A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | April 29, 2015 | Committee Room | House: Rules, Calendar and Operations

Full MP3 Audio File

Members of the House Committee on Rules, Calender and Operations will come to order. The Chair would like to thank our Sergeant-at-Arms staff and our central staff for their hard work, and of course all the members for their time. The Chair would also like to welcome our pages that are here today. We appreciate your service as well. Members we're going to deal with several bills today, the chair believes that there are many that will take less explanation than perhaps some more. It's the Chair's intent to start Rep. Floyd here, it is the chair's inten to start with house bill 826 but prior to introducing Representative Floyd, the chair has an agreement with the senate the rules committee of both chambers are in possession of numerous study bills, It is our intent to consider all of them And this could make it for up and down vote, we've an agreement with the senate that we'll sent a couple free over to them and they'll do the same to us and then we'll populate the rest with the studies that we're going to agree to. We just have to many to be plucked with you to get them all out today so, The Chair would like to introduce Representative Floyd he will present house bill 826. House Bill 826 is before the committee, Representative Floyd is recognized. Thank you Mr. Chairman and the committee, this is a very simple bill we're just studying this second primary and how it will affects this state as it relates to the first primary. Not to believe you with it, it's just as simple study bill and part of the report back in the short session which is a I ask that you'll support. I can't go into more detail. I just ask your support to understand the bill This is the appropriate time representative Boles we'll propose [xx]. We're [xx] to have bill 826 Representative Boles more county moves that house bill 826 be given a favourable report further discussion, further debate on the motion from the gentleman from more. Seeing none, those in favour on the motion will say, aye. Aye. Those who oppose will they know in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the motion carries. Members will now move to house bill 74. House bill 74 which is also Representative Floyd and the chair will recognize the gentleman to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. This is another study it's very simple to look at the MPO and RMPO as it reflects to the governor how we strategic plan. If you look at the form [xx] very quickly is 40, 30, 30. The 30 is way the MBO and the LPO have a grater impact on the infrastructure of our community as we moved down to the division level. I ask for your support to this study bill.  Representative Ford, for what purpose does the gentleman as the gentleman has a floor for motion general from Gaston is moved at. The general from Gaston is moved house bill 74 begin with favor of report. It further discussion of the bill on the motion. The Chair stands correct with the gentleman move correctly the Chair misstated that the proposed committee substitute for house bill 74 was a chair will be most properly before the committe given a favor report unfavorable to the original bills a further discussion debate on the motion. Seeing non those favoring the motion will say aye Aye, all! Those oppose will say no the aye's have it, motion carried house bill 74 will be reported with February report. members, Representative Courtney if you are ready to chair of house bill 502, we want to move to house bill 502 create changes survival task force Representative Courney [xx] proposed substitute of [xx] Thank you house bill 502 is proposed committee and lady from [xx] is recognized to explain the bill thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you [xx],

other panel sponsors Representative Stern this bill clearly is about reauthorizing current statute in [xx] 2012 we passed house bill 914, it was passed in the law signed governor, and what happened section one of that bill that required the AEDs to be placed on all state Government buildings is law now but what we failed to act was section 2 of the bill what created the chain of survival private party task force two of the legislative body disappointed one did not we authorized the reemployment of that chain of survival task force that is going to look at whether the placement and the monies for this AEDs]and a plan for you, I house bill support thank you Representative [xx] gentleman from [xx] this is the appropriate time the chair will step their and Representative Davis has moved that house bill 502 do you have any favorable is there further discussion on the debate on the gentleman's motion? See now and those in favor of the motion house bill 502 will say aye aye.  Those opposed will say no. In the opinion of tho Chair, the ayes have it and the motion carries. Thank you, Representative Carney. Members, is Representative Catlin? Right here members we are going to move to house bill 780 and house bill 780 is proposed to the committee and Representative Carney is recognized to explain the bill Thank you Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. This is an economic study on the impacts of the [xx] owned our coastal economy in North Carolina, not over all the county, basically in 1920, there was a federal legislation that required that all ships that move from a US port to a US port, the American flag, which was back between the two world wars, so it was a good time to do that and they used to be 3000 ships, they're now 179 in the entire United States. There only 49 tankers in the entire United States that meet that requirement And so, our ports cannot afford to bring ships from one port to one another. We can't bring fuel to North Carolina anymore from America and so our terminals are setting down, our colonial pipeline is a backup, it's where we get our fuel for North Carolina, but when Katrina shut down the colonial pipeline, the weight in North Carolina stayed alive, was when we interact out of the terminals at the ports, those terminals are settling down, so it's an homeland security issue. This is a study to evaluate the economic impacts and then from there we'll move on with some suggested solutions in the future. I have met with Senators RayBan, Ruchbah, and Senator Lee this morning with the senate, they're on board with this, and Powell Courser who's the State Board Director is on board with it too. Thanks. Thank you Representative Boles for what purpose do you seek recognition? This is the perfect time representative Bailey has moved the house bill 780 be given a favorable report for further discussion debate on the motion and those in favor of the motion will say aye. Aye. Those opposed within the chair the ayes have it and the bill will be given a favorable report. Members and guests share should perhaps say a little bit of housekeeping for your planning purposes. The chair has been advised that there are a few people here that would like to speak on house bill 541, the chair would like to advise the members of the committee and also our guests that are here that the intent of the chair is only to take up house bill 541 so that a fee may adjusted in the bill and then the bill within the authority to finance, it's now the chair's intent to debate the other contents of the bill, will now taking up at this time however. members what we are going to do now is the chair could direct your attention to house bill 532, members this is the situation we found ourselves in house bill 532 is in need of several amendments that the committee and the chair

can certainly or by leave of the committee this committee could agree to adopt a proposed committee substitute even those that post committee substitute was not noticed before nine o'clock last night. Would there be objection to adopting a proposed committee substitute for House Bill 532 and allowing Representative   McGrady to present the proposed committee substitute.  Representative Floyd Representative for House Bill 532 is before the committee, and Rep. McGrady is recognized to present the bill. Chair apologizes. The proposed committee substitute for House Bill 532 will be distributed to the committee. The Sergeant-at-Arms and pages could assist us please Members, without objection, we're going to let the gentleman go ahead and begin his presentation on the proposed committee substitute, Rep. McGrady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry that the PCS which had been prepared long ago didn't get out in the right form at the right time. Let me tell you what the bill does broadly. We passed a beer gravel bill in the last session, and the apple cider industry basically came back, and Henderson County is the home of many apple growers, came back and said they would like to saw apple cider in growlers just like beer. The retailers agreed but the issue is, it's sort of interesting, hard cider is treated as an unfortified wine and yet it's distributed like a beer. So it's sort of in an area that it's just not really easily dealt with. There is no opposition that I'm aware of to allowing horticulture  to be provided en growers by people that were appropriately commended, but as you can imagine is a sort of needle thing. Its taking a lot of work. I appreciate the work done by the merchant association. Always with the IBC to mention are the least that the PCS that is before you is a consensus over all the players and if it isn't a consensus, I will continue to work on it until we get to the right place, but the bottom line is you're authorizing prometees to sell the product and gallons just like you sell beer in gallon. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Representative Floyd for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? Representative Floyd has moved that the proposed committee substitute for house bill 532 be give a favorable report, unfavorable to the original bill. Is there further discussion or debate on the motion from the general from Cambler? Seeing none, those favoring the motion will say aye, those oppose will say no. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it and House Bill 532 will be given a favorable report. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Members we're going to move to House Bill 496. Representative Collins House Bill 496 and this is the original bill so House Bill 496 will be before the committee and Representative Collins is recognized to explain the bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman Luis House Bill 496 is all about full disclosure. I have worked in the industry for the past 25 or so years and the financial services industry investments where you have to disclose things in excruciating [xx], excruciating even to the clients. A lot of times they complain about how many things they get in mail and how big the perspectives are and all this kind of stuff, but I believe in full disclosure, I believe that people need to know what you think. This is a bill that will fully disclose to our auto insurance clients in North Carolina what they're paying for. It takes the surcharge that's being paid by all of us to support the difference between the actually found clean risk built in the reinsurance facility and what they're paying. which is what the rest of us are making up. We do have a friendly amendment which will be offered I

