Senate Standing Committee on Health and Human Services

Calling today's HHS hearing for Friday, January 30th, at 3:00 p.m. We are convened at Room 224. This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube. In the unlikely event that we must abruptly end this hearing due to technical difficulties, the committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business at 1:15, February 2nd, 2026 in Room 224 and a public notice will be posted on the legislator's website.

To facilitate this hearing in a timely manner, we will be enforcing a one-minute limit on testimony. I will be reading a list of individuals who submitted written testimony for each measure. We apologize that the closed captioning does not accurately transcribe the names.

If you're interested in reviewing the written testimony, please go to the legislator's website. You'll find a link on the status page for the measure. Yeah, I got confused, too.

The right hand of the Lord.

Yeah, I know. No, it's the other way. We appreciate your understanding and remind you that the committee does have your testimony. I reviewed them, so I encourage you to use your time to either add additional comments or you can stand on your written testimony.

That's the reason why I imposed my one-minute time rule, because we have read your written testimony, and I also would like to welcome my Vice Chair, Senator McKelvey. So, first up, SB 2211, making an emergency appropriation to Department of Human Services. First up, Director Yamane, in support.

Thank you. Next, we have Aloha United Way, in support. Anybody from Aloha United Way? Next, we have Hawaii Food Industry Association, in support. Lauren Zirbel, are you present on Zoom?

Good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair. I'm Alexis Chapman for HFIA. We stand on our written testimony in support, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, I have Nate Hix from Hawaii Public Health Institute, in support. Nate, please proceed.

Aloha, Chair and Vice Chair. We really appreciate this bill and we really appreciate the effort that was done during the government shutdown to make sure that our families were supported. Huge effort. That wasn't a guarantee. It took effort from you folks and from our folks at DHS to really step up and show the importance of SNAP. So really appreciate this bill, and hope it passes. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Betty Lou Larson, Catholic Charities of Hawaii. Are you present? Betty Lou?

Hello, Chair.

On Zoom?

Thank you so much for hearing this bill. We strongly support it. We support SNAP participants and the need for additional food. However, we're also hoping--

Betty Lou, can you turn on your video?

Oh. It says it's on.

Yeah, she said it can't pick her up in the background.

Okay. Well, you look like aurora borealis there.

Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot.

Please proceed.

That's my laptop. Here I come.

Okay. Okay, now that looks better. Okay.

There we go. Sorry about that. Okay, so we appreciate this bill, but we're also worried about food insecurity for those who are not SNAP benefits, the ALICE population. Forty-four percent of all households up to 99,000 in income still have food insecurity.

And so we're wondering if the wording, which is to-- appropriation to the department for households participating in SNAP and to expand food delivery services through its contracted community-based providers, if that language also would include, for example, food banks that could serve that very needy food-insecure population. But not-- but as well as SNAP. Many SNAP go with the food banks, but it also has the upper, you know, higher incomes which are struggling.

So just bring that point up.

Thank you very--

Yes, thank you very, very much. Next we have Hawaii Academy of Family Physicians, in support, Dr. Karla. Next, we have Audrey Suga-Nakagawa of ARP, in support, Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau, in support, Erik Abe, Hawaii Primary Care Association, in support, Heather Lusk, Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center, in support, Mike Nguyen, AlohaCare--are you present, Mike?--in support. On Zoom?

Three, two, one. No.

Okay, we're moving on. Next, we have Genevieve Mumma of Hawaii Appleseed, in support, Susan Pcola-Davis, in support, Younghee Overly, in support, Clint Kagamida, in support, Kalay Okay, in support, Alex Chow, in support, Keoni DeFranco, in support, Veronica Moore, in support, Clarence Manzano, in support. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 2211? Okay, seeing none.

