House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon everyone. We are convening the Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce. It is Wednesday, April 22025 about 2:03pm in Conference Room 329. In order to allow as many people to testify as possible, there will be a 2 minute time limit per testifier.

For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete. The Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only. Please use the chat only for technical issues. If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting.

If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end. In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making.

In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. Please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images and please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. All right, I think it's our last hearing, so let's get started. First up, SB 1046 SD1 relating to condominiums.

First up, we've got the Real Estate Commission with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members Keating Klein Hands Condominium Specialists on behalf of the Real Estate Commission. We'll stand on our written comments and available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Hawaii Council of Community Associations in opposition. No. One person, no one on Zoom. Not present. Next, Community Associations Institute CAI with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee. And I apologize that my testimony was written to the wrong Committee to the Senate Committee. And I guess in my haste I'll fall on my own sword, it's my fault. I want to remind you. In 1991, the Legislature passed a law requiring condos to be 50% funded by January 1, 2000.

It was amended in 1998 to allow for cash flow funding versus percent fund, which is the more common analysis. And here we are, 25 years later hearing the same arguments over and over again about unfunded reserves. And there's some very important reasons why that occurred.

That being said, the law needs to have some penalties for boards who fail to do their reserve study in accordance with the required administrative rules. This particular Bill is going to create more hardship, more problems and more confusion.

We support House Bill 70 and or Senate Bill 253, which puts mandatory or takes away the good faith exemption from from boards who fail to comply with the Reserve Law, but we oppose this particular Bill. We don't think it's going to be easy to administer. What if the overage in a budget is a $10, $1,000.

What is it? So we do not support this Bill, but we strongly support your intent to solve the problem. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Gregory Masikian in support, not present. Okay, that's all the testifiers we have signed up. Anyone else here to testify this measure? Members, any questions? Any questions rush down here to ask a question. Very likely not. Okay, next up, SB 890, SD 2, HD 1 relating to business regulation. Let's see who we've got.

Oh, a bunch of people testifying, submitted testimony in support, but no one here signed up to testify in person. Anyone here to testify on this measure? Okay, I guess we don't have any questions for anybody, Members? No one on Zoom? Yeah. Okay, moving on to SB 532, SC 2, HD 1 relating to the Department of Education.

First up, we have the Department of Health in support.

Aloha. Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chan and Members of the Committee. My name is Jonel Chalk Sunada with the Public Health Nursing Branch representing the Department of Health.

We stand on our written testimony in support of this Bill that improves the ability for children with health conditions requiring medication to to receive their pre approved medications at school, allowing them to attend school and off campus enrichment activities.

Department of Health would like to propose the following additions to increase student safety by identifying the correct student to the Bill to align with the standard practice of medication administration. I'm available for questions and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next up, we have the University of Hawaii system. Clem.

Good afternoon, Chair Matoyoshi, Vice Chair Chan and Members of the Committee. My name is Clementina Ceria Ulep, Dean of the UH, Manoa School of Nursing and Dental Hygiene. The School of Nursing and Dental Hygiene and the John Abrams School of Medicine supports this, strongly supports this measure. And here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify this measure, please?

Aloha. Chair Mat mat mosi, Vice Chair Chung and Members of the Committee, Dr. Yvonne Humble, Director of the Office of Student Support Services, testify on behalf of the Department of Education. Department stands on its written testimony in support of this measure. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this measure? Okay, Members, any questions? See? None. We'll move on to SB 1245 SD2 HD1 relating to pharmacists. First up we have DCCA Insurance Division, Jerry Jerry's not here.

Good afternoon, Chair.

Could you come to the. Sorry, they can't hear you online if you don't.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, the DCCA stands on its written testimony offering comments.

Thank you. Thank you. Next up, University of Hawaii system.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, the University of. I'm Rae Matsumoto, the dean of the Daniel K. Inouye College of Pharmacy at the University of Hawaii. We stand on our written testimony in support of the bill as well as the amendments proposed by the Hawaii Pharmacists Association. We encourage your support to allow pharmacists.

Pharmacists to be able to get reimbursed for clinical services that they are already trained and licensed to provide, similar to our colleagues in medicine and in nursing. There are two important implications of this bill. The first is that it will help recruit and retain pharmacists in Hawaii.

And the second is that it will help improve access to health care in our state, particularly with regard to chronic disease, state management for things like diabetes, heart disease, asthma, certain types of cancers, for example, where once diagnosed, patients will pretty much be on medications for the rest of their lives.

So I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony and we'll be available for questions.

Thank you. Next up, Board of Pharmacy in Support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. My name is Christopher Fernandez. I'm here on behalf of both James Kosiwski and the Board of Pharmacy here to stand on the board's testimony supporting this measure. I'm here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Walgreens in support. She's standing on her written testimony in support. She's buried back there, so I'm not going to make her come up. Next up, we have HMSA with comments. Walden, you're not that very. Just could use the exercise, I think.

You know, I already got like. Anyways, Walden Au, on behalf of HMSA Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. We sent on everything. Comments. Thank you.

Next up, Molokai drugs in support.

Aloha. My name is Kimberly Mikami Svetin and I was able to catch a Mokulele flight. So I'm very fortunate to be here. I stand on this testimony that I submitted. And if you have any questions, I'll be here for another hour before I have to catch my flight back to Molokai.

Thank you for being here. Next up, the Hawaii Pharmacists Association in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Corey Sanders, Director of the Hawaii Pharmacists Association. I proposed some pretty significant amendments. So I just want to comment on those while I have all of your attention.

The first amendment benefits shall not be denied if services are performed by a licensed pharmacist pursuant to Chapter 461, which is our Pharmacy Practice Act. And the second, a plan may not deny a pharmacist the ability to contract if standard credentialing requirements are met. So a couple comments on that one.

Standard credentialing requirements can look different across practice settings. So those are best left to the payer to determine which kind of pharmacist can practice in which setting. And I was reading HMSA's bill or testimony this morning. I want to provide two points of clarity.

One, there's a reason that services aren't listed within our Bill, a payment Bill specifically. Those are listed within a scope of practice practice. If we start putting services in a payment bill, we'll be chasing those back and forth.

And there is a way for a pharmacist to be in a team based care model that's also within our scope of practice in Chapter 461. But lastly, this is really meant to be a win, win, win across the entire health care system.

One, it's a win for pharmacists to start providing clinical services that we're trained and able to provide. Two, it's a potential win for the payers with an ROI when you're paying a pharmacist at less of a cost than a physician to provide some of the services that we're already trained to provide.

