|
385 |
Rep.
Westlund |
Responds
no. |
|
390 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Feels
that is clear and is prepared to make amendments to make that clear. Claims
if not said clearly the department will take off on a tangent. |
|
395 |
Rep.
Bates |
Responds
section 15 is probably not section concerned with. Discusses the history of
SB 819 and what is designed to do. States impact may be more people in
managed care and less in fee for service and when in managed care those
benefits will be matched on an individual basis. Claims HB 3624 A will not affect
SB 819 with fee for service. Understands your concern and willing to work on
bill further if needed. |
|
TAPE 21, B |
||
|
005 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Responds
has purpose to clear up conflict with an amendment. Refers to section 6. Asks
for clarification as to what is being accomplished by this section in
reference to accepting financial contributions and seeking federal matching
funds. |
|
010 |
Rep.
Bates |
Responds
to set up a PCO takes significant changes in software. Claims Kaiser has
stepped forward saying they would pay for that new system and it would be donated
to the State of Oregon and used for other PCO’s if they choose. |
|
030 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Comments
it should be clear that what is being accomplished here is the development of
the program that would help facilitate the PCO environment intending to
create. |
|
035 |
Rep.
Bates |
Responds
that is correct. |
|
036 |
Rep.
Westlund |
States
the bill establishes high bars for creating new PCO’s. Explains the section 6
allows the establishment of PCO’s applying mostly to the metro area where half
of fee for service patients exist where existing fully capitated health plans
do not have the capacity to take on approximately 13,000 patients. Claims
Kaiser said they will pay for it. |
|
045 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Asks
if it is the intent that all the discussions with DHS regarding development
of programs will be public information. |
|
050 |
Rep.
Bates |
Responds
that was never a specific discussion. Feels the development of the program
will be open but states there may be information Kaiser has that they do not
want to share with competitors. Claims the development of the program and how
program was applied would be open. |
|
060 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Claims
that issue not addressed and worked out should be researched. States there
has been a history of the meetings and development within Department of Human
Service (DHS) that has not been in line with open meetings law. Stresses
ensuring if the intent is to develop a computer program that would facilitate
development of a PCO then need to make sure it is public to avoid a bad
position. |
|
065 |
Rep.
Westlund |
Comments
very happy to work with any members of the committee to develop appropriate
language regarding issues. Claims proud of the bill and hope to make it
better. |
|
070 |
Rep.
Bates |
Claims
some of the amendments will improve section 12 in particular. Feels the suggestion
may work. |
|
075 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Refers
to section 13. Asks about fully capitated health plans. |
|
080 |
Rep.
Westlund |
Responds
the language is permissive. Claims trying to encourage the fully capitated
health plans to use a single pharmacy benefits manager but did not want to
mandate it. Says certain stages they are in but did not want to set up
contract disputes. Notes they only use three and within a short time half of
them most likely will be utilizing one and shortly after the benefits will
become more apparent to other six or seven that use the other two and they
would then come to a single pharmacy benefit manager model. |
|
085 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Asks
if it can be put into the contract. |
|
100 |
Rep.
Bates |
Explains
primary pharmacy benefit manager would have to prove they can get the
medication cheaper than other ways of doing it. Claims leaving it like this makes
it competitive. Adds some plans have opted out option. Notes leaving saying
may instead of shall in the bill is the way to go giving more competition. |
|
115 |
Sen.
Morrisette |
Asks
if there is any assurance Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) currently working
with is giving the state of Oregon the best deal possible. |
|
119 |
Rep.
Bates |
Responds
there has been a discussion going on for almost a year. Discusses audits. |
|
150 |
Sen.
Morrisette |
Asks
if possible to amend the bill to put language in to say there will be a
periodic audit. |
|
155 |
Rep.
Bates |
Responds
there is no reason why it could not be done and it might be something to
consider now. |
|
165 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Comments
certain generic drugs may cost more than the name brand. Asks if there is anything
in the bill that will look at the lowest cost option not withstanding whether
drug is generic or name brand. |
|
170 |
Rep.
Bates |
Responds
the bill is written so there are private, commercial plans making the
decision on each drug. States the question would be answered by the fully
capitated health plan. Comments they want to make a plan look like commercial
market as it is most efficient way of running the plan. Feels an efficient
job can be done in managing health care benefits in cost point of view but
also what is best for the patient. ` |
|
180 |
Co-Chair
Winters |
Asks
about 85% of the population. Comments on moving to managed care realizing the
savings. States recently the analysis may not be as accurate as believed a
few months ago when additional population added which may require more cost
to managed care that it may not be cheaper going from fee to service to
managed care. |
|
185 |
Rep.