think by Representative Boles, which simply will define exactly Where and how often does disclosure has to appear. It will have to appear on the original policy and then on declaration page each time you renew the policy once a year and it states exactly how how it will be stated. I understand with those stipulations, we've reached a moment that I thought I'll never reach. all the insurance companies agree this is a good idea. I don't know of anybody who is opposed to this, believe it or not I think it's the first bill I've ever dealt with that there's no known opposition to, and so I would like to, Mr Chair I guess my request would be to have Representative Baldman distribute the amendment Member's representative Bails, is going to be recognized in a moment to send forward an amendment, are there any inquiries to the bill's sponsor? Representative Jackson? the gentle man is recognized for any inquiry [xx] That the only one this bill is adding to whatever is already on the bill. That's correct. The gentleman is you're going to ask for follow up. That would be under the Taxes Commission Certified Department of Insurance. [xx] I'm not in the property casually, insurance business so, I don't know what all the components of the charges are, I know that we do that we're paying for that involve paying for other people's insurance, uninsured, underinsured motorists we see I think I still see it on my bill. My wife pays most of my bills or most of our bills, but I think you still see exactly how much you're paying for the uninsured and under insured part. We just thought it would be a good idea to take that a step further and if you're suggesting we get even a bit further with it I would be happy to work with it for the bill with you but I'm trying to disclose one more currently being disclosed. Do you have Representative Bow he's amendment? members and gentlemen from all this senate, all we stay forward with the amendment which amends the bill on page one lines 14 to members in possession of copies of the amendment. Representative Bowles, the gentleman desires a comment on his amendment. Time we understand the industry and the section of agreement. The bill sponsored amendment and hope that you would vote for it because this is what brought unanimity to this bill. Thank you.  Is there further discussion debate on the amendment sent forth. Representative Hall. Seeing none, the question before the committee is the adoption of the amendment sent forward by the gentleman Those favoring the adoption will signify by saying aye.  Aye! Those oppose will signify by saying no. The aye's have it and the amendment is adopted. Is there further discussion or debate on House Bill 495? Representative Hall, what purpose do The Chair apologizes. The gentleman is recognized. [xx] we start this and clause now we say we are not going back to Itemize and then separate it out. What is the history of this? Why did we initially, and maybe not initially, have it displayed and itemize, then take it to the bottom line, and now we're seeing, take it back out of the bottom line in the split. What is What was the history of the ticket a way to start with? And I believe [xx]. Yes ma'am please. I believe that Is there a representative in the department of insurance? Representative Paul's inquiry. If so, if he would, please state your name and the gentleman is recognized to respond to the inquiry thank you Mr. Chairman, my name is Ben Pupkin, I'm director of government affairs for the department of insurance. It's true my understanding in the past industry requested that this information that it originally been broken out, was consolidated as a total lump sum, and again my understanding is this was done to provide, I just ease the process for the consumers, I think there

was a significant amount concern and perhaps confusion about what the just for the various amounts that made up the overall premium work, and it may have led to quite a bit of comment from consumers, agency and to the carriers themselves but my understanding is that was consolidated with the request of industry some time ago, and again the star charge, the regulatory star charge There is one of the many elements that make up the overall premium. Different circle. Representative Paul does gentleman have an [xx] the gentleman is recognized. Well I guess my question now is we shodded the industry We don't want to show it anymore, now we're saying we want to show it. Is there a sunset only? This to be reviewed, is this going to have to come back to [xx] process again like we have done twice already or if this bill passes, this is legal until it's changed. Is there further discussion or debate? Seeing none, representative Torbit has moved that House bill 496 as amended be rolled into a new proposed committee substitute, and that proposed committee substitute be given a favorable report for the unfavorable report to the original bill. I s there further discussion debate the motion, all the motion for the gentleman from Gaston. Just to be in the interest of transparency was there any member of the public who with to speak on this issue? Seeing non, the question before the committee, here is the motion from the gentleman from Gaston, that House bill 496 as amended be rolled into a new proposed committee and that proposed committee substitute be given a favorable report, to the unfavorable report to the original bill. Those who favor the motion will say aye.  Aye! Those oppose will say no? In repeat of the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion passes, so members, we're going to move now to House bill 541. House bill 541 House Bill 541 is before the committee The Chair is in possession of an amendment from the gentleman from Lincon Representative Sain to save paper if the members would listen to the amendment. The amendment from the gentleman would amend the bill on page three lines 20-21 it would strike the words $1000 and replace it with $1250. The members understand the gist of the amendment. Does the gentleman from Lincoln desire any comment on the amendment? Yes sir. Representative Bob does the gentleman has a question on the amendment? Now I have a question where The Chair will apologize they were a lot of bills around today. This actually adds a new section to the bill. The chair apologizes that that new section will be page three lines 20 through 21 it would amend current law which calls $1000 fee and increase the fee to $1250 which recalls the committee should have choose to give the amendment and then the bill of February 4th for the bill to be re-referred to the committee on finance. Are there further discussions or debate on the amendment send forward by a gentleman from Lincon say no on the question before the committee is in adoption in the amendment send forward of the gentleman from Lincoln, those favour of the adoption will say I those opposed will say no in the opinion of the chair the amendment is adopted members at this time it would be an order to receive a motion to Representative Bill for what purpose does the gentleman rise? [xx] The gentleman is recognized for a motion.

[xx] House bill 541 [xx]. Representative Bill wing county has moved, the house bill 541 as amended be rolling to a new proposed committee substitute. and that new proposed committee servitude be given favourable report and we refer to the committee on finance further discussion further debate representative Bob Gardener clerk purpose as gentleman seek recognition. I don't want to help in some Representative Conile. Am all representative Coni it would be this chairs obviously its members digression it would be in the chairs record that the actual subject to discussion on this bill be held in the committee on finance it will not be going to the floor, it will be going to the committee on finance. All including its power. Derive is recognised. Thank you and before, am thankful for turning this bill for discussion. Representative Coni in full cander the chair was given a, the chair was asked to further build the rules and further build finance from that's what the chair is attempting to do I don't know if it was own make or not perhaps in all pop ups machine. Thank you Mr. Chairman question of the procedure just trying to make sure we are anticipating here in this bill tomorrow I mean is getting referred to finances. Mr. Chair understanding an entire chair of ruling that because this bill increases the fee, this bill will not be subject to the crossover deadline. And the Chair, Representative Saine, Chair of Finance and Representative Soccer's finance chair the bill will be deferred to them it would be at their discretion when the bill is heard. Representative Stan? [xx] this bill [xx] Representative Gardner, is the gentleman satisfied with the amendment? Now they've seen it. Further discussion or debate on the motion, Representative Bail. That House Bill 541 as amended we roll into a new proposed committee substitute and with that proposed committee substitute to gain a favorable report and re-refereed to committee on rules. refer to the committee [xx] for that. Further discussion debate, seeing none those in favor say aye Aye! Those oppose will say no? In the view of the chair the ayes have it, and the motion [xx] members we're going to move now to house bill 495 Members have to a 495 is the original bill there is no not a proposed committee substitute the chair is going to recognize the bill sponsored to explain the bill, the chair would ask, the chair understands their are numerous or perhaps numerous amendments that are going to be offered if you could make those available to the staff of the chair as soon as possible to avoid any confusion representative Collins the chair recognize to explain the bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman I was just glad our chairman dint have a heart attack or fall out when they asked if there was a public comment on one of my bills and nobody wanted to speak on it from the back of the room, may be a first. House bill 495 is a continuous twink of house bill 834 from last session brought to us by the office of state human resources, I had gone through the great rules that would like to describe the changes that are occurring in this bill and I actually have, I'm proud of looking those slightly different version you all we had a PCS written last night to incorporate a couple of changes and discussions with some of the parties, but some of those two changes would be added by amendments so I'll try the best leaves us out on page one what you are having lines 10 through 12 is just a technical change we are not really leaving could change just an explanation of what career state employee means that it's