So that's determined by Medicaid each and at this point it's an 85% rate. And lastly, and most importantly, this is a huge win for patients. So having access to services at a community pharmacy and then having pharmacists as part of a team based care model is proven to provide increase in access and quality of care.

So I'll end by saying this is why we have pretty widespread support for this initiative.

We have support from major health systems, there's no opposition from other provider groups and there's really no reason for us to continue dragging our feet when we're in the middle of a provider shortage and we should be leveraging every doctorate level trained provider in the state. So I will stand by for any questions.

Thank you for hearing this bill.

Thank you. Next up, Karen Bell. Karen Pellegrin in support over Zoom.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Karen Pellegrin. I've been A faculty Member at the Daniel K. Inouye College of Pharmacy since 2008, I'm here to testify in strong support of SB 1245 because this bill will help improve the quality of patient care and reduce the total cost of care in Hawaii.

As presented in my written testimony. Through a federal award, we reimbursed pharmacists for managing medications among high risk patients in all four counties in Hawaii. More than 2,000 patients received these services statewide. Results of this program demonstrated a 264% return on investments in the pharmacist we paid to perform these services.

But even more compelling than the economic results are the responses from patients who received these services. 92% of patients who responded to our survey said they thought their overall health and well being improved because of the services provided by the pharmacist. And 100% of them said they thought those services helped keep them out of the hospital.

Here are just a few of the many comments we received from them. Understanding your meds is so important. The pharmacists do a super job. My pharmacist was extremely helpful, beyond my expectations, very professional and knowledgeable. Being called and checked on helped me stay on track.

We sat down together and my pharmacist explained what each pill does for me. I've returned to my old self. I have someone to talk with when I have a question or problem. Thank you for my life back and I really mean this.

And thank you Committee Members for this opportunity to testify in strong support of this very important bill. I'll be available to answer any questions.

Thank you. Next up we have Dylan Soledade in support.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Dylan Soladay and I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this bill. I will stand on my written testimony, but just wanted to provide a little bit of my experiences to give a bit more context.

So I'm a pharmacy student right now at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. I'm in my final year of the program, so I've gone through the full curriculum and I'm currently looking for jobs.

I want to emphasize that the Doctor of Pharmacy is the entry level degree for practice as a pharmacist and many of us go on for additional years of residency or fellowship. This can give us specialty training in areas such as pediatrics, advanced diabetes care, oncology, and many others, similar to how physicians practice in specialty areas as well.

This bill would really help to eliminate some of the barriers between the education that pharmacists receive versus the real world practice. So the Daniel K.

Inouye College of Pharmacy was opened in 2007 and while this was a great step towards improving healthcare access access I worry that my profession is underutilized and we're not taking full advantage of our educational investment.

Allowing pharmacists to bill under the medical benefit would provide viable pathways for pharmacies to continue offering these vital services that pharmacists are already trained to provide but currently lack reimbursement for.

And finally, I just want to state that if this bill is not passed, I believe that we are we risk exacerbating our current health care short health care provider shortage in Hawaii as several of my classmates as well as recent graduates are taking jobs on the mainland where these services are allowed currently.

And thank you for the opportunity to testify for this bill and I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you. That's all the testifiers we have scheduled today. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members, any questions? Yep. Rep. Iwamoto.

Oh, sorry, no, I don't have a question.

Oh, now you have to ask one. Anyone else have a question? Okay, Corey. Is the pharmacy scope of practice well defined or does that need more does that need to be stated more clearly in this bill?

I think it's well defined in this bill. We actually added a couple additions of referencing to Chapter 461 in other committees already. So I think it's referenced, referenced appropriately as it stands.

Okay. And I'm, I'm a little concerned that the situation as it stands right now seems to allow health insurance companies to already compensate pharmacists for work within their scope of practice. This bill doesn't seem to guarantee that health insurance companies will take them up on that. From my understanding, they need to.

Even though a pharmacist may be under their and I'm going to get these terms probably wrong, but covered under their plan for maybe distribution of drugs, they would have to be recertified is the wrong word but they'd have to credentialed again in a separate credentialing for medical procedures or whatnot even though it's in their scope of practice.

So if health insurance companies can already do that but are choosing not to, what's to make them do it with this bill?

Yeah, I think that was the point of the amendment that said health insurance plans may not deny that a pharmacist is able to join with their network if they meet standard credentialing requirements. So that's the strongest language that I've seen in a lot of other payment bills for pharmacists across the country.

I'm hoping that's strong enough to bring the payers to the table to be able to do that.

Okay hmsa so my understanding is that you folks can already kind of do this. I'm not even sure we needed this bill although I do like the bill and appreciate it. If this bill passes does HMSA intend to use pharmacists for medical procedures within their scope? I mean it sounds like a good deal for you guys.

Cheaper too, right?

Chair I think currently as kind of the model stands we credential pharmacies so the establishment prospectively should the bill pass I definitely think that it will be put in towards consideration for under our medical management plans and how with growing I guess access to providers they would.

Be best utilized because I understand a pharmacist could join maybe a physician group and do certain medical procedures. Is HMSA willing to consider them for work within their scope?

That I would have to get back to you in terms of understanding better kind of the team based model that you know the that is being considered and kind of constantly kind of evolving.

Talk after the hearing then. Okay. I mean I think this bill has a. It's going to need to go to conference so you know. Okay. Not the last stop. Yeah but I think we would like that answer.

Yeah, thank you.

And then who's a pharmacy student? Could you come? All right. This might not be a good question for you since you're a student. Maybe I should ask someone else but if we do pass this Bill and if pharmacists are allowed to start getting compensated for. zero, that is really loud.

Start getting compensated for medical procedures within there's practice. How much more money do you think pharmacy students could or pharmacists could be making? Can. Do you have any ballpark idea or.

I don't have a ballpark idea for that specifically.

Do you have any idea?

It would probably be pretty standard.

It would change the setting.

Oh come, come to the mic. Yeah, sorry I called you up and then I regretted it. I probably should have just.

I think it would be pretty standard with what a pharmacist salary is now.

So it would create a different service line is how we would call it and so you could be embedded into part of a team based care model alongside other providers and then continue to expand your patients till you're meeting whatever salary that you would be considered normal. It would probably be standard with what other pharmacists are making.

To make it simple what Is the.

Interest from physician groups and. And would like to adopt pharmacists into their groups.

I think it's because the return on investment. It sounds so straightforward up front when you're talking about cost savings with what other health care service services are provided. But long term, it becomes really convoluted.