Members, any questions? Okay, seeing none. Moving on. SB 2025, which is relating to jury duty. Allows actively practicing advanced practice registered nurses to claim an exemption from service as a juror. First up, we have Dr. Lewin of SHPDA in support. Dr. Lewin, are you present? Okay, thank you. Next up we have DCAB in support, Kristine Pagano. Next we have Dean Hiraki of the Judiciary providing comments. Next we have Jonathan Ching of Kaiser Permanente in support.

Jonathan Ching. Written testimony. Yes, I saw your requested amendment in your written testimony. Next we have Hawaii American Nurses Association in support. Next we have Margaret Ragen of 'Ōhi'a Midwifery Wellness in support. Next we have Hawaii Affiliate of College of Nurse Midwives in support. Allen Novak on Zoom in support. Allen Novak, are you present?

Yes. Yes, I am.

Please proceed. You have one minute. And we have your written testimony.

Very good. Aloha, Senator San Buenaventura and Senator McKelvey and other Members of the Health...

Can you turn on your video?

Okay. There we go. Sorry.

Please proceed. Go ahead.

I appreciate this opportunity to express my support for Senate Bill 2025 that seeks to extend jury duty exemptions to advanced practice register nurses, which is consistent with the exemptions currently granted to physicians and dentists. Advanced practice registered nurses are currently licensed to practice independently in the state of Hawaii, and approximately 90% of them have prescriptive authority.

It is a hardship when the practitioner gets summoned to jury duty, not just for the physician or dentist, but also for the APRN or the patients that they service. A couple of years ago, I was summoned for jury duty...

Thank you very much, Mr. Novak. Doesn't look like there's any opposition, so we'll keep going. Thank you very much. Next we have Fannie. Fannie Yang in support. Ramona Nakagawa in support. Wailua Brandman in support. Lindsey Takamatsu in support. Jacob Moore in support. Erika Murata in support. Connie Lamour in support. Macey Min-Chu Luo-Souza in support.

Scott Luo-Souza in support. Alison Kaneshiro in support. Miki Miura in support. Jared Medeiros in support. Toni Ballard in support. Megan Blazak in support. Roxanne Estes in support. Michelle Franz in support. April Ramos in support. Shanda Brack in support. Anybody else wishing to testify SB 2025? Come on up.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. I am Amy Chin. I'm the Executive Officer for the Hawaii State of Board of Nursing, and we stand on a written testimony in support of the bill.

Thank you very much.

Mahalo.

Okay, anybody else wishing testify SB 2025? Members, any questions?

Quick question for the nurses.

Come on up. You're back. Board of Nursing.

I just want you to respond to the requested amendment by Kaiser. Whether you guys support it or not.

Which is the physician's assistants.

I haven't seen the testimony, the amendment yet, so I will look it over, share with my board, and circle back.

Okay, thank you very much.

Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 2025? Seeing none, moving on. SB 2038, relating to medication labeling. Mr. Prestone. First up, we have Alanna Isobe, DCCA PVL, Board of Pharmacy, providing comments. Please proceed. Are you from DCCA? Jamie Detwiler? No. That's another-- Alanna Isobe on Zoom, are you present? Okay, moving on.

Thank you, Chair.

Sorry, Chair. They are available on Zoom.

Our chair, Alanna Isobe should be on Zoom. I'm here--

Okay, hold on. Alanna Isobe, are you present on Zoom? Please proceed. You have one minute. We're counting down. Please proceed. Unmute yourself. I hope you're not driving.

Yeah, I hope not either.

You know, this is Health Chair-- this is Committee on Health. We don't want you to get into an accident, okay? Please-- your time is counting down. Please unmute yourself and please proceed. You know, you have somebody here. Can we have somebody talk on your behalf because you cannot seem to unmute yourself?

Yeah, and you're gonna crash.

And we don't want you to get into an accident. Okay. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Apologies for the issue. My name is Christopher Fernandez, Executive Officer for the Board of Pharmacy. We're here to stand on our written comments. Our chair was here to answer any questions, but I will do my best if we can't get her--

Sorry.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you for your time. Okay.