not a temporary person in a permanent position permanently hire a person on a permanent position, and that would change is on line 15 where we are suggesting going back to 12 months to reach career rather than 24 months this is something the office of state human resources feels like is important per state employee. Further down the page if you notice line 27 and 28 that last sentence has been struck, this is not [xx], this is to allow for situations where you may have to offer somebody a signing bonus on a competitive field like health care. So if you get a nurse to come to work for the state or something like that the current language wouldn't allow for something like that. Lines 30 and 31 deal with temporary solutions which is operated by the state human resources, [xx] state human resources being the temporary employment service, if you will for all state governments and that is what all of section three is about. Within section three you'll noticed that one of the things they've tried to do is the safeguard to employees is in lines 22 and 23, the director has noticed that depending on, in different departments are doing different things and using different terms of services and and one of the things that can sometimes be abused is the temporary starters and what we are including in these section is making sure that if people are laying digital  and not hired for more than 12 months on the same job. Online 36 page 2 certain reports that are required by the different departments to be turned in by the OHSR they do this annually rather than quarterly if we pass this bill on page 3. Would you the state human resources commission the the portion was adopting rules and policies governing the priorities of state employees. I just add the word, and policy, there and even on a little bit more flexibility and how they strike your contracts with those, on those employees. Online I guess it's still line 36, it wasn't my bill at least in line 46 there was a change for unsastantially equal to greater and we have gone back, where we will if we pass on amendment that will be of would be in a minute. We'll get back to equal rather than greater, so that change would be taken out. On page 4 lines 9 through 15, basically removed a person's privilege if they're applying for a better job and they turned down an interview. What we are finding is some of the administrators and some of the cops were telling us, people get rid to applying for every job and then not showing up for 75% of the interviews, so we are trying to cut that out, apart from the job you would want to go for the interview for. Line 18 Excuse me Representative Collins, Representative Andy, the gentleman has a question on that section Sure apologize for my, but I think he said we are on the original bill but the copy we have is listed on the proposed committee substitute. So I just want to make sure that I'm following on properly. It's not the original bill, it is a proposed committee substitute, we drafted another proposed committee substitute with two concessions last night, and that one, I don't think is before you. To be clear, Representative Time, thank you for that. The committee is considering a house proposed committee substitute that was adopted by another tone. Yes that`s correct, that is correct. This PCS was about the state personnel committee. In section J, you are not allowed to shake your head you will [xx] line 29 on page 4 on my version, I don't know if it's exactly in line on yours should be closed. Section J, this is aligning the rift program that we have had in place not to sunset and then in section 5.2 C we're just turning one of the roles of the department administration over to the office of state human resource so that rules and regulations that are necessary to carry this general statutes. If I remember right, this has got one of those obscure general statutes, I think this is the one that says that if we have state employees participating in international sports like the Olympics for the Pan AM games or whatever we he have to give them I believe it's 30 days off and I receive 30 or 60, and this would just allow those in

state personnel to develop the rules by which they enforce that. The policy is the policy. We go down to section 5.3 and I think there's going to be a change to this two at least  in the first time this is mentioned, we're going for the most qualified person to qualified persons and the reason for this actually for the protection of state employees. Representative Dobson has been in a supervisor position for state employees and has told me, Jeff we need to make this change this  is good for state employees. Otherwise if you can only hire the most qualified person, you get some hot-shot to come in from Minnesota and looks great on paper we have to give that person a job over a 15 year veteran that's qualified for the job and we'd probably like to hire for the job because they don't have the same degree of qualifications on paper. Then on page five that same change occurs a couple of times on that page. And then finally page six, section 2A your copy probably, this is talking about during the interview process, someone who would like to hire someone for another state position I think your copy still ends with the three words and disciplinary procedures or something to that effect, and again due to a confession with state employees group that one of the amendments you are going to see is strike those three words. Members the Chair understands there's going to be some worthy discussion on this, there are also several amendments to be candied, there are several moving parts right now, so what the Chair is going to do is we're going to take a 15 minute recess the Chair is buying lunch for all of the myth. Members the first thing the Chair wants to make clear sometimes we go fast, we want the program to slow down the Chair apologizes for that. The Bill thus before the committee reads at the top House Bill 495 right below and it says committee sustitute favorable 42215 and if you look to the far edge of the paper the number two appears. That means that this the this is the house committee substitute number two that was adopted by another committee. This is the bill that the gentleman has been explaining in the bill that should be in your packets. This is the reason that very, [xx] all the amendments will drive to the match. OK, so no, so just to be clear did you want to say anything else before we move into the amendments?  Members, in no particular order, chair is going to call on a member sent forward by representative [xx] it reads, at the top H 495-atv-11version three it is. Actually members Representative Bowl is not in the room we are going to displace that one I'm sorry this amendment will still be offered Representative Stan, this is amendment 495-ATV-11 version three, moves to amend the bill on page 3, line 35. Representative Stant, the gentleman is recognised to explain, first of all, do members have copies? Yes. Representative Stan is recognized to explain the amendment. And before you do that Representative Stan, The Chair is going to ask, we have a few wraps left, hopefully some members of the public can enjoy them, the press is not included, just kidding. Representative Stan is recognized to explain the amendment.  Thank you Mr. Chairman, and not having perfected amendment to strike through on lines three and six, which will take the languages there back to the original this is a law, and then the third change of page six line six which deletes the interdisciplinary proceedings and this is actually, Representative Collins, could he be recognised to further explain the bill. The gentleman is recognised [xx] Thank you Mr. Chairman, as Representative Stan has stated, this basically takes the first, the first section by the way in original law. The second part just takes out a piece that