So it's hard to measure what the outcome is of a pharmacist in terms of a team because initially there is that investment where you're adding another provider type. But it's hard to quantify what prevented emergency Department cost is or if you have more adherence to a medication, what that ultimately looks like.

So the cost savings long term, whereas is where it becomes a little convoluted.

Have any groups expressed interest in participating in this? Okay. Yep. Okay, thank you. Members, any other questions? All right, let's move on to our fun Bill of the day. SB 1279 SD 2, HD 1 relating to pharmacists. First of all, we have. First up, we have Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in support. Standing by a written testimony.

Please, please, guys, try to come up to the mic because they can't hear you on and it's not recorded on. Yeah, yeah. I just want to get people used to it.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Romy Glidewell, Healthcare Division Administrator for the Department of Corrections Rehabilitation. We do stand by this testimony. We're implementing our 340B program this year or hoping to in lowering our pharmacy bills to give extensive cost savings. We currently do utilize a local vendor for our auditing team.

However, we would possibly need the opportunity to use mainland pharmacists because our bulk pharmacy is on the mainland. We want them to be able to interact via telehealth. So this does sort of like create that possibility as opposed to us being billed to fly them over for the audits, which of course is taxpayer dollars.

So we thank you for your opportunity to give this testimony today.

Thank you. Next up, Board of Pharmacy in opposition. Is the Board of Pharmacy here? Are you? Oh, okay. I've got it in person, but are they on Zoom? Okay. Alana, are you there?

Hi, I'm here now. Sorry. My name is Alana Isobe. I'm the chair of the Board of Pharmacy. I would like to stand on my testimony and answer questions.

Okay, thank you. Next up, we have Fulham Alanai in opposition.

Aloha, Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chun and Members of the Committee. Mahalo for allowing us the opportunity to bring the voice from Lanai here today. And it's great to see our colleagues over on Molokai. Some of us are trying to log in on Zoom but having some issues.

So, we are in opposition and would like to exempt from Lanai from this Bill. We understand that there is a need for geographically isolated areas to benefit from a measure like this. Lanai is different. We have two healthcare clinics.

One of the clinics has on island resident physicians, and we have on island resident pharmacists as well as a pharmacy. And it's located right between the two clinics. I provided a map in my testimony and it's not that far. We say a block, two blocks, three blocks. It's like 500ft and 800ft.

It's less than doing a lap on the third floor here. So there is access to in person services. So Lanai is different. Our resident pharmacy has integrated into the community and our community has become reliant on him. He's your neighbor. He's there when you need him at any time. You see him at the market.

We have two markets. You see him around town and he just, you can stop him and ask him questions. So we recruited Pulamo. Lanai recruited him back in 2014, and he's been there for 10 years. And it would be very sad to see any detrimental things happen to his business.

So we would like to respectfully request that Lanai be exempted from this measure. Mahaloan, we're here for questions. Aloha.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Hawaii Primary Care Association in support.

Good afternoon, Eric Abe for the Hawaii Primary Care Association, in support of this Bill, you have our written testimony. I'd like to highlight Section 4 on Page 6, entitled Cost Savings for Patients in 2024 of the more than 4,000 prescriptions filled by Lanai Community Health Center, 1781 prescriptions, or about 1/3, were prescribed to uninsured or underinsured patients.

Under federal law, patients receiving these 1781 prescriptions were charged not less than $5 and not more than $30, based on a sliding fee scale on the patient's ability to pay. If each patient paid the maximum amount of $30, the total amount paid was 53,430. The retail price for those same medications was $427,480.71.

So in other words, the total savings received by these patients, assuming they were charged the maximum copay, but the Vast majority were just charged at $5 was $374,020.71 or $210 per prescription. Let me say that again. The total savings per prescription was $210.

Now, according to the Board of Pharmacy in their previous testimony, they are not concerned about how much these patients must pay for their medications. So long as there is a retail pharmacy on Lanai, even though they do not participate in the 340B program, everything is fine.

But tell that to those patients who would have to pay that extra $210 per prescription. That extra cost might mean the difference between the patient getting their meds or going without it because they need to pay rent or or put food on the table. That is why Lanai Community Health center took the board to court and won.

The court ordered the state to reinstate Lanai Community Health Center's pharmacy license immediately and have to stay have it stay in effect until December 31, 2025.

It also ordered the state to change all references on the professional licensing website to publicly state that LCHC's license is active and in good standing for as long as LCHC has conducted its pharmacy operations. LCHC has never had a complaint filed against it, nor has any disciplinary action ever been taken on LCHC by the board.

Any statement to the contrary by the Board may be in violation of that order.

It's been about two minutes. If you could start to conclude your testimony, please.

One last sentence. This Bill is critical. It helps 340B participants get discounted medications to patients. Because of this, the HPC urges your favorable consideration.

Thank you. Next up, we have Molokai Drugs Incorporated in support. Oh, I'm sorry, I have you in support. I have you in support over here. You must have clicked the wrong thing.

I'm in opposition. Hi, hi again. So I stand on my written testimony which includes an analysis of the 22 states that do not participate in telepharmacy as well as the 28 states that's also included in my uploaded testimony.

One thing I want to add to my testimony is, is that for five and a half years we have not had a 340B pharmacy on Molokai. Since 2019, the previous Administration decided not to have one. And so for the last almost five years we have survived a Molokai without a 340B.

And part of the reason is because almost everyone on our island has some kind of drug insurance as well as the people that don't have, they are able to somehow get the copayments that are needed.

The other thing I'd like to add is whether it's a mail order or Molokai drugs, if you're an ETF Member, you're paying $5 for your copay on a generic. You come to our pharmacy, you're paying $5 for a generic. If it's mail order, you're lucky on Molokai to get your mail within one day to two days.

When I FedEx things to the mainland, it takes a minimum of two days FedEx. So you can imagine with the United States Postal Service, when you are mailing drugs to our small island, there are challenges. This mail order bills have been killed by previous representatives.

One of the reasons is the cutbacks in federal funds, not just this year, but previous years. On our island, a number of our post offices are only open for three hours a day, five days a week. So if you don't go to the Mauna Loa Post Office by 12:00, you, you have to wait until the following Monday.

So if you don't go, if you don't make it by 12 o' clock on a Friday, you have 12 o' clock.

Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, 9am we have had some of our patients bring to us their mail order pharmacy medications including insulin, where the insulin has been in the post office at 90 degrees for more than the weekend.

They show us the insulin with, with the ice packs completely melted and then we have to do the work and call the mail order pharmacy and say, can you transfer that person's prescription to us? And so in conclusion, I want to say that on our island we have survived for over almost five years without a 340B pharmacy.

