January 15 2022 Legislative Update

 January 15, 2022 Legislative Update

COVID, and how it should direct our House activities, led to the longest debate of the new session this past week.

To no surprise, since we are all just Vermonters, the extreme range of public opinion exists among legislators: from those who believe that worries are overstated and based on irrational fear to those who believe that responses are inadequate and based on wrong-minded recklessness.

Among the passionate views, we managed to have a civil debate. We aren’t always perfect in that regard, but one thing I have always been proud of is our ability do to that in the Vermont state house.

This week in my committee, we needed to take time aside for a “family meeting.” There were strong feelings in a discussion over a COVID issue that ended in damaged relationships. After waiting a day, we were able to talk it through and restore trust in one another.

These relationships are critical to the give-and-take that optimizes the legislative process of listening to one another and gaining from listening. Even though a Democratic majority will always prevail on the floor, differing views create better balance when people can talk through issues in more direct and personal ways in a committee – or in a hallway.

That is one of the foundational reasons we need to get off Zoom and back in person.

As a member of the 7-person Rules Committee, which includes bi-partisan leadership members plus two at-large members, I was in the center of the debate over how and when we return safely.

A week before the session opened, we changed course from an intended full return to a two-week delay, based on the looming Omicron surge.

The concern at that point was mostly based on perceptions of the degree of future threat. We did not yet know whether a surge in cases would also result in a surge in severe illness, given our state’s high vaccination rates.

We agreed to get expert testimony to have a more accurate basis for a future decision.

In the interim, the question itself changed. While our case count has skyrocketed, our hospitalizations have not. The epidemiologist who testified told us that the precautions we have put in place means the state house is a safe place to return.

However, the case surge has vastly expanded the level of necessary, precautionary quarantines across the state. If we return in person but dozens of legislators cannot participate, their constituents lose their voices in the state house.

Thus, the Rules Committee unanimously recommended that we return in person but allow a special exemption for those who cannot not come to the state house for COVD-related circumstances to participate and vote remotely.

What a “COVID circumstance” is, we decided, should be the personal judgement and responsibility of the individual.

However, there was one glitch. Our committee rooms can operate in this kind of hybrid fashion, but the House floor needs a few added IT tweaks to achieve that full ability in the way we would want.

The Rules Committee resolution therefore called for a two-week further remote session for the full House in order to make those adjustments, but an immediate return to in person committee work with the inclusion of the exemptions.

I was the reporter of the resolution on the virtual House floor, so I took the brunt of the inquiries and challenges to this plan over the course of several hours.

Those who opposed any immediate return offered an amendment that would continue 100% remote proceedings. After robust debate, that was rejected on a 30-112 vote.

The final vote on the hybrid return was by voice, so no count was available, but it was far from unanimous. The “no” votes reflected members who wanted a full in person return, but the “yes” votes were a clear majority.

As another member of the Rules Committee said, the committee had come to a place that we felt was the right balance and in the best interest of members and Vermonters. It reached for common sense that was based upon the facts and evidence before us.

Though not everyone agreed, we had a civil debate and achieved the compromise that gets us, at least, through the next two weeks.

***

COVID work has dominated my own Health Care Committee work as well. Public health issues such as mask mandates are not before us, because they are the jurisdiction of the Human Services Committee, which is taking testimony on those questions.

Our committee is reviewing the series of emergency authorities for flexibility under the law that we gave to multiple health system oversight bodies in the spring of 2020, under extraordinary legislation that was turned around in just a few days in the last week before everyone went home.

Last year, with the pandemic dragging on, we extended most of those for a year and they are set to expire at the end of March. The timing was deliberate so that we could reassess in these first several weeks of 2022. Now, we will likely be extending most of them again.

As the time drags on, however, some of the balance between ensuring health access and protection of patients shifts.

The expansion of telehealth has been extraordinary and vital. It has taught us new ways to move into a future that includes severe shortages of health professionals.

In our emergency actions in 2020, we waived the licensing requirements for out-of-state providers to offer telehealth, and although they are required to be licensed in their home state, there is no verification system.

During the pandemic, access was the most critical part of the balance. We don’t want to cut that expanded access off now; we’ve heard from many people, particularly in the realm of mental health support, how valuable it is.

But as the dust settles, we are seeing TV ads for out-of-state companies offering services and our oversight bodies – designed to protect patients from abuses – don’t even know who they are.

So with balance as a watchword, we are working on legislation that protects ongoing access to telehealth but moves to required registration and certification of providers.

In this new arena, we had also directed insurers to reimburse for telehealth services.

It was dispiriting to find out in testimony this week that Blue Cross/ Blue Shield has violated the spirit of the emergency access provisions for reimbursement. Last fall, it cut off payment for mental health telehealth providers who were not part of its provider network.

Typically, insurers require higher co-pays for out-of-network services, but in this case, patients are being cut off completely from access to critical support in the midst of a surge in mental health need and a severe shortage of providers. We intend to be asking BCBS to explain itself.

***

The other major action this past week was the next step in the 10-year reapportionment process to adjust district lines to reflect population changes. The bill being passed in the House will put forth two different proposals to generate as much town feedback as possible before a final decision is made.

The majority position of the advisory Legislative Apportionment Board was a recommendation that all districts be sized to have one representative apiece. It creates greater equivalency among districts, but it also chops more towns into different districts.

Northfield and Berlin would be significantly affected if the decision goes one way or the other. Northfield is too large to be represented by one person, and Berlin is too small.

The LAB majority map would divide one third of Northfield to attach to Berlin for one district, and leave the other two thirds as the second, one-seat district.

The minority map (in the 4-3 vote) would leave Northfield and Berlin as a combined 2-seat district.

Under the bill, towns will have until mid-February to provide input to the legislature’s Government Operations Committee. It’s all a rush schedule because the new federal census numbers were very delayed by COVID.

Northfield’s Board of Civil Authority weighed in to the LAB in November supporting keeping our current 2-seat district. Berlin’s BCA did not submit a position.

If you have thoughts, you can contact your town BCA, me or Rep. Ken Gosland, or the House Government Operations Committee itself.

***

One last note: this early period of bill introductions often leads to news media headlines saying that “the House is considering mandating water temperature standards for pet goldfish.” Yes, that is a joke as an example. The point is that any legislator can introduce any idea and it does not mean the legislature will ever even consider it. Maintain some skepticism and reach out to me or Ken if you have a question!

***

Please contact me or Ken at any time with comments or input at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us or kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us. It is an honor to represent you. Please note that you can receive this update regularly on a blind email list by request to me.