was in question by the State Employees Association. So both of these actually are concessions in effect that they the bill producer are making after consultations with their state employees understand what purpose. If I could also you're making copies in fact you discuss with perfecting the main let it might save a lot because it might save a lot of debate. Members it is going to be a distributed as soon as copies are made is going to be sent forward by the gentleman from WAKE. Unless there's objection the Chair would like to recognize the gentleman from Wake to explain to begin explaining the perfecting memo. OK for lines three and five it unstrikes through describe through a substantial to take it back the original language and the reason is that rather than that there are two things that can be equal and personal nobody has ever exactly equal so there has to be some reborn substantially equal and I do have the remark on that with officer of [xx] Human Resources Mr. Aledin [xx] So Representative Stein as I may inquire from the Chair, your amendment would essentially in line 3 and line 6 remove the strike through of the word substantially? Correct Members is there objection to considering Representative Stein perfecting the amendment before the coffees are made available? Seeing non is there any further discussion or debate on Representative Stein amendment to remove the strike through of the word substantially on lines three and six seeing non those favoring the amendment will say aye "aye"  those oppose will say in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the perfecting amendment is adopted.  If I move for the amendment as perfected the gentleman fro Wake has moved that the amendment H495-ATV-11 version three as amended be adopted is there further discussion or debate on the amendment from gentleman from Wake as amended seeing none those in favor will say aye  "aye"  those oppose will say no in the opinion of chair the ayes have it and the amendment as amended is adopted. Representative Starnes just as a house keeping matter that would mean you would with prior members we are going to move now representative Rayson alarm we are going to move now to an amendment send forward by Representative Wray, Northampton County. The bill amends line four page 19 and the gentlemen is recognized to explain his amendment. You have the floor to explain your amendment, Sir. Thank you Mr. Chair. [XX] [XX] station see [xx] circuit and opens up the process to political abuse. The term 'years of experience' means all qualifiable measures for the applicant's qualifications please not in G3, the supervisor can already take into account special experience the mayor has reached of functional relationship. To build a school [xx]. I appreciate you support on this amendment. Chair is going to recognize the bill sponsor to comment on the amendment. We've been around and around and around on this one, I would advice you to vote against this amendment, the bill sponsor is not in favor of this It seems to me that half of the experience on any job is just a basic qualification, my 15 years as an engineer doesn't necessarily qualify me for a healthcare job. That's just my job interviews go, I say no, nothing. Punitive of anything in needing job related experience that they considered as part of this part of the job process, this is done everyday, an employment and so I will ask you to vote against this memo. Members, the chair has been advised by staff that there's a technical amendment of the amendment form representative ray, this language is actually found on page four line 18. not in my team, so members please be aware of that. Representative Holes for what purpose does gentleman seek recognition?

To ask a question on the staff order though. The deal's the gentleman recognize to profound the question to whoever he chooses. Thank you Mr. Chairman endowed to the amendment sponsor question goes to the depination of [xx] is there a some parameter description of what that means that this provides the stopple what can be considered when employing someone. So Representative Paul the Chair is going to say who wants to address that Representative Rays and the King stay up, so would staff be able to speak to that beside they just inquire. Did you get that, please, So why affect mode of nature of sign and statutes I think director Alexander here and he could probably provide a better answer as to what he meant, and what it meant by the term applicant Representative Howdy do you wish to address that to state personnel director?  If there's a known operating definition that would be fine, if the staff is correct does sufficient for me. Okay. Representative Ray what purpose. Mr Chair, thank God, it's probably someone xx from association did not answer the questions if you are saying thank you. In the interest of clarity the chair will recognize anybody from the state employees association on this amendment for period not to exceed one minute should they wish to rise. Welcome to the committee mam, if you'll state your name for the record and you are recognized to address Representative Paul's inquiry. Thank you Mr. Chair, committee members, I'm Sussy, I'm based with the State Employees Association, with your permission I would like to [xx] to Michael Bans who is an attorney who specialises [xx] I am not an attorney, but he can probably answer some of your questions. Mr. Bans? Mr. Chairman, thank you, I'll be very brief on this. Someone who deals with this matters often and promotion priority cases. The problem with the additional [xx] I see it, is if we give a hiring authority the power to simply say that given experience just wasn't actable with no guidelines or definitions of to say that was the case, but actually happens already in certain circumstances where there's a preferred calender in what people say when you've been working there for 10 years thrilling not applicable with this, and in my respectful opinion, while I think the intention behind it is good experience, should be [xx], it should be more defined so that it serves the purpose that it's intended to serve which would be, if there's experience that's applicable but does not give simple refer it to an HR person to simply decide without definition that experience that is relevant is not applicable. Thank you House Chair would like the director of the state I never get his term correctly Mr. You just state your name for about    Nero Alexander director of host state human resource thank you for that opportunity to be here speak on these particular bill. Today when you at a candidate you will end up all years and months of experience, and you have to consider those years of experience. What we're trying to do here is get it focused on the applicable experience that the person has with the skills and ability to do the job. Rather than  just a number of years that has been state government or number of years that they've got experience everywhere. We want it all to be applicable and related to the work that is being done and that's what our intent is, with trying putting in here years of after more experience, so it's directly related to the work that's being done. Thank you. Mr. Alexander, can the Chair pose an inquiry? Does your department create rules or definitions that might address what we're Right we have on all of the hiring process we have rules well we have policy and we have rules that go through our state human resources commission so we are governed by the state given resource commission, so we would write those out and we would have that into our staffing process and how we staff and how we select employees, this consistency stand out through out the state. Representative Paul, for what purpose? Well we haven't [xx], could I pose a question real quickly? You said you don't have a definition of applicable that you have published through

any of those means at this point. Is that correct? Correct. What applicable means is that the high management can look at the job qualifications that's on the job description, on the job posting, and they can evaluate the candidate against that, so for example if somebody has got 10 years of experience in IT, and it's in one area, but you need five years of experience Particular programming area, then that becomes the applicable experience that you're looking at and you would look at that with those years of experience related to that particular work. So, that's what we're trying to do, is to give more flexibility with the Hiring Manager in making decisions on the most qualified people for the jobs that we hire in the state. Representative Stan what more purpose on the recommission. This is equally for members, I think the jury. The gentleman on the floor. And it's self evident and the only in the word is whether you pronounce it applicable or backwards. Okay. We don't have to define every word in English language. Members, are there further discussions or debate on the amendment sent forth by Representative Ray. Representative Paul Gentleman has supported to debate the amendment. Lawyers make their careers on the different meaning and interpretation of words I think we've heard that there isn't none out there right now and that's based on what an individual perceives that leaves a lot of leeway or we are talking about this specialists and what applies I think it is a critical concept to understand or define thank you. Thank you. Further discussion debate on the amendment send forward by the gentleman from North Hampton? Seeing none the question before the committee is the adoption of the amendment sent fourth by representative Ray those in favor of the amendment will say aye, those oppose will say no in the opinion of the chair the ayes have the motion is adopted. Members we move now to addition to house Bill 495 of amendment from Representative Jackson which remains page 4 line 40 page. Page 4 line 40 representative Jackson is recognized to explain this amendment. Mr. Chairman I think the amendment stands direct any member in the possession of staff to be distributed to the members of committee. Mr. Chairman I'm ready now. Representative Jackson please proceed to explain the amendment. Thank you the bill sponsors currently bill strikes the word the most from the senate, the most qualifies. This is under a section of current law that limits political hiring, current law requires that when decisions made, the most qualified person is hired, I think that the tax payers of this state deserves no less than having the best person on every state job and so I'd move for adoption. Representative Jackson to move for adoption, Representative Collins has indicated he has no opposition to the amendment for further discussion on the debate on the amendment from Wake, seeing none those in favor the adoption the amendment from the gentleman from Wake will say I. I  Those oppose will say no, and on the opinion of the chair the I's have it and the amendment is adopted. Members of this time you should have or soon receive copies of amendment H495ASU version 26 version one  from Representative Floyd. This amendment would move to amend the bill on page three lines 26 through 29.  Representative Floyd the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. It's a very simple amendment, if there is striking out it explodes and that makes the sea to generate mining state that Representative Collins the gentleman wishes to comment Yes. I don't think the bill sponsors are in favor of this amendment. This section just adds some flexibility to our state Human Resources commissioner and I would like Director Alexander to go to explain their flexibility because he is there on the ground with [xx] and understands better than I do, if that's okay with your permission? Director Alexander please feel free to stand up and the bill sponsors request to address, the sergeant at arms to get the microphone for [xx] So I think representative Collins