In my testimony I have explained that we have reached out to the community health center for over five years and, and for whatever reason they decided to use a Maui based pharmacy because of financial reasons. Now I don't know what that means, but their contract started yesterday, April 1st.

I invite all of you, during a recess or when the session is done, to come to Molokai Drugs and see what we do and why our face to face pharmacy staff is second to none in the State of Hawaii.

I ask that you vote against this, this Bill and that you provide policies and laws that are safe for our communities. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a number of individuals signed up, apparently more, more on the way. Let's start off with Valerie Janikowski in opposition, not present. I'm assuming John Janakowski is also not present then. Okay, also in opposition. Diane Preza on zoom.

Hi. Aloha.

Go ahead. Are you support or opposition?

I'm sorry? Opposition.

Okay, go ahead.

Aloha, Chair Matayoshi and Vice Chair Chan and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I'm Diane Preza. I'm testifying as an individual. I oppose SB 1279 and respectfully request your consideration for an amendment. Although I support the intent of this Bill, I feel there should be an amendment to exclude Lanai.

I've lived here my entire life and experienced the benefits and challenges of living in a rural community. When Remo Pharmacy first opened, we were so thrilled that we had a pharmacy on Lanai and through the years, Kurt Schuster and his staff have provided excellent service. I especially appreciate the face to face interaction with the pharmacist.

Kurt will even open the pharmacy for residents in case of emergencies. And I find comfort knowing that he's here for us. I hope that the Lanai Community Health center is willing to work together with Kurt Schuster of Rainbow Pharmacy regarding the federal 304B drug pricing program. Mahalo for your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Ken Schuster. Oh, Kirk Schuster.

Let me see. Hi, it's Kurt Schuster at Rainbow Pharmacy, Lanai. Can you hear me okay?

Yep, go ahead. Are you in opposition or support?

I'm in opposition. I own Rainbow Pharmacy here and just want to say we've been trying to get the 340B contract for many years with, with the, with the health center, and we would love to work with them if they would, if they would want to work with us, that's fine.

But we, we have a pharmacy here, and I think that if any of the patients that come over here and want to get service, then we always help them if they have insurance or if they don't.

So it's not like we're going to charge somebody a ton of money to get their prescription filled for something that costs not that much. Right.

So our mission here is to help all the people on Lanai from the community health center as well as the emergency room, Straub Clinic, or just the, you know, the patients that come in that are tourists. Even so, whether this Bill passes or not, we're still going to be here to help everyone.

And if you have any questions. Yeah, I'd be happy to help.

Thank you. I have no last name, but Roger O. Roger O on Zoom.

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yep. Roger, could you state your first and last name? And then if you're in opposition or support.

I'm in opposition. My name is Roger Olkinsel. I reside here in Lanai. I basically will support what Diane Prezi said earlier. I'm a community member and Rainbow Pharmacy has been really great. One thing that is good for Rainbow Pharmacy is the personal interaction. A lot of our people here, English is speaking like English is their second language.

And some people are intimidated to talk English. But at Rainbow Pharmacy you have people that can speak different languages. So it's actually you have that personal connection they can understand and they're not intimidated to tell them what they need. And they're very, very helpful.

And also you have the Kupunas that go to Rainbow Pharmacy who sometimes, who sometime who cannot hear. And even if you show them a computer, they're not familiar. But with Rainbow Pharmacy, they're very helpful because of the components. As you know, sometimes they have hard of hearing, but they're very, very reflexible.

Kurt himself, I've seen him after hours. If I needed something, he would actually ask me if he want, if he would tell me to go back to his clinic to open it just for me because I needed something. So this is very beneficial for Lanai. So I oppose SB 1279 to help Rainbow Pharmacy out.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify in this measure?

Thank you.

You're to testify.

I'm sorry, I forgot to add one.

Okay, come, come at one more thing. Usually this is not. I'm sorry.

Yeah, I'm not a professional lobbyist. I would also like to add that we have. We were the original 340 for the island of Lanai. And we, as soon as Rainbow Pharmacy came in, we were so happy that we wouldn't have to do that service.

I have let people know publicly if Kurt is asked to be a 340B pharmacy, we will help him with the application for free because we've done the process and it takes a lot of time and he's a one man show.

The other thing that I want to state, with 340B pharmacies and community health centers, you don't have to have only one pharmacy, you can have two pharmacies. So there's no reason the Lanai Community Health center can have the Maui Pharmacy and Rainbow Pharmacy. There's no law saying that you can't have more than one.

But we want to help Kurt as well. He's our partner on Lanai. He's done an amazing job and we will help him with the application if necessary.

Okay, anyone else here to testify on this measure? Here or on Zoom? Anyone else on Zoom? Okay, Members, any questions? I have question. Yeah. Please share.

This question is for the Board of Pharmacy. He's still there.

She's actually working right now.

Okay, well, I just have my question and hopefully. Okay, so my question is, I'm going through your testimony and there's a lot of questions about patient safety that was mentioned. So I was just wondering during the pilot project if there were any patients that were actually harmed during the process.

Since the board of pharmacy cited patient safety as one of the issues.

Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, in the last. I think in my testimony did. I was not the one that. I did report that Lanai Comprehensive did report some errors to the board when they were in the pilot project. I don't have a lot of details in terms of those errors, but they.

They self reported countless errors there. I can't remember if it was 28 or 38 errors in that timeframe that they had, but those were part of the pilot project that they did when the board of pharmacy allowed them to do the pilot project.

So do you know if any patients were harmed in those errors?

They claim nobody was harmed.

But other than, because Lanai Community Health center is not here. So you don't know of any patients that are actually harmed?

Yeah. So in their report to us, they claim that there was no harm. I mean, they were saying a lot of them were like wrong dose, wrong strength, wrong patient name, things like that. I mean, the board was concerned about it, but you know, they're.

The details that they gave, they claimed that there was no harm, no patients were harmed, but there were errors made.

Okay, did the board do anything to verify those?

Well, I mean, that was part of the reason that the pilot project was ended. The board had concerns and the pilot project kind of expanded from what it started to, you know, what it became. And ultimately with the errors were the factor that, you know, a lot of the board members had problems with.

So because it was just a pilot project, it started out supposed to be six months and ended up being, I think ended up being two years. It. And it was part of, it was Covid and some other stuff. But the, that was part of the reason that the pilot project was ended.

Chair, I have a follow up question. Yeah, go ahead. For the, for the licensing of pharmacy pharmacies either for the initial, I guess for the renewals. Is error reporting a part of that renewal process?