Okay. Next up, Department of Health, providing comments. Department of Health, are you present? Come on up.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. My name is Matt Kurano with the Department of Health, Environmental Health Services Division. First of all, apologies. It doesn't look-- we submitted testimony on Wednesday, but it doesn't appear on the testimony link.

Okay. Please proceed. Testify, then.

Sure. We are just providing comment and we are supportive of the intent. We have an offered amendment just allowing-- that would allow the Department of Health access, and then in the event of an investigation, to not require a subpoena to get that information that is being held private, just to allow a little bit quicker of a response.

Okay. Yeah. Similar to ACOG's, yeah?

I'm not familiar with ACOG's, but yes.

Okay. ACOG's doesn't want to be able to be subpoenaed either. Okay. Next, we have--

Available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Civil Rights Commission, Alphonso Braggs. Are you present, Alphonso Braggs? Okay. Proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair. Heather McVay with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. We're in support of the measure and available for questions. We'll stand on our written testimony. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Eva Andrade, Hawaii Family Forum. Are you present?

Chair, Vice Chair. I'm Eva Andrade. I'm the President and CEO of Hawaii Family Forum, and we respectfully oppose this bill. While the bill is framed as a technical labeling update, it creates special exemptions for abortion medications that weaken basic safeguards meant to protect patients. Prescription labels exist to ensure transparency, accountability, and timely care, especially in emergencies.

Allowing abortion drugs to be dispensed without standard identifying information raises real concerns about patient safety, continuity of care, and informed medical response. These concerns are especially relevant for women on the neighbor islands where access to emergency care may already be limited. Transparency and oversight are punitive-- they are not punitive.

They are essential to public trust and equitable healthcare. SB 2038 treats abortion medications differently than any other medication without a clear public health justification. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Stacy Jimenez, A Place for Women in Waipio, in opposition. Next we have Olivia Manayan, ACOG, providing comments. Next we have Doris Matsunaga, in support. I see Jamie Detwiler on Zoom, in opposition. Jamie, can you unmute yourself and please proceed?

Can you hear me, Chair?

Yes.

Okay, great. Thank you. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Jamie Detwiler. I'm Hawaii born and raised and a retired healthcare professional serving 33 years of dedicated service in the profession. I'm in opposition of SB 2038 for two primary reasons.

While I acknowledge the intent is a good intent behind the creation of this bill, it poses patient safety risk issues as well as medical ethics issues. And it's detailed in my written testimony, which was not posted on the website yet.

Furthermore, if this bill is passed into law, it will jeopardize the safety of women and teenagers involved in prostitution who are abused by their pimps. With the lack of prescription label information, these pimps will be empowered to force them to take the abortion pill and there will be no consequences. And at a personal level, as a mother and a grandmother, I'd be really concerned knowing that a person can't get help. Thank you.

Thank you, Jamie.

Thank you.

Eva Andrade was very erudite too, in opposition, who's also present. Okay--

Next we have Elena Arinaga, in support, Younghee Overly, in support, Greg Khan, in support, Victor Ramos, in opposition, Nathan Leo Bowlick, in support, Judith White, in support, Denise Machit, in support, Kalay Oke, in support, Elizabeth Welton, in support, Jody Waderman, in support, Perry Yoshinaga, in opposition.

Thank you.

Kristy Gund, in support, Noel Lindenman, in support, and we've got--okay, let me just keep reading it. Marjorie Ziffrin-Marlo, in support. If you hear your name, please stand up, okay? Janet Terry, in support, Natasha Mito, in support, Vivian Tolner, in support, Rita Kama-Kimura, in opposition, Jane Aquino, in support, Tim Honderick, in support.