exact inquiry was just to receive your comment on the section of the bill with the established [xx] we're going to take. Okay, so where the query we are talking about page three the.  Yes sir.  Wait, describe through. Page three lines 26 29. I got a different version but I think I've got it. So right now the State Human Resource Committee has the accountability for adapting rules what we are asking for is that they also have the accountability for adapting policies where it governs the priorities in certain rights of state employees that have been in through reduction enforced, right now, the way it is, it's somewhat limiting. We would like to have some flexibility to make sure that people that are being [xx] to get more options for considerations to come back to work and how we pay them and everything and we would like to that through rules, through policies and rules set by the commission of course the rules have to go to the rule review commission, and got through all of that process, so we asking for that to give us a broader perspective to work with under the direction of the commission, not something we would do in OSHO that the commission would vet that and work with it from later on. Representative Ray, for what purpose [xx] in recognition? Thank you Mr. Chair can they have the gentleman from [xx] spoke a few minutes ago, respond to that same question. Yes, that was Mr., I apologize sir Mr. Banjou representative Ray would like to address certain inquiries you issued if you don't mind. And I'm flattered because an expert but I'm really just a lawyer. The concern again I can appreciate and recognize the things done by but just to sort of being clear from my chance is to change the law that reflected this was setting requirements you couldn't a higher position on a list than you did before and that's fine, and an amendment that addresses those also fine, but to be clear what this does cause it gives the office state human resource effectively complete control over any situation or employee separated under arrest cheered up rules coming prior to solid like a state employee separate from state employment start a leave. So it is in my respectful opinion a very significant delegation of your authority has the general assembly to be in control of that process and if you're council to that, I suppose you are. but it seems to me to be giving very, very broad based complete independent authority over the entire risk process and respond to a single and specific change in the law. Thank you very much. Representative Floyd. Representative Floyd, just to inquire the staff, the chair could propose, the effect of this amendment would be say that someone with the states who became, who was a part of the reduction of force. Who accepted his position in the state government shall be paid the salary no higher than a maximum salary greater of the position accepted, without this amendment, would they be able to paid a salary the higher than the. If I may is that 80 policies are rules and that govern the policy is selling rights with the state human resource commission and so day was in make the decision about whether or not the person would be paid [xx] Is there further discussion or debate on the amendment on the floor by representative Floyd, the bill sponsor is recognized to come around the amendment. Again the bill sponsor is opposed to this amendment I will point out that it is the state human resources commission that has a right to adopt this rules not

the OSA charge state incorrectly that the OSA charge has Little power now over this whole situation which is not correct, if you notice the bill gives the power to make this rule to the State of Human Resources Commission. I would ask if you vote against this amendment. Further discussion, further debate, waste of time. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I guess I am not understanding what the implications are, somebody has to make the three types of decisions and right now it's with the legislators, which causes me great concern because we would be looking to try and micro manage how we move personnel And we now know if everybody wants to comment on that unless you, I understand the change we're moving over to another group but what I don't understand is what the negative implications of that change. Mr. Floyd did you want to address the gentleman's inquiry. Actually representative Forty if you will verse Norcoms if you want to, try to address it. Just to comment on the Thank you Mr. Chairman just to comment on what representative Partly he is exactly right we pass this amendment we managing the OSHR through the legislature, I'd rather let folks we've hired to do it, than the folks the governor's staff has hired to do it, to do their job. Thank you for pointing that out. Representative Stan what The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. I agree with Representative Cole on the first part of the amendment well what gives me a little pause is without the amendment, you have this part that you can pay people more than the maximum salary for position that's what I don't understand if you already have a pack of salary ready why would you want be letting them pay people more than that Yes sir Mr. Director would you [xx] one more time? Neil Alexander office of State Human Resources. The intent of establishing the rules and the policies by the commission will address all of those parameters of how that would be done, we're not going to do and across the board, somebody coming back from a layoff or pay a man a higher salary, we'll have other standards and qualifications and things they have to meet, but it gives us that what's ability to do that. We're not going to pay many people above the top of the salary range. Alright, the gentleman wishes to speak at for the third time on the amendment, since [xx] the chair is going to allow it this time without objection from committee. Gentleman has the floor if he can come back in, then a higher salary is that it's being by accepted policy back in human resources, that's where my concern comes in, it may not be what two or three, but it's color may be painted as we  lay still [xx] Further discussion, further debate on amendment from gentleman from Camden. Seeing none, those favoring the amendment will say aye. Aye! Those opposed will say no. No! The no's have it, the amendment is not adopted. The Chair is in possession of no additional amendments, so further discussion on House Bill 495 as amended? Representative [xx], what purpose? Comment and question for the bill sponsor. The gentleman is recognized I hate to do this to the committee at this point, but I'm a former HR Director, some part of it caught my attention and I'm particular one part three, which is the temporary employment services. My question is that this bill also applies a number of questions actually. Does this bill also apply to the [xx] existence. For the human safe. To the human safe is this why that this temporary action picks up. Why director hasn't pleased. So Nero Alexander Gino director

host human resources now they just, this doesn't apply to them we will give them exception but we will also manage and oversee what they do so that we get reporting from what they are actually doing. Okay hold on. What if. Representative can I. As part of that due question I would like to have the UN state system come up to me today before the meeting in favour though in favour of this bill. Okay and if please the Chair and the bill sponsor I'd like to make another question. Yes, the gentleman [xx] How do we define temporary in this bill, how does the state define temporary employee. It will be someone that is hired for a short term, not full time, no benefits, basically they're working on a hourly rate for a short period of time and there are other parameters that go with that, under this court case that we had several years ago. We had to put in place a tracking mechanism to make sure that no temporary employee worked more than 12 months in a year. So we put that tracking system in place and we actually don't let them work more than 11 months. And then the second piece of that is, we now track for the Affordable Care Act and anybody that works more than third, on the average of 30 hours a week and they have access to the medical coverage through the Affordable Care. Okay, so follow up. So you understand the train that I'm getting on here? I think I do. Yes sir and I think I understand how permanent employment is characterized now as well. Correct. You say that you put the safety measures in place, but as I read your, as I read the section here it say that temporary assignment can't last more than 12 months? Right. Alright, it says that, however the HR director or state department of HR can extend that? To 12 months, not beyond 12 months. We're not doing any extensions beyond 12 months. We'll give him form 11 months to 12 months, we were given that additional month. I've turned down two or three in the last year. Follow up? Gentleman is recognized. So how then so after 12 months and I guess there an be if no extension, no offence granted beyond 12 months then you have the correct version of [xx]. so then how is there possibility that same person after avoiding service to come back to their position and those smallers questions what is that break of service and how do we keep these employees from having the expectation of continuous employment that got the state in trouble the last time. So we have a 31 day break in service so they can have a they work that 11 months and they have to have a 31 day break in service, they can reapply for work position and come back to work is analic temporally important temporally solutions. OKay  follow up, And we can do this over and over and over again which is to That's correct the Agencies can do that.  Now to your point because I know what is trying is leaving the station out there, we are beginning to look at those that have had multiple years of service and those multiple breaks and we've also been working with the outer state budget management on open positions and how we can valuate all of that to so we got, I got that one. OK, follow up. The gentlemen is recognized. So we have now a template so we started, we are bringing a temporary service in the house obviously for more special us that the state fund depend, right, do you understand, alright, but we are also losing that buffer because we're bringing this temporary service and house knots and when we outsource these temporary services before we had a natural buffer that protected us from some form of litigation along the way, now we are bringing this in house and as I understanding, we are still able to have a 30 day break, hire people continuously over and over again if we so desire. Okay 31 day break but I think the value is that we now have oversight of all the temporary workers, and we also qualify these temporary workers against what state employees workers were making. So we have cheques and balances for that we also create the over side