Okay.

The renewal asks if there was disciplinary action. So as you know, the board does not do discipline. It goes to Rico. And so that process goes through Rico. The board does not hear any complaints until it goes through the process with Rico, which could take a while.

So that question is on there, but it says, you know, if you've gone through disciplinary action in any state. So that question's on the renewal.

Okay, thank you. Mm.

Members, any other questions?

Or. For you, I think you came from Molokai Pharmacy. Pharmacy, yes. Thank you. I think you mentioned a situation where somebody ordered through the mail insulin and then they went to the local pharmacy and they helped them fill the prescription with usable.

So that happens quite often with mail order. For example, we had a patient whose medicine didn't come in earlier this week, and so we had to, and this is by mail order. Everyone has a choice.

They can use a mail order pharmacy or the local pharmacy, but when your prescription doesn't come in on time, you're put in a bind. And for some medicines, everything from ozempic to insulin, you're talking life and death medicines. I have family members that if they don't have their insulin, they will die. And so we help.

Even if the person didn't come to us, we call the pharmacy and get the transfer.

I guess my question is, I don't understand why the people in your community wouldn't use the local pharmacy.

Like, what is getting a better deal without going into some of the other Bills that have been here? There are very, so a lot of the pharmacy benefit management companies that oversee drug programs for insurance companies are very aggressive. All of them are based on the mainland.

And so we actually had a patient who we've known for over 50 years. She told the mail order pharmacy, yes, I'll go with you, not knowing what she said and her conversation was recorded and it took quite a while for her children to get her back to our pharmacy.

So there are these very predatory tactics that some of these companies use to garner the business to make the mail order. So you wonder why would someone do that? A lot of times they don't want to. They just don't know what they're doing. And getting recorded on the phone, it's really tragic at times.

I mean, so as a consumer of medical care, when I. I mean my Doctor, I tell my Doctor which pharmacy to call it into. Yes, Right. It's usually my local one nearest my home. So I just. Yeah, that's the part I don't.

We don't have too many on island, quite frankly. Right. So everyone would go there. And I think the same is for Kurt on Lanai.

Right. Because the fear is that if this Bill passes, then people have too much competition and then there's not enough business to support the local.

The local business, small businesses yes. And the other thing is with our pharmacy and if you're going to three different. So we do a program called blister packs for, for free, where we put, maybe someone's on three meds three times a day and we put those blister packs together for free.

But if you are going to a mail order pharmacy for one of those three medicines, we will no longer do that pack for you because of liability reasons.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Rainbow, you still there?

Yes, sir.

So I understand that you've been attempting to apply for the 340B program. What, what's, what's the holdup in your mind?

What? Oh, okay. Well, there's no holdup. It's only that there's only one entity that does 340B or is able to do 340B, and that's the Lanai Community Health Center. Now, there would be no reason for me to submit all the paperwork and become a 340B provider unless there's somebody that would need my service.

And those are the only guys that would need my service around here. So, I haven't done that, if that makes sense.

Okay, so they would need to partner with you in order to make going through the 340B process worthwhile or to make, to make it make sense.

Why have they not partnered with you? What? I don't, I don't get it. Yeah, especially if we can partner with more than one. I don't really understand.

Yeah, that's correct.

Yeah, they, they, they never wanted to. When we first came here about 10 years ago, I told them that we would be able to help them with 340B, but at the time, they said, no, we're using Molokai drug.

And I said, well, when that contract runs out, you know, runs up or goes away, then if you like, we can, we can take a look at that for you.

And you know, four or five years go by and then they, you know, they, they went, they never asked me after that, but yeah, we were just down the street. If they want our help, we can help them. We help their patients every day anyway. It's not like we're at war with them or anything.

They use our services every single day. So we're here to help. If they want our help, we're here.

It sounds like Molaki pharmacy is just fine. I mean, they don't even have the contract anymore. It seems a little odd, but I know. Would you like to respond.

Eric Abe for the Hawaii Primary Care Association. And I apologize that Lanai Community Health Center Is not present today. They declined to come because they are still looking at potential further litigation against the Board of Pharmacy and also the State.

With regard to the situation that you posed, yes, because Lanai community health center is the only participating entity with the 340B program. It would have to. Any pharmacy would have to work with them. And Lanai community health center has been trying for generations to work with rainbow pharmacy and the other pharmacists.

But basically, when this opportunity came about, the concerns that were raised to Lanai community health center was the enormous amount of administrative costs that would go into implementing this program. Among other things, the supply of drugs for 340B has to be separated from the other drugs that are kept in inventory.

There has to be a separate accounting system for those medications and whatnot. The Board of Pharmacy does not have the authority to require a pharmacy to participate in this program. And so, in essence, when this particular pharmacy says, you know, we sure, we would love to participate, you know, with all due respect, when we.

Or when Lanai community health center established the pilot project, Lanai community health center was open. They were open to have discussions with Rainbow pharmacy, but Rainbow pharmacy, they never engaged Lanai community health center. And so when they're saying that they're open to try to work, that's not necessarily the case.

And so I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Stay up there. Because I hear you saying that you're willing to. Or that Lanai community health center is willing to work with Rainbow. I hear Rainbow saying right now that they're willing to work with you folks. What problem, you guys?

I mean, I don't think we need to be at the capitol in a public hearing to make you guys talk to each other. It seems a little odd, but.

And I know you're not Lanai community health center, but if you're representing that they're willing to work with Rainbow, and Rainbow saying they're willing to work with Lanai community health center, I truly don't understand what the problem is.

Well, another thing to consider, too, is there has been a pharmacy that has stepped up to actually try to fill this void concerning 340B. And that's Mauioli pharmacy. Mauioli pharmacy. They looked at their business model.

They came up with a way in order to actually implement 340B on Lanai using first telepharmacy and now actually flying in pharmacists to Lanai.

Wait, wait, wait. That doesn't make. That doesn't make a lot of sense because if you, if you could you offer, could they offer the same deal to Rainbow Pharmacy who's actually on the ground? I mean, I don't know.

That depends because ultimately, in order for you to have a full time pharmacist there, you're gonna have to pay that pharmacist. That's what I'm saying.

It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make financial sense.

Mauioli only is only charging between 1,200 and 2,000 a month in order to get a pharmacist from Maui over to Lanai. And the main reason why they're doing that is because they realize there is an enormous need for, for the patients on Lanai. And so again too, we're trying to get the most benefits to the patients.