Amber Kanehailua, in support, Cheryl Bellamy, in support, Nancy Moser, in support, Jesse Hutchinson, in support, Michael Kola, in support, Cheryl Lisnock, in opposition, Eileen Kane, in support, Kristin Cola, in support, Family DeBardani, in support, Kehealani Colon, in support, Karen Khan, in support, Joseph Summerfield, in opposition, Stephanie Coleman, in opposition, Jane Tofelswood, in support, Mary Smart, in opposition.

Dr. Robert Justice, in support, Martina Wing, in support, James Raymond, in support, Alfred Hagen, in opposition, Katherine Wheeler, in opposition, Doreen Morimoto, in opposition, Nadra Rodriguez, and then there were none...in opposition. Anybody else wishing to testify? Oh, Michael Golojuch, are you present? Please proceed.

Yes, I am, sir-- yes, I am, Chair. Hello. Michael Golojuch Jr., president of Pride at Work Hawaii. We apologize for not getting our written testimony in on time on this bill, but we do want to stand in strong support. Abortion care access is a labor rights issue, plain and simple, and this is just a fair bill to make sure that people are able to get the healthcare that they need.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 2038? Members, any questions? I do. Board of Pharmacy, come on up. So, do you know of any other states who has passed something like this?

Yes, we discussed this at the meeting yesterday and the board reviewed-- I believe at least California, Massachusetts, they do a more robust-- kind of similar to the language of this bill that eliminates the prescriber, the retailer, and the patient from the label.

Okay. So my understanding with pharmacy and with pharmaceutical drugs is that, isn't there like an FDA requirement for-- so that they will be able to track-- I mean, because these are-- these are controlled substances. So--

Yeah, there are record keeping requirements meant to log dispensing.

Okay. You know those states have passed it. How long ago have they passed it?

I believe California's was last year.

Only last year? What is the runway for implementation? You know?

I'm not certain about that. I would have to go back to research and then get more information.

So here's my question. How much is this going to cost the pharmacist and the consumer?

During the meeting yesterday, there was identified some concerns about whether logistically tools that the pharmacies employ to make labels for medications would need to be modified or-- there was a workaround or something like that. So there's-- they generally spoke on that matter, but as far as a specific example, I could not provide right now.

Okay, so here's my other question, sorry. And other than Michael Golojuch, who I don't think will be able to get prescribed this, all the other people who have testified, women who have testified, have testified in written, so I can't ask them. Why can't they just rip off the label when they get the-- when they get the pharmacy-- I mean, what's wrong with just ripping off the label? Do you know?

I'm sorry, Chair. I couldn't answer that. The board didn't discuss that yesterday--

So, I mean, if things can be without any added consumer cost, I mean, why can't they just rip off the label and that way no one could see who has this? You can't answer it. Can anybody here answer that?

Kaiser.

Ask Kaiser.

You're nodding back there, so you clearly-- come on. You're the resident expert. I'm from the healthcare industry, right?

Okay, so--

Come on up. You could come to this hearing, you know, you're fair game. Let's go.

You know, we get all of these requests, and it sounds super PC for us to pass it, but if it actually increases cost when the cheapest way for you to do this is to just rip off the label, why can't a consumer just rip off the label so no one else could see whatever it is they got?

So, John Ching for Kaiser, Chair. We did not submit testimony. We've been watching this. I think as the Board of Pharmacy does note, there are other states that have implemented this. I think from the outpatient or retail pharmacy perspective, there-- to comply with this law would require manual implementation, like overrides of the systems because--right--you know when there is a label, it's connected, right? So when there's an order, it has to do-- and then--

That's what I think. It's a controlled substance.

Mifepristone is not, but yeah. It would slow down processes. There is a way to manually do it, but, right, then you're talking about inefficiencies.

If you're doing mail order prescriptions, it would be problematic, right? Which is kind of the pivot now for the insurers and providers?

And it seems to me, I mean, when I saw what the mifepristone thing is, it's a box that has the label on it. It seems to me it's got to be federally mandated that you got to take off the word mifepristone on this box or if it's put into a prescription bottle, I mean, how hard is it to just rip off the label?

Yeah.