and create standardization, temporal solutions this is not new, this has been around for about 30 so what will this liaise court case, we put in place executive forward to give somebody the accountability for making sure that we don't get caught in this crack again and so that's what we're doing to our managing temporary solution on that, but your other points, very good points. Okay very brief comments. Gentleman is recognized for a very brief comment. Thank you I appreciate you being here Collins what I'd say is that I hope they're right I hope that they're absolutely right in terms of the staff gaps that are in place here because having worked in HR at a state university on counting that just from the experience that it is very difficult to keep track of what hiring managers are doing. What hiring managers are doing down, in respect to some of our entry level areas in the months secretaries and the different administrative and custodial it is very difficult to keep track that of that, and what my concern really is, is that we're going to find ourselves back exactly where we were except this time it's going to be courtified as a temporary service in new legislation and to me it just opens up so far,  it could be a potential letigious situation again I'm very concerned about it. But So  he was going to recognize  the director to comment on that and then the bill sponsor and  hope we can move forward so to your concern about how things happen way down here under this temporary solutions process. It has to go through a clearing house, it comes to us on an automated it has to be approved so it's not just somebody going out or calling temp solution saying send me somebody tomorrow. So we got the process is in place to address your issue. Thank you. Representative Collins. I just want make sure everyone to understands this but I want to make sure everybody understands this. That loop he was talking about is not created by this bill. That's already there. That has nothing to do with this bill. There's a section in this bill about who handles the temporary solutions. That problem is there whether we pass this bill or not. Further discussion, further debate? If not, Representative Stein moves that the House Committee Substitute number two for House Bill 495 as amended be rolled into a new proposed committee substitute and that substitute be given a favorable report. Further discussion and unfavorable to the original bill. Further discussion, further debate on the motion? Representative Stein seeing none, those favoring the bill will say aye. Aye. Those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the motion passes. Thank you. Members we do have an additional bill. representative Davis the gentleman take the chair Next item for consideration in House Bill 821, this is a proposed committee substitute for House Bill 8211 entitled proper administration of state therapy, without objection, the PCS is probably before us, it will be presented by Representative Louis. Representative Louis you have the floor. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members, I know it's been a long day, and particularly long week. I'll be as

brief as I can on this bill, and I do have an amendment being distributed at this time. The chest of this bill, the chest of this bill is simply that a patient may receive the medicine that their doctor prescribes, that there is no other that deciding factor, that prevailing factor of what medicine a patient receives, that is what a doctor has prescribed. It is a practice called step therapy, where a doctor may recommend medicine D. Let's just say D and when the patient goes to get their prescription filled the pharmacist may say your insurance doesn't cover this, but it covers D, so most of the time the patient will say, well, let's try B. This will just say that the that in a case I read, the deciding factor will be those in the best interest of the health of the patient, what the doctor has prescribed. I'd like to, with the chairs permission to send forth an amendment to clarify what this bill does not do? Yes sir would you please explain the amendment I believe that is being passed on. Members just to be clear I'm very aware that if the drug that's described is drug D or to grab on drug d then there may be a generic drug for drug D not trying to address that generics can't be substituted for main brand drugs those amendments simply specifies that an insurance or ability to substitute a generic drug for the main brand drug is not being in front of the parliamentary move adoption of the amendment. Are there any questions or comments by the committee concerning the amendments as proposed? Yes sir representative go ahead. This correctly should be on the amendment for the bill like does all of this apply to all health plans state health plans medicaid and staff. Representative Louis. That would, may I just refer to staff of concern. Yer Sir Could you please answer the question. The bill actually helps me regulate by chapter 58 and that would the non sub insurance small group of individual and large could not affet medicate or the health plan. Any other questions or comments, we have seen them both, yes sir, yes sir. [xx] have the ability to operate [xx] Rep. Lewis. Well Rep. Boles, thank you for that question, and just to be clear, that may or may not be the case. What I was just trying to make clear is that the intent of this bill is not to do away with generics and insists that only brand names can be used. The bill's intent is to ensure that the patient is able to get the drug to which they were prescribed, be it generic or name brand. And just to make the point clear, there was some conversation that this would somehow interfere with the insurance company's ability to substitute generic drugs and that's not the intent of the bill. Follow up? Yes. So if the pharmacist is going to ask him, I don't have the generics, do you want the name? Or how is the consumer or the patient get into a discussion as for as the merit of the Representative Louis. Well, Representative Bowles has the answer to that. It's the way that it's done now, which is if you and I, the name of the drug won't come to my line right now, but if the committee will indulge me, you may have to talk about over the counter drug. If you went in to buy Motren and instead decided to buy CBS brand, I'd be prot and that's the same drug. So the insurance companies

and did the pharmacist often as a matter of practice, will use the same drug under a generic name. Further follow up? The staff please respond. Representative Bowles, with regards to this, it's fully involving the step therapy which is a type of prior authorization. So, if you were a consumer and you wanted to take a medication and your doctor wrote a brand name drug prescription. And you [xx] to your pharmacy and they are the super generic. Certainly they'll for the generic [xx] unless you say you know what I don't want that and are willing to pay the higher copay step therapy is more specific and it has to do with [xx] insurance company would not actually authorize that drug until you start with the lower cost drug typically in generic, and then you move up to the branding that the position might have perhaps recommended their're two different scenarios but as long as the insurance company was willing to pay for the drug and ensure it could certainly get a generic drug the step therapy has to do with specific condition than in moving up the ladder if you will enter into the step therapy come from to get that more expensive drug. Yes sir, further follow up They're actually some donor. [xx] or [xx] as always that my real colleague tell me 500 milligram as the [xx] that's just hard to plan and I guess what you're saying to me is that [xx] yet you have to go a step further because this trial and error if this medicine doesn't work you move to another brand without going back to your primary physician to see with your [xx] if it's working or this a 30 day, is this a year or I'm making [xx] as it as far as [xx] it up. The staff please response. It has to do with what the insurance company will actually see. So, right now it's just they may require you to start on a generic drug before you can move up to a more costly drug. It may even not be generic rather it may be a different kind of [xx] so they may require you to start there. Mean while you may had a conversation with your physician that you want, brand name app, but they wouldn't pay for brand name app and tell you try the generic. But this is from a trial and failure and not quit. Another follow up The amendment is saying they will still be able to start off with the generic rather than the same compound and the same milligram, this issue or the promises, and there again if this particular [xx] is not working Representative Luis. Let me try again. What this amendment is trying to do is clarify that if you doctor prescribe the specific medicine for a specific purpose. And you go to a pharmacy and the pharmacist may the specific medicine for the specific purpose that was prescribed. That specific purpose and that specific medicine is also available in a generic form. This bill is not attempting to address that the amendment is simply trying to make sure that the issue doesn't get confused. The bill's not attempted to deal with if it's going to be a generic or a brand name, it just briefly, the bill is trying to address if the doctor prescribes a certain treatment that the patient is able to get back in what form he gets there or she gets there generic or many brand this bill doesn't deal with that I'm not trying to deal with that. One more follow up.