And so ultimately, it is a policy decision for this Committee, but we need to be clear. I mean, ultimately this is an issue about either you're going to protect a particular business or you're going to be looking after the consumer's basic needs.

I disagree with that dichotomy. You know, I got to say this is really irritating to me personally that we're wasting our time here doing this. It sounds like something that should have been dealt with outside of the Capitol. We're going to, we're going to move on.

I think I'm going to keep this, I'm going to keep this Bill. I'm inclined to keep this Bill moving. But we're going to talk after this. I'm going to have my office call you folks together and we're going to have a talk because this is really irritating for all parties here.

I don't know what the hell is going on, but I think that it's people just not talking to each other and for it to get to this point in the legislative session wastes my time. Waste of all of our time. You have a question? Go ahead.

Did I hear you to say that if you, if the health center had worked with Lanai Pharmacy, they would be charging for one full time pharmacist, whereas with this Maui, they're only paying one to $3,000 a month. Is that what you're saying?

Lanai Community Health center is contracting with Mauioli Pharmacy on Maui?

Yeah, I understood that. I asked if, if you, if I heard you correctly saying that if you went with Lanai Pharmacy was going to be one FTE just for this program. Is that what you said?

They're going to embed the cost for having that one pharmacist as part of the contract in implementing this program. And so that's why what is actually being offered by them may not necessarily be the same as what is currently available to Lanai.

Please come up. Come up here, though, please.

So in my earlier testimony, I did mention that we had Moloka' I drugs, the Lanai Community Health center and the Moloka' I Community Health Center. We had one pharmacist doing all that work and she was still able to take vacations. You don't need an additional pharmacist. The business is not that huge.

So to expect a full time employee to make from a business point of view, with my looking at it as having been a 340B pharmacy for over 13 and a half years, you do not need a full time pharmacist for the number of prescriptions that are filled by three entities at one time.

I have a question for a pharmacist. I think that they already have their hands up. Is there something you want to add to this? I think you're still on mute.

Oh. Oh, you're muted.

Hi. Okay. I guess I had a couple points.

Oh, she got muted again. Oh, I think you might have muted yourself again.

Sorry.

And they're playing the Star Spangled Banner really loud. So can we. Can we follow you, please?

Are we there?

Phil walks in. They play that. So.

Okay, can you hear me now?

Yeah, go ahead.

Okay. So the board of pharmacy heard this same conversation where Kurt Schuster is willing to partner and Lanai agreed to partner. So that's kind of where we thought, well, great, everybody's good.

And here we are with a Bill that, you know, we were kind of surprised that this Bill came through because I thought that they were going to work together. So, like, I think Molokai was saying they can have more than one contract pharmacy.

They are not required to have separate inventories so that they can have a virtual inventory via computer. I think I did hear someone, Molokai was saying that they'd be willing to help. Help Kurt set that up. So, you know, that would be on Kurt to do.

And I think when we talked to him at length at our meeting, they were willing to do that. So the board's kind of confused as to why these two aren't, you know, participating. You can have more than one covered entity, the covered entity can have more than one pharmacy.

So they could all play together and, you know, the inventory piece. That's incorrect. The board is not. It's not that we're not concerned about finances, but our priority really needs to be consumer protection. We cannot be, you know, putting finances over Consumer protection is what I think my statement.

My statement was in the last hearing and I stand by that, that we are looking at the safety of patients and having a pharmacist on the ground talking to patients is always going to be better and safer for our patients. Did you guys have questions for me?

Yes, I do. Okay, so my question is, given the concerns about the quality, because I assume that's what the opposition has been about. How easy is it for someone who is currently enrolled in this telepharmacy program to unenroll and go back to it in person if they had a bad experience?

I mean, all patients have a right to choose. I am not, I don't work for Lanai Comprehensive. So I'm not sure what their process is and how they push patients to their pharmacy versus Kurt's or mail order for all that matter.

But you know, they told the board that patients can go where they want and that the right to choose is still there. It's up to the patient where they go. But the, you know, so they can unenroll, I assume at any time.

I don't know what the pressures would be on site in Lanai if they kind of push the patients to their pharmacy or not.

So what you're saying is that it's like a case by case basis.

It should be like when you go to your doctor, they should ask you where you want to fill your prescriptions. And if you say rainbow pharmacy, I would hope that they would allow your prescription, prescription to go there.

I have a follow up question. You know, there are other states that have done this as cited by in other testimonies. Do you know what kind of restrictions they have put in to protect consumer consumers?

And of the states that don't allow this, have they considered it and what was the reason on why they decided not to move forward with telepharmacy?

So other states that I am aware of, they put this in place in pharmacy deserts and I think that's the word that they use when there's no pharmacy within miles and miles away.

So rural Montana, Wyoming, some of these very rural areas where there's not a pharmacy for hours, then you have no other choice but to get those services that way. So some of those states have, Alaska's one that has those rules in place. But and I think Hawaii had one until 2013.

We had a rule for Nanakule and Waianae, which then was repealed or beatled whichever, because the brick and mortars went out there. We have Longs out in Waianae And Nanakuli now, so there's no need for remote. So Hawaii actually got rid of remote telepharmacy type of ability back in 2013.

Okay, thank you.

Anybody else? Okay, let's move on to the last. Oh, I'm sorry. We have Two more. First, SB 1298 SD2 HD1 relating to recycling. First up, we have the Department of Health with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Lionel Sufor, Department of Health. And we stand on our written testimony providing comments on the Bill.

Thank you. Next up, Mr. K's Recycle and Redemption center incorporated in opposition, should be on Zoom. Roy, are you there? Okay, go ahead.

Okay. I'm actually in favor. Okay.

Oh, okay.

Okay. Thank you. Representative Matayoshi and Representative Chun, by right. This Bill was originally introduced for the Outer Islands by Representative Lowen two years ago. And this Bill was passed without the OEMs knowing about it. We kind of sneaked by. It was introduced 13 years ago by people, but it was dropped. This will be the fourth session. While.

I'm addressing this thing and I'm hoping this be the last this year. The Mayor of Maui, the Department of Transportation, Maui and the. And Tess Herman, the Department of Health DOH in Hawaii, Kwei Kawaguchi and Honolulu DOH, Susie Pandoy are all in favor.

These are the people that CTA is talking to, should be talking to because they know what is involved in the Bill. Mr. Keyes was neutral in Senate Bill 1298. Then no amendments, and the Bill, Senate Bill SB2 happened.

We started to oppose the Bill because there were no amendments, but SB 1298, SB2H1 came along and they made some changes. So now we're in favor. So I hope you guys understand what I'm trying to say. There were three different scenarios to this, so now we're in favor, but a lot more changes need to be made.