I don't really want to answer that.

Okay. Okay. Any other-- any other comments based upon the questions?

That's a pragmatic answer, Chair, that you're saying, but I mean, it would be oppor-- there is some challenges, but it's not-- it can't be completely-- it can-- it could still be done, but there would be some operational challenges for sure. And I think that--

Okay. I mean, if we pass this bill, right? Versus allowing the consumer to just basically rip off the label. And I see the Board of Pharmacists standing up. Okay. Why don't you come on up?

And our chair is able to answer some questions if you--

Okay. So have you parked so that you do not have-- you are not causing an accident? And could you turn on your-- can you unmute yourself?

Okay, thank you. Thanks for taking my question. Actually more of an answer. In terms of ripping the label off, the issue is if the patient is not the one that picks up the prescription, then you have a bottle, or I guess in this case it is a box--

But then-- okay, but then if somebody else, then-- the patient then consents to the person picking it up, so they know that the person is going to know-- I mean, that person can rip off the label.

Yep, yep. So, I mean, the board had issues just without a name on it, like, what if it gets into the wrong hands, right? I mean, so there's all these safety concerns which, you know, ripping off the label would also create.

But it goes-- the patient will have the opportunity to rip off the label, right? So it's already in the right hands. So, yeah, I'm not going to legislate that they are required to rip off the label. It's going to be optional for the patient.

And I think this is-- this is if the patient requests that it's anonymous bottling, I mean--so-- I mean, for most--

The Board of Pharmacy does not mind us mandating this, then? Is that the Board of Pharmacy's position--

No. So the Board of Pharmacy--

--that you do not care if we mandate that the pharmacist makes it? Okay. So obviously, guys, don't pass on the cost to us. I'm good with mandating you guys to do this.

No, so it was-- it's only if the patient requests, and we do have concerns, the cost of pharmacy. My other one that we talked about was as we make barriers and we require pharmacies to do these things, that we decrease access for patients because they-- you know, the pharmacies are unable to do it, so they just won't carry the drug. So is this going to actually cause more problems.

Okay, that's a legitimate point. Okay. Any other questions? Comments? We're going to move on. Okay, thank you very much. Next up is SB 2050 relating to chiropractic. First up, we have DCCA providing comments. Young in Wilson, are you present? Please come on up.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Young-Im Wilson, Executive Officer for the Hawaii Board of Chiropractic. And board stands on its testimony and we support. Thank you.

So what is that one? This is the Hawaii by statute, which we have to fix. Yep. 329-39.

Okay, thank you very much. My vice chair has pointed out in the prior Bill that there's actually a statute that we need to fix if we're going to do this that prevents any alteration of a prescription label because of the concerns stated earlier. So that is 32 what?

It's 329-39 labels. However, I would also note there's probably liability concerns. That if that happens and somebody has a reaction, there could be serious lawsuits coming from.

Okay, thank you. We're back to SB 2050. Look, we're both Neighbor Islanders, so we gotta move on.

We bounce around the state.

Thank you. Hawaii State Chiropractic Association in support.

Ann Chung for Dr. E. Shivers. Standing by written testimony in support.

Thank you. Cara Pablo in support. Jacqueline Kim in support. Dan Myers in support. Leah Sosa in support. Taja Santayana in support. Ward Overton in support. Rhea Kili Inui in support. Jasmine in support. Nanea E. in support. Allison King in support. Haley Cola in support. Rochelle in support. Mallory Cabigon in support. Angeline Brutus in support.

Gabriela Mori in support. Jenna Leleo in support. Austin Coziol in support. Shane in support. Rory King in support. Jasmine Apelokio in support. Jasmine Beard in support. Jared Kitolis in support. Jocelyn Kapahua in support. Frederick Kennedy in support. Katie Gillum in support. Kevin Perino in support. William Battles in support. Joe Leonardi in support. Sarah Ward in support.