OK thanks I guess I'm getting the amendment confused with the bill I understand what in the amendment as far as sent to the all [xx] position, pharmacist or original [xx] interrogating. Stern could you please respond.   [xx] humour the doctor may make a prescription, the pharmacist may say okay you can have it here or you can have your brand here, however there`s the separate issue of will the insurance cover the top? So the pharmacist may be able to give you either drug but your insurance company may not pay for one of the two not where this is about the insurance regulation the payment of it, not the actually being able to obtain the drug [xx] As Representative Louise and mentioned the amendment is just making it clear that it's not really about generic [xx]. It's really about the pro that it will [xx]. Representative Szoka. When we get back on the bill. Anybody else who would like to speak on the amendment? Representative Bumgurdner. Thank you, did I in fact mention the fact the amendment that says 8812 and it should be 821? Stanford respond to that. Yes, [xx] the typo from the absolute have corrected it on the signed version of it and [xx] a 21 is 12 Is there any further discussion, questions or comments on the chaiman of the committee. Now I know why Representative Bolow[sp?] was so confused. Now we got him is there any comments, questions or discussion by the members of the committee on this amendment hearing none all in favour to the amendment please say aye all oppose the amendment please say no as we ask you we are now back on the bill as amended representative Saying Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the bill sponsor. Is anyone, in this field, I agree with representative Bole anyone from past villa apartment in the audience like to speak can do that like to see kind of get the clarity reform closed in all respond as soon we get the republican opportunity to speak would the community like to hear in response to representative Sams question someone from republic is anyone here that can answers representative Sams question and if so you come forward identify yourself and please make your remarks as brief as possible. Yes My name is Ben Twily I'm with Express Scripts were pharmacist benefit manager we actually the state health plan, the pharmacy benefits for the health plan as well as almost six million people excuse me residents of North Carolina we all oppose to this bill because it would limit the ability for competition than brand name drocks brands when there are not generic drugs out there, but there are competing brand name drug that there are being therapy to clear equivalent they have a pretty much the same effective late what help plans NTBMs will do is they will go in and negotiate for discounts on the drugs to be the exclusive collateral of the drugs. If I may so without arguing the bill I was just asking you answer his question. Can you rephrase the question. The question [xx] this will negatively impact a prescript and it is also native impact before you because it would stupid drop the cost of prescription drugs on [xx] oppose and inquire yes sir. Would the gentleman be able to submit to the committee documentation to substantiate the claims he just made about the discount? So you maybe claim this will drive up calls I can get you something. You know we cannot present everything. I don't have anything the pad and let's give a sign up list for those who might want to speak either four our guests to propose the bill. While we do that, we return it to the Committee to discuss the bill's amendment, Representative Cirko Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am not a healthcare professional, I am not a healthcare profession or representing drug companies but I'm married to a medical practitioner who works in from prescribing drugs the last 20

years and sometimes we have interesting conversations with [xx], and I said listen, the issue with this, and I applaude bill sponsors for this. There's really two places where this step becomes in place. You have a patient come in to say that there healthcare provider may present a list of complaints, they say [xx] whatever. It's the doctor or nurse practitioner's job to access what that disease is and make a diagnosis. At the point that they make diagnosis, they go to the [xx] and they ask whether this [xx] have five different drugs that can treat this disease, process whatever [xx] that you have. One of these might be the ones you see on TV for which there is no generic because still on the pattern or the other ones that are generic or trade name. So at that point in time the position says, well, let's start with this depending on the severity of the condition, the cost of the drug often times to have to get free authorizations from the health insurance provider, who in fact offers help figure out precision and comes back and says, start at the lowest cost one. At that point in time even though the physician might know that all of these five drugs people on the last 100 responded well to the most expensive brand name, the insurance companies says, start with this one. Because really the position there is no knowledge which one is going to work, because each one of us has different molecular makeup, this is where it comes with the step and their have been many occasions were they're actually better results on a lower generics [xx] market [xx] and some people actually have to endure this [xx] going through the step up cause and they finally windup on those expenses which does give them the best case one the first time a patient presents and that's were really I think that the insurance companies trying to save the most money. The second time this happened, is that the patient has been on some medication, whatever it is, was said the most [xx] it worked, they come back again authorized every year by the insurance company, at that point and time if the insurance company says, well we're going to do a step again, that's what's really driving people they say we don't want to do this announce most insurance companies have a formula or a form that you're provided fill out and company and usually based on way of producing a stable practise back and forth until the insurance company accepts that and then certainly gabe that might be the cause of a lot of the frustration so we have two different instances of step therapy in my opinion the first one was the play ground with CMS which covers Medicare and medicate requirements [xx], we would be [xx] increase pass to peoples health care your plan send our bills. Second apart when you come back I think a bill increase that and that's the part where in my opinion whether this needs to address hopefully that brings some clarity is to what this [xx] Thank you representative, any other discussion by the committee, Representative Tine? Please don ask. Does this bill just address your second scenario or is it also this scope addressing the first scenario? And who you posing the question to? Whoever has the knowledge to do it sir. The staff is going to that. The staff please respond The first scenario would be addressed by the clinical review criteria and the requirements to set up a step therapy protocol to the issue, really on page two, line 14-29 turning by the clinical rights review criteria will require an insurance company to come up with the sector of the profile based on the clinical review criteria, which would address scenario number one. And scenario number two, is under the acceptance process transparency piece which is on page two line 30 requiring the company which had a step 30 authorized determination. And you can see on line 42, 51 and then under page 3 there are five items that are prescribed in the bill that the let there be authorized determination plus would be be granted if any of those apply. So it would address the forms that Representative [xx] mentioned [xx] overwrites [xx]. Thank you, Representative Cerk[sp?] I am not here to comment on this, and I apologies for not having an amendment ready for this meeting know on page two

lines 118 and that is some of the worrying I've been working earlier on others not articulated with the health benefit plans. I mean obviously and insurance company has communication premiums downs so said in independent one of those compensate sponsor to help 15 member of the panel who are not associated with the health insurance company but one of them is, and one of the things he was trying to work out was figure out how I could change the wording in thre, so, I apologize not having amendments ready but representative Luis. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members Representative Szoka shared with me during the lunch recess that the had good idea to improve the bill and I'm certainly hoping to working with him should the bill get to the floor to address the concern in best time that he has so by no means this is a perfect bill speaker. Representative [xx] you are recognized a second time. Thank you are we going to have some speaker on both sides of this bill. I may allow some one who signed up to speak in a few minutes. I have a question that I would like to have answered as possible and that is if you have a healthcare plan that is agreed to by two parties what you have a health care plan agreement between a provider and a party and now we are mandating that they plan, they amend it and altered, that's gonna cause consequences in the future and I want to know if there can be determined, in your opinion this is going to cause. When you changed the agreement act of the fact and not negotiated upfront, the next time you renegotiate this agreement the price is going to change. Representative Rose. Yeah, if, with all due respect Howdy is the party you're referring to, who? I'm speaking of the insured and the insurer. Then to that point I believe an individual ventures into the market place and purchases insurance, this with certain expectations and among those expectations which're clearly written to your point in the plan, this will be your co-pay for drugs, this will be your co-pay to visit your primary care doctor, this will be your co-pay to visit a specialist. That comes with the consumer expectations that whatever care is required for them will be done. What this bill is seeking to say is, if a consumer goes to the doctor and the doctor prescribes drug E, and they go the Pharmacist are given drug E, not drug C to see if it works and then have to go back 30 days later to the doctor who then has to do drug D because of a step plan they give what they need, that's all this is trying to do. Follow up. I agree with you. I understand that Representative Luoise and I agree with you on that but what I'm asking is and what I'm getting is, you now we're going to use the government to mandate a certain protocol that in the future it's going to cause prices to change. Representative Louis. Representative Dominic, I appreciate what you are saying, the bottom line to me is, if you are to go to the doctor, and the doctor determines what he/she believes we should be treated with, they were able to get that treatment So, we may both be right at what we are saying, just perhaps at odds. Any other discussion by the committee? Representative Flare. If I recall my question before, do I understand then that If you are on medicate, or the state health plan you have to adhere to the step plan, but if your on the others, you don't have to adhere to the step plan. Representative Louis?