The DoH wants to coordinate with CTA, who is the OEM's negotiators. So Kawaguchi, Herman and Panui would be good people to talk to because we're all from the Ara Islands and Panui is from Honolulu. We are saying that the county, state, private individuals need to be part of the interaction and more input into the discussion process.

Still no quotas, no accountability. That's another problem. Not active. And Honolulu is not active. We don't know why, but they don't oppose the Bill. They don't like the Bill. They don't have anything to do with the Bill. We have 28 sites that are not Needed in Honolulu.

There's this thing that says we're going to take care of 28 sites with 25,000 people. TNN and Triple R have sites in Honolulu together. One is for i5, one is for electronics. They are their families. So they collect in about five different sites. Iopali is a big factor in Honolulu.

They are a private collector and they collect quite a bit. Jack Johnson, nonprofit, has a Kokua, Hawaii foundation, and they collect up two times at the schools. So what I'm trying to say is. And there's also a new RFP which includes the state, federal, county agencies, as well as TNN, who's collecting it for them.

Hey, Roy, that's been two minutes. Could you start to conclude your testimony, please?

Okay. That would bring $1.0 million. There are no landfills. Landfills are almost with Max Curbside, we're burning curbside electronics, lead, mercury, plastics. Groundwater in Waikoloa is half a mile from the ocean. Therefore, new laws need to be set in place. Our laws from 13 years need to be revamped, and the weights are there for the taking.

So please help the cause. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, Consumer Technology Association in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, Mihoko Ito, on behalf of the Consumer Technology Association here in support of this measure, we do appreciate that we've had lots of discussion with Department of Health to work on this language.

What this Bill is trying to address is weight targets under the current law that are unachievable from the manufacturer's perspective. We think that in comparing Hawaii to other places, the weight targets are simply, you know, even in the next best state, they're very far from what other states are collecting.

So we would prefer to see broader relief from these targets. But we do support the compromise language we worked on with the Department of Health, except for two areas that I wanted to flag for the computer Committee. First, there is a ramp up to 70% by weight in three years.

We would prefer to see that be four years because in our discussions with the Department of Health, what we talked about is having time to. For the Department of Health to study the weights and see if 70% is in fact, achievable.

So we had kind of timed it out to meet that and have Department of Health issue a final report, after which, if it goes to, you know, we'd have one year at the Legislature to fix the weight target if needed. And then second, we do oppose the inclusion of the.

Of collecting data on the average age of devices because that will add an extreme amount of cost to the whole system. What the proposal is is to collect, you know, weight data for a month and analyze each piece that comes in.

By our estimate, that would be 500,000 pieces, pieces of electronics that would each have to be looked at, and the age of that electronic would have to be guessed as, you know, I don't think most electronics don't have dates on them.

So we think that that is going to be very difficult to accomplish, and we're happy to discuss other solutions to that. But we wanted to flag that for this Committee. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right. Anyone else here to testify this measure? Members questions? All right. D'oh. In your testimony, you. Your amendment was to request punit punishment discretion on whether or not to impose punitive measures. Can you expound on why you need that discretion?

Well, as written, it was an automatic violation if any manufacturer did not reach their goal. We simply wanted the discretion to look at the situation in any particular situation in any potential violation and have the flexibility to impose any fines at that point.

We thought that it works well within the study period, as Mihoko talked about, as well as ongoing. So just flexibility is you anticipate people.

Not meeting that goal, the goals not being met. Is that. I mean, that's the only reason why you need the discretion, right?

Yeah. I mean, it's possible. Right. So the idea behind the study period is exactly that. So two things I think we're looking at during the study period is the effect of convenience, so increasing the number of collection sites.

And then the other thing that we're also looking at, that industry was contending that one of the other reasons that the goals are difficult to meet are because products are becoming lighter and lighter as we go ahead.

So that was the reason why we asked for data on approximate age of the material coming in so we could see if there's any correlation in there.

I kind of agree that the approximate age is a lot of effort, especially when you're dealing with. I mean, I think a lot of us have run e waste recycle drives. There's a lot of.

There's a lot of stuff that comes in to be able to determine the approximate age of it when it's either beat up or sometimes you get something that you have no idea where it came from or even what it does. I mean, is that practical?

I mean, we don't.

You do need it.

I mean, we don't disagree that. Yes, it's. It is extra effort. Okay. It's just that because it was so specifically part of the argument that industry was putting forward for, you know, in arguing for this. This study period to begin with. So. Okay, that's why in there.

But. But you. So you don't need necessarily the age of the. The approximate age of the electronics being recycled. It. It's based purely on the industry's claim that things are getting lighter. Yes. Could that not be done by just looking at new products on the market now versus the old product weight? I mean that.

I'm not sure why we would need to weigh it on the back end when we can weigh it when, you know, the Weights on the front end makes sense or.

Yes, yeah, I mean, we're willing to talk more on it.

Okay, thank you. Can I ask a clarifying question?

I mean, just to clarify, I think what, tell me if this is correct, but I think what you're saying is the amendments made in the last hearing, which were one suggested by DoH, had to do with responding to the arguments the industry is making about why they can't meet the claim.

So you're just saying, okay, then provide the data to show that your arguments will wait.

Yes. So, yeah, we understand it's a lot of extra effort.

You're saying this is the reason we can't meet the, the dates, but also we. It's impossible for us to provide the data to back up our argument.

Yeah, no, and that makes sense. That actually clarified quite a bit of, of why this is in there. I'm just wondering whether we really need to know the weight on the back end or, or if we can just see literally by how, if we know.

I mean, if you see an ipod, then it goes through the years, you know, how much it weighs 10 years ago versus now. I'm not sure we need to do the study of random things that are coming in versus just knowing the weights of electronics as they're being sold for that to prove or disprove that claim.

And I don't think it should be on you folks. I think it should be on the industry, don't get me wrong. But I think they could show that without probably estimating the date of. I mean, if we're having them estimate the date of a flat screen TV that comes in, that's busted, that's pretty inaccurate too.

So I'm not even sure that data is going to be usable by you folks. It seems like just a lot of extra effort for not much utility, that's all. But I understand where you're coming from now, so I, I appreciate the, the response. Okay, thank you, Chair. I have a question for Mihoko.

So the, the eventual goal is 70%. And you mentioned that other states have implemented maybe not a similar benchmark, but a similar, similar programs. How far have the other states gotten?

Well, most states that are revamping their laws are moving away from weights altogether.