Bates |
Discusses
information from a previous meeting where that was discussed. States basic
principal of managed care of the population still stands despite what was
discussed. |
|
195 |
Rep.
Westlund |
Feels
the calculation that is being left out of that interesting assertion is when
they end up in emergency room because cannot get access to providers there is
expensive care reimbursed at a low rate. Asks what happens to un-reimbursed
costs shifted to private and commercial markets driving private health
insurance cost higher. |
|
225 |
Co-Chair
Winters |
Asks
if a large percentage of the fee for service is in the mental health category. |
|
230 |
Rep.
Bates |
Responds
yes but does not have not exact figures. Claims the population is different
than commercial individuals. States there is a high percentage of mental illness
and chemical and alcohol abuse. |
|
245 |
Co-Chair
Winters |
States
mental health was carved out of SB 819 because of the needs of that population.
Asks if costs get put over to managed care if it remains carved out in HB
3624 A. . . |
|
250 |
Rep.
Bates |
Responds
the anti-psychotic drugs are still carved out. Notes looking to trying to manage
the large portions of drugs prescribed by primary care physicians. Claims
someone with anxiety and mild depression is not in that group. States the
mentally ill prevented from taking part in a regular job that cannot get
private health insurance because of it are not to be managed. |
|
260 |
Co-Chair
Winters |
States
the other factor is the multiple uses of drugs and making sure one isn’t
counteracting the other which is why that particular population was carved
out. |
|
265 |
Rep.
Bates |
Responds
that was a very big part of the discussion in the bill. Claims the problem is
people taking multiple medication especially mental health field that may
hurt the patient. States management is helpful but mostly these people need
to be on powerful drugs of four to five types and be able to manage
themselves in society. |
|
270 |
Co-Chair
Winters |
Asks
if person enrolled in managed care do they get assigned to a doctor right
away. |
|
275 |
Rep.
Bates |
Responds
yes. |
|
285 |
Co-Chair
Winters |
Asks
if the length of time for them to be enrolled is part of what the agency will
prescribe or should it be prescribed in statute. |
|
290 |
Rep.
Bates |
Responds
days were spent on that decision. Claims the bill reads as best as decision
could be made. |
|
300 |
Rep.
Westlund |
Claims
additional capacity for primary care physicians is 80,000-110,000 additional
enrollees. |
|
315 |
Co-Chair
Winters |
Expresses
concerns with time. Claims objective is to avoid as much as possible
emergency care so when one has a physician they are more apt to go to them
rather than end up in emergency care. |
|
325 |
Rep.
Westlund |
Agrees
with the concern. States the services provided. |
|
350 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Discusses
the anti-depressants issue. Claims some tend to deteriorate over time. Asks
how drugs subject to the plan are going to be dealt with in respect to physician’s
decision to choose another drug. |
|
375 |
Rep.
Bates |
Responds
aim was to make it look like a commercial plan overall. Discusses
restrictions. Claims the majority of the 711 drugs are prescribed by regular
doctors. |
|
TAPE 22, B |
||
|
005 |
Rep.
Bates |
Comments
medications should not be restricted by any plan in specific cases. |
|
010 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Comments
whether or not someone has access to a doctor in a reasonable amount of time and
the physician does not have a barrier. |
|
020 |
Rep.
Bates |
Comments
this bill says you have to have reasonable access to take on a capitated
patient. |
|
025 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Concerned
many of these people are not very sophisticated which does not meaning they
are not going to fight for the correct medication. Feels more may be done to
save money instead of good patient care. |
|
030 |
Rep.
Bates |
States
the opposite of that will happen due to past experience. States they are carefully
guided through their health with very good results from managed care. Claims
worst cases are fee for service with no where to go. Understands the concerns
but a lot out there preventing concerns.
|
|
040 |
Sen.
Morrisette |
Asks
what kind of flexibility does a patient have in choosing their own doctor. |
|
045 |
Rep.
Westlund |
Responds
a person is usually assigned to a physician through a pool. Claims fair to
say most physicians outside of the Tri-county areas are members of local
fully capitated health plan. |
|
055 |
Sen.
Brown |
Expresses
concerns that clients under this system are not aware of their appeal rights within
managed care organization still exist. Asks if assuming there was no intent
to deny infringe upon current patients rights is there any objection placing
that into the language of the bill. |
|
065 |
Rep.