To be clear Representative [xx], and I'd be glad to work with you or anyone else to try to make this clear or more clear. It would be my desire that this process be uniform. My belief was that, since the state health plan essential has a third party administrator, that the same steps would be followed. Any other Representative Bob. T Hank you Mr Chairman a couple of questions and I don't know if you're intending to here it fro the [xx]  there is one person who signed the script committee want to hear from that one person now. Well I have a couple of question  before the Style, What's the difference in a committee like this not applying medicate and that state health plan then is this going to have an effect to drive the cost up, in the will be [xx] for the companies that will be affected by or [xx] also did have a radar effect on medicate and state health insurance. Representative Louise. Representative Hall I sincerely appreciate that question. I don't have any empirical evidence one way or the other. Every time we do any of these conversations, the arguments always go the same way. You've got someone saying, this is important that we do it, and you got someone saying it's going to cost more. It is my favorite belief, that if Larry Hall goes to his Doctor and his Doctor prescribes drug X that Larry Hall walked into that Doctor's office with the assumption that whatever he left with was going to be what his doctor thought he out to give. So Larry Hall goes to the law greens and Dome to get his prescription filled after already having been to the doctor being told whatever and walks in there and is told by his pharmacist I can't give you drug X because your insurance plan requires that you get drug S first, do you lay how I ask your chores. Learn up to say do you now my doctor said I need X, so am going back to the doctor to doctor have them call the insurance administrator go through whatever appeal process is and frankly probably wonder with drug X, but the point is, most folks won't do that, what's left of it Larry Hall because he's smart, D hall would go. Get the prescription for X. It all it had to get S first. No I didn't have time to drive back to [xx] to the doctor, no one is to [xx] I'm going to take what they've prescribed. Now frankly it might work. But it might not. So 15 days from now, 30 days days from now, I go back to the doctor, guess what they tell me I need, X. I go back to the [XX] I'm told now I can get drug D. I go home with drug D. Follow up.   Okay. This is a scenario [xx] the bill. If this Bill passes now to regulation in certain [xx] rule so we can imagine when people start trying to replicate, is exactly where they're going to be. Is it a problem with the insurance or who is going to determine the procedur and answer those questions working with due processes. And they, are they doing that horribly or said something that is going to be new for him. Whip staff, please respond. Representative Paul, you need to read line 13 you'll see that the commissioner is expressly given authority to adopt rules and implement the article with regard to the specific protocol that the insurance company come up as protocol. But the department of insurance having authority over insurance companies would be adopting the rules to implement the article.   Further follow up. So then we're saying, we're really prescribing this procedure, saying we want you to figure this procedure out and then transfer it to the department of insurance to actually put something in place to do this by January.

Whip Staff please respond. No, by January 3rd 2015, the insurance companies would have to follow the requirements to have acceptable needs protocols that follows the clinical review criteria. The department of insurance company's Bill to write rules as they do generally with regards to the regulations of insurance so if anything needs to be supplemented in terms of how to make sure that the insurance companies are in fact calling the labs sent we do now the department of insurance would have that authority. Is that said as per you questions representative Hall? thank you representative Floyd. [xx] Yes sir. When you give that prescription and then then you [xx] back to the whatever electronic means that's there indicate that they already know what the insurance company is willing or not, is that correct? Yes. Representative Louis. Yes. Any further discussion by any member of the committee, or questions? Hearing none, the person that has signed up to speak is, Greg Thompson, would you please come identify yourself and we'll be happy to hear what you have to say. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Greg Thompson, State Chairman of the National Federation of Independent Business. Just speak on this bill from one aspect and that's from the aspect that it is a mandate. And if I over 13 bills have been introduced in this session that are considered interest mandates and we have historically our members have asked us at least the 20 years, 10 years I was here and 10 years I've been within a [xx] to oppose the bills that increase the cost of insurance. In my opinion and Representative Louis can tell me differently but mandating insurance companies to do a certain thing, which every mandated is 57 right now in North Carolina which is one of the highest number of mandates in a state. So we as an organization feel that this will increase the price of insurance a long with other bills and session, which is the cost is passed on to the small business owners and they cannot afford any additional premium increases. Thank you. Thank you Sir, although no one else from the public [xx] I'll ask, is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak either for or against the proposed bill? Seeing none, Representative Floyd. Yes sir, hold that thought for just a minute. Is there any other discussion, questions or comments by any member of the committee? Representative Hall?   Just one question that goes to the founders, the historians [xx], someone's care to explain Yes Sir. Can staff respond to that please? If you're talking about the panel on page two line 20 the panel is required to the clinical review criteria it's required to meet the following requirements page135. One of those requirements is that they need to be developed and endorsed by independence the disciplinary handle of experts. Beyond that it does not prescribe exactly how that panel is supposed to function other than that the experts are not affiliated with the health benefit plan or utilization of your organization which represents [xx] as addressed earlier. Does that satisfy your question? Follow up? Follow, can I get some [xx] representatives Szoka to say this is the area that we know we are going to have this moment work on the bill. Representative Louise. I believe Representative Louise said that he would be willing to work with anyone after the committee meeting today, and before it hits the house floor, but Representative Luis can certainly respond further if he desires. Yes representative the way the bill was written we're trying to give the maximum amount flexibility for the insurers to be able to operate within the existing frameworks that we have I think Representative Szoka has brought us some good points and I'm certainly I to be frank with you I wish no disrespect meant him I wish they'd been brought to me yesterday, we could have probably had them in the bill. Representative Corney. Just to clarifying question. Yes mom. That [xx] eliminating the step of.

Representative Louise[sp?] or staff? Amendment. No [xx]. Is their any other further discussion or comments by any member of the committee? Hearing non Rep. Torbett makes a motion that the amendment be rolled over to a new PCS, and the new PCS be given a favorable report and unfavorable to the original there's the motion. I'm not aware that the house is on referral our inquiry staff is on referral. There is no referral so we can strike on the house floor that is the motion before us do we have any discussion concerning the motion? Thank you Mr. Chairman I know we've got a lot of bills to do on the floor to be reported out and it sounds like you got a bit of work to do on this bill, we want to finish that work in committee and we're going to try to do that on the floor what is the plan? I'll ask the bill sponsor representative Lewis to please respond to that representative Howard I believe that the nature of the amendment representative Soccers working on it one day would not absorb a great amount full time and would still accomplish what I hope to accomplish with the bill so I was hoping we could do it on the floor obviously it will be later this evening before we would do it just want to register my objection to doing real work after 9 o'clock on the floor objection duly noted if any further discussion comments or questions refer to the committee concerning the motion that is before us? Hearing non all in favor of the motion please say aye "aye" all opposed to the motion please say no. In the eyes of the chairman the ayes have it the ayes do in fact therefore we receive a favarable report thank you very much. Members of the chair could I have your attention please just one more moment please. Members you are all aware this has been discussed for weeks, that in the past hour judiciary number one yesterday we referred to the rules house bill 562 the Chair wants to simply for the purpose of public distribution chair would like to announce to the committee that it is the Chair's intent to recess the rules committee, and to reconvene to consider at least two bills one of which will be the protection of a tree filed by Representative Hamilton and Arl the will be a proposed committee substitute for house bill 562. House bill 562 is entitled the second amendment Affirmation Act. The Chair is going to direct that that Bill be distributed to members. That it be posted on the Committee's website and is giving notice to all members that it is the chair's intent to take this bill up when we return from recess. The return from recess will be at some point during the house recess, and will be announced on the floor. There being no further business before the committee. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg seek recognition? [xx]. The lady has the floor. [xx] [xx]. The chair appreciates that, and your certainly welcome to chair. appreciates the great amount of time, that the members just being here today, and one area that the Chair is well versed is in all kinds of food. Well preference will be for more cigarettes just one minute representative Floyd, OKay representative Boyld[sp?] representative Floyd. Can we get the bill number for the Tree Bill. Yes, a tree [xx] bobcat. That needs a place to live.