Keon Parker in support. Julia Wood Goodman in support. Joe Eddins in support. ... All 17 people in support. Only Ann Chung is present in support. Anybody else wishing to testify SB 2050. Members, any questions? We only have one person to ask. Okay, thank you very much.

We're moving on. SB 2051, relating to insurance. First up, we have Alfonso Braggs, Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. Are you present?

Yes, Chair. Heather McVeigh, the Deputy Executive Director of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission here, standing on our written testimony and available for questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Eva Andrade in opposition. Eva.

I'll get this one minute thing down.

Terrific. You've been in front of me before. Please proceed.

Yes, I'm Eva Andrade. I'm President of Hawaii Family Forum, and again, we respectfully oppose this Bill. We recognize the pain that a lot of people experience when they're going through infertility, but we believe this Bill goes far beyond medical infertility and raises serious ethical and public policy issues and deserves a little bit more careful consideration.

It seems to prioritize adult access and equality claims while giving little attention to the long-term interests of the children, including their biological origins, their family identity, and even culture. Finally, SB 2051 mandates employer participation without clear conscience or religious freedom protections, which is troubling in a state that values diversity and freedom. Mahalo for the opportunity.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have John Kirimitsu, Kaiser Permanente, providing comments. John, please proceed on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. John Kirimitsu for Kaiser. Kaiser stands on his written testimony requesting a study audit. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Walden Au, in, providing comments for HMSA. Thank you very much. Rachel Wilkinson, Hawaii Association of Health Plans and providing comments. Rachel, are you present?

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Rachel Wilkinson on behalf of the Hawaii Association of Health Plans. We are providing comments and we believe that the Bill, as currently written, would create new mandated benefits that would increase costs for Hawaii residents and their employers.

So, we would respectfully request that this Bill be deferred or that the State Auditor conduct an impact assessment report.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have Pride at Work, in support. Michael Golojuch, please proceed on Zoom.

Good afternoon, again. Michael Golojuch, Jr., President of Pride at Work Hawaii. We stand in strong support of this Bill. We are talking about equity when it comes to IVF. Being able to start a family is one of the founding blocks for—as we fought for marriage equality. This is party continuing that battle.

I'm sorry to hear that my good friend Eva is there to fight against this and I hopefully she had done her homework to understand that children raised by queer parents are just, are better—actually more well-adjusted than those raised by right wing families.

So, we encourage you to pass this Bill as part of it as an equity solution. And we unders—we here at Pride at Work do understand that there does need to be a sunrise audit to comply with the prepaid healthcare requirements, as this does create a new insurance mandate.

So, we encourage, we—whatever it takes to get this passed so we can get this done. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you very much.

Madeline...of Kuana Project, in support. Heather Lusk, Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center, in support. Hoku Pac, in support. Joanna Okika Shigeku Kiana, Opilina Center for Wellbeing, in support. Abby Simmons, Stonewall Caucus of Democracy Democratic Party, in support. Ricardo Molera Bravo, American of ACOG, in support. Isis Osborne, Lambda Law Student Association, in support. Hawaii State LGBTQ Commission, in support. Stephen Singer.

Wait seconds. Sandy Livingston, are you present on Zoom?

Not available on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. Stephen Singer, are you present? He said he was gonna be here. Okay, we're gonna move on. And then, we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 people in support. 3 people—4 people in opposition. And Scott Psyche, Insurance Commissioner, providing comments.

Insurance Commissioner. No, you don't look like Scott Psyche but—okay, thank you very much. Questions? Okay, seeing none. Okay. We don't have quorum for decision making, so we are going to defer decision making to next hearing. When's the next hearing? Unless you guys could call recess. We're going to see whether or not we can find somebody.

Recess.

Reconvening the 3:00 PM calendar for HHS this Friday. And I was reminded I skipped the bill, and that is SB 2090, relating to child custody. First up, we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Just said something. Came all the way here. In support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Senator. McKenna Woodward on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support of this measure. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify today and for hearing the bill. And Mahalo, Chair, for introducing this important measure. SB 2090 reflects the realities of Hawaii's behavioral health workforce and strengthens our family court system.