Westlund |
Responds
the bill is silent and it is federal law. Claims appeals occur a lot and it
is common to have hearings and plans decisions reversed. States not a new
program. Understands concerns and happy to work on amendments to make it
clear to people it does not violate federal law. |
|
075 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Discusses
PBM. Claims never found that he could have one of the fringe facilities bargaining
on its own. Says with the state with its leverage and resources with 20,000
or 30,000 people involved, perhaps we should do some impinging upon the state
and let those people bargain for us. Feels it is hard to see how we couldn’t benefit
better by as contracts fall off, getting on board doing it in a must way
rather than a may. |
|
085 |
Rep.
Bates |
Responds
the net result will be what you talked about. States he has a hard time
believing a central PBM will not offer to the plans a better price than can get
individually. Claims it is permissive at this time. Says they don’t trust the
state. Provides example. |
|
120 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Wonders
where the provision is. Feels we should be pulling together. |
|
135 |
Rep.
Westlund |
Agrees
with relation to the fully capitated health plan. Feels we need prudence at
this point with regard to forcing a single PBM which would lead us to
headache. |
|
155 |
Rep.
Bates |
States
these people will be capitated. Feels uncomfortable turning over this big of
a program to one PBM without a lot of input from the plans that have
extensive experience buying through PBM’s at the best prices. Expresses
uneasiness forcing one single PBM at this point. |
|
165 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Asks
if there is a way to demand or insist that the state makes the best possible
purchase. |
|
175 |
Rep.
Bates |
Responds
a careful audit needs to be completed by private commercial company. |
|
205 |
Rep.
Westlund |
Comments
a lot has been put into the bill. Adds there are a lot of individuals that
have put a lot of heart and soul into this. Expresses thanks stating all the
various stakeholder groups were there everyday on time. |
|
210 |
Rep.
Bates |
States
the more eyes on this the better the bill will be. Expresses thanks for the
hard work. |
|
385 |
Jim
Edge |
Acting
Assistant Administrator, Office of Medical Assistants Programs. Testifies in
regards to HB 3624.Summarizes key points of the bill. Expresses concerns with
various sections. Submits written testimony (EXHIBIT C). |
|
395 |
Jim
Neely |
Deputy
Director, Department of Human Services. Mentions an audit conducted of the Oregon
Health Plan eligibility process determining a need for additional
administrative controls. Explains issues in submitted testimony. Claims a
good guide for employment history. Claims Secretary of State’s office
suggested in re-application. States there is some electronic data available.
Refers to page 2. Says since February 1 the new policy suggests three
previous months will be used so no longer an estimation error. Adds second
thing is recommendation considering analyzing and reviewing the high risk
cases with high or low incomes. Notes
beginning April of 2003 a team was put together looking at cases where it is
suspected either someone reporting low income or other areas where reported
areas are suspect and revisit wage information after a few months. Submits
written material (EXHIBIT D). |
|
TAPE 23, A |
||
|
005 |
Neely |
Discusses
issues revolving social security numbers. Claims using automated data match
to ensure the correct people are being assessed. States modifying the
application to state they can voluntarily give the social security number. Adds
also obtain the social security number other ways such as through pay stubs. Feels
better at making sure every avenue for automated data match exists. Refers to
page 4. |
|
035 |
Neely
|
Claims
not anticipating a policy change at this point. Adds case management track
system has been modified. Refers to page 5 on improper premium waivers.
Comments as of February this year, no longer waive premiums. Adds premiums
are not paid they are not only off following month but off for a six month
period. |
|
055 |
Co-Chair
Winters |
Asks
what the figure is. |
|
060 |
Neely |
Responds
in May 2003, about 14,600 lost coverage for not paying their February and
March premiums. Adds over 4,000 will lose coverage in June and 3,000- 5,000 in
July will also lose coverage. |
|
065 |
Sen.
Morrisette |
Asks
if birth certificates are part of the check in terms of who is legal and who
is not legal. |
|
070 |
Neely |
Responds
they were in the quality control review. Claims there were no individuals who
claimed to be citizens who were not citizens. Adds it is not part of the
routine determination. |
|
085 |
Co-Chair
Courtney |
Closes
the public hearing on HB 3624 A and adjourns the committee meeting at 5:00
PM. |
EXHIBIT
SUMMARY
A
– SB 540, -6 amendments dated 6/2/03, Holly Robinson, 5 pp
B
– SB 540, written material, Holly Robinson, 1p
C
– HB 3624 A, written testimony, Jim Edge, 4 pp
D
– HB 3624 A, written material, Jim Neely, 5 pp