In fact, they're more moving towards requiring like a footprint of convenience and places that you have to have or a number of recycling centers that you have to have in the community rather than weights because weights are somewhat arbitrary when you think about, you know, the weight that's sold today versus what's Coming in to the recycling stream is based on, you know, your grandma's 1970s TV or other things like that.

Right. So I think, you know, to your point earlier, weights are getting lighter. They just. I think we can all see that as technology has advanced. So because of that, most states that are revamping their laws are moving towards requiring convenience manufacturers to pay for convenience.

But for the ones that are requiring weights, how. What percentages are they getting to right now?

Well, I mean, they're all different. I can provide you with data on that. I don't have it with me, but I can provide you data of the next states and women.

70% too high, too low.

70% is definitely the highest in the country and also the penalty that's in the law is the highest in the country.

What's the next highest besides us then?

I'm not exactly sure, but I think that there isn't a state that's above, you know, maybe 60 at the most. Yeah. Based on what's coming in, I'm happy to provide you the data we have on that.

Okay, thank you. Sure. Members, any other follow up questions? Sure.

Quickly for Department of Health. Sorry, can you confirm, I mean do you know, comparative jurisdictions like which states go by weight, which states have, are moving, if that's the case, to just focusing on requiring a certain number of recycling.

Sorry, I don't have that data, but I can get that to.

But I mean, do you has that. We've heard it said a lot but never actually seen the like anything beyond that either from DoH or the industry to show comparative study of other jurisdictions, what their laws are, which, what if they've been amended, which direction they're moving, what the penalties are.

I mean there's just a lot of statements that have been made and we haven't really seen any data backing any of it up.

Any type of summary that can provide you right now, I can get back to you on that. But as far as. Yes, a lot of claims being made.

So I think that's one of the main reasons why we saw the study as appropriate to at least analyze Hawaii's specific situation and hopefully if the Bill does move forward these three years or four, can provide us some data towards that end.

And you know, just talking about, you know, sort of relativism and you know, with Hawaii being the, you know, at 70% being the highest. That is true. And with the highest penalty amounts too. But. Right.

I mean, looking at penalties is like it's not sort of a fair thing to compare us to California or Any of the the contiguous states because it's like if you're setting penalties, penalties have to be high enough where it's a deterrent where following paying the penalty instead of following the law is not an attraction.

And if you think about the cost of doing business in Hawaii where x percent higher than the mainland, so following that sort of train of thought, you know, our penalties should be higher and then. Yeah, as far as the 70% go, the study I think hopefully.

Well I mean existing law. So we can also. We end up doing nothing. We still have existing law but yeah, thanks.

Yeah, I agree with Rep. Lohan. I mean I'd like to see. I mean we should have a existing law in other states is already out there. I'm not sure why we don't have that data in front of us. The study you keep talking about, how long is this supposed to run? Three years right now. Three years.

Okay, so it corresponds with this three year wrap up program.

Okay, well three years to collect the data here. But it shouldn't take three years to do an assessment of what other states policies are.

Zero that. zero yes, that some reason the assessment.

Thing should be much quicker.

Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else have questions? Okay, let's move on to the last one. SP443 SD1 HD1 relating to agricultural lands. First up we have Hawaii State Energy office with comments.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Monique Zanfes, on behalf of the Hawaii State Energy Office we stand honor written testimony providing comments on this measure. I am available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up we have the Hawaii Department of Agriculture who I believe had to leave to another hearing. Anyone online for them? Okay, next up we have Hawaii Land Use Commission with comments. Okay, now present. Next up, Agribusiness Development Corporation in support.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Wendy Gaty. I'm with the Agribusiness Development Corp. And. We stand in support of this measure. Measure. And we have comments. We're here for any questions.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members, any questions? Okay, sign. We'll take a quick recess.

Reconvening. What a fun last agenda. Thank you everybody. All right, first up we've got SB 1046 SD1 relating to condominiums. Because we're waiting for the LRB study to conclude in June 2026 we will be deferring this measure.

Up next, SB 890 ST2HD1 relating to business regulation. Chair's recommendation is to delete Subsection A which is which requires locally grown POI to mandatorily label their products as locally grown. They can if they want to, really up to them. But we're keeping in the requirement for mainland POI to label that as not from here.

We're also going to be inserting a definition of kalo for clarity. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on Senate Bill 890 SD2 HD1 recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Members. Next up is SB532 SD2 HD1 relating to the Department of Education. Chair's recommendation is to adopt DoH's proposed amendment which requires the the identity of the students or identification of the students as well. If you ask any teacher, kids will lie to you about their names. So I think that's a really important amendment. Members, any comments?

Okay, Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting On Senate Bill 532 SD2 HD1 Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the excused absence of Representatives. PIC would be excused for the remainder of the measures. Are there any Members who wish to vote with reservations? Any noes? Seeing none? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Members, Moving on to SB 1245 SD2 HD1 relating to pharmacists. Chair's recommendation is to adopt the proposed amendments from Hawaii Pharmacists Association. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on Senate Bill 1245 SD2HD1 recommendation used to pass with amendments. Are there any Members wish vote with reservations? Any noes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Members. Moving on to SB 1279 SD2HD1 relating to pharmacists. Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is for now. But I am annoyed. We will be convening parties to get to the bottom of this, but I want this to move as is for now and we'll see what happens. Members, any comments? No comments.

I'm going to vote with reservations. Thanks. Okay, anyone else? Any have comments? I will also be voting with reservations. Understandable, right? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on Senate Bill 1279 SD2 HD1 recommendation is to pass unamended, noting the reservations of Representatives Iwamoto, Martin and Tam. Are there any other reservations? Any noes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

All right, thank you Members. Next up SB 1298 SD2 HD1 relating to recycling. Chair's recommendation is to adopt DOH's proposed amendment to give DOH discretion over the penalties. We're also going to be deleting any language relating to trying to identify the age of electronics as they come in. Members any any comments? Vice Chair for the vote voting on.

Senate Bill 1298 SD2 HD1 recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any Members wish to vote with reservations? Any noes? Seeing non Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Last up, SB443 SD1 HD1 relating to agricultural lands. Chairs recommendation is to also include agricultural lands with wind power on them. Members any comments? Chair Lowen.

I'll vote with Chair but I do have, I think concerns about that addition because it's not addressing a existing problem that I know of and we don't want to inadvertently add to the cost of energy which is already high.

That's fair. Any other comments? Okay, Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on Senate Bill 443 SD1 HD1 recommendation issue pass with amendments. Are there any Members who wish vote reservations? Any noes? Seeing none Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. We are adjourned.