This policy change is especially important for Native Hawaiian families who are disproportionately involved in systems that result in family separation. Improving court efficiency and access to trauma informed, clinically trained evaluators, supports more equitable child centered outcomes and helps reduce harm to keiki and ohana. For these reasons, OHA respectfully urges the committee to pass SB 2090. Mahalo. And I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next we have on Zoom... Excuse me. Kevin Faust. Kevin Faust. Please proceed, Kevin.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. Thank you for having me here today. We strongly support this bill. Much like licensed clinical social workers and licensed marriage and family therapists who are already allowed to do child custody evaluations, we have very similar training experience. Yeah.

We believe that this would help reduce delays, backlogs, cost to families, we think is huge. Reducing that, the more people we have who can do this job, the lower the cost will be. More people available. And this would bring Hawaii in line with practices in many other states, such as California, New York, Colorado. So we strongly support this. And I'm here for any questions.

Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing testify in SB 2090? Members, any questions? OHA. Well, no. Got Kevin Faust.

Is there any concerns that mental health counselors may not have the full training in the spectrum required to be a child custody evaluated them? It's more than just the mental health aspect. Right. There's other issues and criteria to which professional training... I guess custody child evaluators have training and recognition because of the different skill sets that are needed. Is there any...

Because I've been watch track this bill in other states because in other states it did pass, as was mentioned, but in others it was deferred. And the question kept coming up about whether or not mental health professionals would have the full training and understanding as child custody evaluation, especially with legal issues. Any...

Sure, I think that's a fair concern to raise. So of course, as you mentioned, licensed mental health counselors in this instance would be licensed to perform the mental health evaluation for the child. I think, to my understanding, the issue that the judiciary has been facing for quite a while now is just not having any child custody evaluators.

So what's happening and disproportionately impacting Native Hawaiian ohana and keiki is, you know, these cases are getting put on backlog or the judges are being forced to make decisions...

But why isn't Judiciary coming up with a plan to staff these? Why aren't they addressing this, either increasing the salary for them or trying to... I mean, it's we don't have enough. So let's just we'll bring in this other group, which is great. But what is the plan of the Judiciary? Why aren't they trying to fund these positions, increase the pay for them, and try to get more child evaluators?

Sure. That's a great question, Vice Chair. I'm not, I can't speak on behalf of the Judiciary, but I know for OHA, child welfare has been something, you know, that's long disproportionately impacted the Native Hawaiian community. And sure. And with respect to this bill, I think that's definitely a fair concern.

As far as, you know, are our licensed mental health counselors the appropriate, you know, kind of entity to do this? From my understanding of the bill and the other qualified evaluators, they are licensed mental health professionals as well with different training.

So I think for us it really just comes down to would we rather expand the scope of practice to try and have an interim solution or, you know, allow the continued problem?

One other thing, we have a shortage of mental health people already in the rural islands. So if we pass this, are we going to, are we going to actually see this huge influx of mental health professionals wanting to be child custody evaluators or is it going to be a dead letter law where we pass it and they're not interested? We have coverage issues just for their primary goal to begin with. Right.

Will this move the needle or are we going to have it come back again and say we're still having an issue that's affecting the Native Hawaiian community because we don't have the people, mental health evaluate, mental health professionals who are willing to be child custody evaluators?

Yeah, that's definitely a concern as well. We've supported other bills in the past and another this year that addresses the the HELP program to try and keep more mental health professionals and healthcare professionals in general in the state.

So I think, you know, there really isn't a silver bullet for this problem, unfortunately, because of the, like you mentioned, the lack of licensed professionals here. And so we really see this as a stopgap measure to hopefully try and alleviate this problem in the interim.

Thank you very much. And as a practicing family law attorney, I also know that there is a shortage of child custody evaluators and we have used mental health professionals before, but it wasn't even required by statute. So frankly, I don't know whether or not this is needed, but it doesn't hurt to have it.

No, there's a good discussion.

Thank you. Okay, so I testified. I shouldn't have done that. Okay, so are you ready for decision making?

Your one minute's up.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Are you ready for decision making?

Fire away.

Okay, so for SD 2211 Chair's recommendation. Oh, thank you. We have Senator Kanuha. Thank you very much. So for SB 2211, our Chair's recommendation is to pass this with amendments. We're gonna replace the language from Governor's Bill SB 3129, which is awaiting referral to us, but we, probably is going to be referred to us.

And you're going to include in the Committee report, 14th, we're going to replace the entire language of 2211 with that of 3129. Same title of Emergency Appropriation to Department of Human Services. In the Committee report, we're going to put in DHSS requirement of $14,248,126. Any comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Okay. Recommendation on SP 2211 is a Senate Draft one inserting the contents of 3129 and an appropriation amount in the Committee report. Chair and Vice Chair vote yes. Any other Members of the Committee who are present voting with reservations or none? Seeing none, your recommendation is adopted.

So for SB 2025 I am cognizant about the shortage in APRNs and in primary care. However, the more exemptions we create, the more burdens we put on existing people who also have jobs, who also have our burden to have to go and otherwise we're gonna, the jury system is gonna collapse.

However, this Bill is going to go to the judiciary. So we are going to pass this with amendments. And I do note Kaiser's request about physician's assistance, but we are going to limit the physician's assistance. That's going to be exempt for only those who are fully employed with an FQHC. Any comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none, Vice Chair to vote.

I have a comment. Respectfully, thank you for that Chair I'll be voting with reservations. I acknowledge that this is a critical health care profession and we need them on the job. But like you said, if there's ever been a time in our country's history where we need citizens to serve on juries to protect individuals rights, it's right now. So I'm very uncomfortable with limiting the perspective and expertise of the medical community from serving on juries that are responsible for people's freedom. So enough pontificate and I'll go WR. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Pass with amendments. Feel free to vote your conscience.

Of course. Sounds good. Recommendation is Senate Draft one on 2025 basically to go ahead and to add physician assistance or an FHQC. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Any other Members besides Senator Keohokalole who wish to go WR. No. Seeing none, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay so for SB2038 huge concern about labeling FDA requirements cost. I mean we are inundated in this Committee with the rising cost of everything including drugs and including more requirements on our medical providers.

When it seems to me unless, somebody comes up with a reason why the simple expedient of just tearing off the label is not a - is not easy solution that will not cost anybody any cost. Chair's recommendation SB2038 is to defer. Moving on. So SB 2050 Chair's recommendation is to pass this with amendments.

We're going to accept the Board of Chiropractic's proposed amendments and delay the implementation of 3 days - of 3 years and defect the date to 2050. Any comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, 2050 recommendations that Senate Draft one with a delayed implementation date of three years and a defective date of 2050 Chair and Vice Chair vote yes. Anybody else in the Committee who's present wishing to vote no or WR. Seeing none, your recommendation is adopted.

SB 2051 Chair is cognizant of the health care plans various testimony and the need to have a sunrise analysis and the insurance commissioners concerns on the vagueness of the of the Bill as it is. So Chair's recommendation is to defer this spending a sunrise analysis per a hopefully co introduced resolution and such hopefully that resolution will satisfy insurance commissioners concerns as to definitions.

Any comments, question - well no there isn't any. So it's to defer. So for SB 2090 Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Any comments, questions, concerns. Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Oh, I'm sorry I'm so used to being Chair I forgot I was reading. 2090 recommendation of Senator, Oh sorry recommendation is to pass un amended. Chair, Vice Chair vote aye. Anybody else in opposition or reservation. Seeing none, the measure has been adopted.

And we are adjourned and.