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

searching for


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

House | May 11, 2016 | Chamber | House Session Health

Full MP3 Audio File

will be getting started in just a moment. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> This time we'll call the House Committee on health to order. I'd like to begin by recognizing our house pagers that are with us today. When I call your name, if you would stand and just let us recognize you. We have Campbell, McCollin from Wake county sponsored by Rep Stan, Cassidy Davis from Iredell county sponsored by Speaker Tim Moore. Natalie, Monzerviore/g I probably just ruined your name there but, Mecklenburg county, sponsored by Speaker Tim Moore, and Brenda McWater/g from Union county sponsored by Rep Dean Arp. We're very glad to have you all with us today and hope you are enjoying your week here at the general assembly, and learning a lot and having a good time. I do wanna also recognize our sergeants at arms that are with us today. We have Young Bei, Jim Moran, Russel Salzbury and Martha Gederson. Than k each one of you for what you do for us. ladies and gentlemen we've four bills on the committee. Each of these bills was recommended to us by the joint legislative ivory sight committee on health and each of this bills will be presented this morning by representative Dopson, so representative Dopson I'm glad to have you with us this morning and we will recognize you for house bill 1012 and ladies and gentlemen we do have a PCS without objection we will hear the PCS, representative Lucas make that motion. PCS's before us, representative [INAUDIBLE] you're recognized. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, members members of the committee. So I don't repeat myself four times. I'll just start with an overall of the all four bills and then as we progress through them I'll give you the specifics on each one, so I will just say again as the chairman stated all four bills did come out of the sub committee on state wide, early education and family support programs, all four bills passed unanimously out of the study committee and the thing I'm most proud of on these four bills is we received input from all the stakeholders. Local DSS directors, the partnership, obviously the department was involved and they came back to us and said these are the four things Things that we need to look at to move us forward, so that's what this bills are attempting to do today after we sort input from the study committee, so we'll start with house Bill 1012 as the gentleman stated. I'll just start by saying that this proposed committee is substitute all it does All it did was add that the department seek input from the partnership as they move this studies forward. So what the problem that we were trying to address with this first bill is when an individual,a child was i one county say, Macklenburg county And they were receiving subsidies and then they move to Kimberley county, they then had to go to the back of the line to get started again, to receive the subsidies, so they were in subsidies moved from county to county and they are no longer eligible for those subsidies they have to go on a waiting list if that county had a waiting list. So we are trying to address There's that problem with the study to move it forward so that doesn't happen as we go, so that's basically what house bill 1012 does and I ask your support. >> Representative [UNKNOWN] you are recognized. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman and I am curious about the first two points under that state wide approach to the funding allocation, and the impact of a state wide funding approach. So I don't remember what our approach is now, whether we have a state wide approach now, or now we have market rates that are changed from area to area. But exactly what we are hoping to accomplish with that part of the study. >> Representative Darson. >> I think basically just what it says as opposed to piece milling it and basically trying to consolidate and streamline to have a state wide approach to the funding allocation for the subsidized child care program working with the department. >> Follow up. >> Follow up. >> So I think my concern is that not knowing whether we have a statewide approach right now or not that wed do have variable markets across the state so that if we are trying to subsidy rate to the market and each in different areas, I'm not sure that

our state wide approach would be appropriate. >> Representative Dobson. >> Mr. Chairman if I could have staff comment on the differences between the current process verses the state wide process that we'll be studying. >> Okay, I also understand we do have someone here today from the division of Child Development and Early Education, we'd like to recognize them. >> Okay. >> Is there someone here that would like to speak from the division of Child Development Early Education? If you will please come to the microphone and for the record please state your name and your position and you're recognize to speak to the committee. >> I am Jennifer Johnson, I am the Assistant Director for Programs and Educational services at the division of Child Development and Early Education, and currently all of our state funds are put in all the counties. So no part of money is held, so if a child moves from one county to the other we would have to to pull money from one county to put it into the other county. And so the study may look at whether or not we reserve a portion of the money, set aside for subsidies, so that when children do move, we are not taking from one county to give to the other. So that the child can remain in services and still have the funding to do so. So that's what we need to have happen. >> And also can I recognize Teresa [UNKNOWN] of research staff. Okay did you want, okay. Representative Insko you can follow up. >> If I'd like to follow up with a question. >> Okay. >> And just a clarification if whether or not our funding rates are the same across the state. If they are uniform across this makes more sense if they are, so or do you know whether they are uniform across the state. >> Again this is Jennifer Johnson. >> The market rates do vary by county and by start level, so again, holding a portion back at the state level would help us so that we are not again moving money from one county that may not than be enough to cover them then they move to other county. >> Just to comment. >> Representative Insko you recognized. >> I understand that I ma not sure the wording here is good as it should be but I just wanna make sure that we are not looking at creating a statewide rate that will be uniform across, that we are gonna still use the market rate system. So that we have variable rates. And that the purpose of this study is to see whether it ought to be all distributed to the counties at the county level or some held back at the state level to make accommodation. And I support that part if that's what you're doing. >> Represenative Insko added getting contact with [INAUDIBLE] Andrew. She's the fiscal staff person who handles the pre K area. And what she mentioned was that The rates haven't changes since pre-K was moved to DPR, but the locals reported at the sub-committee meeting that the rates don't cover the cost. She also provided me with the rates and I'm happy to read those which or provide them to you. >> Miss. Thomas you're recognized for comment? You're? >> Jenifer Johnson >> Johnson I'm I am sorry. >> This is not pre-K, this is subsidy which is different and the market rates will not be at state rate, they will stay at the county level. >> Representative Earl you are recognized. >> Thank you, I just wanted to restate that this is a study and that is what we are going to be looking at as how to address this particular issue. And I think it ought to be as broad as possible just so the study can be done and we will report back and at the appropriate time I'd like to To make a motion. >> Is a further discussion for the debate, Representative Earl I believe it's the appropriate time. >> I'd like to move for a favorable report, unfavorable to the original. >> Representative Earl moves for a favorable report to the proposed committees substitute for house bill 1012 unfavorable to the original. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. >> All who oppose no. The ayes have it Representative Dobson you're recognized for house appeal 1013. Once again we have a PCS without objection. PCS Representative Dabson. >> Thank you Mr Chairman, thank you members of the committee. To start the PCS specifically names a North Carolina partnership as a stake holder which the division must consult on the study. That's what the PCS does so it just includes the partnership going forward. Basically house bill 1013 before we had from a local DSS officers in the sub committee that the process was difficult to navigate with a lot of different applications.

A lot of different hoops, if you will, to jump through so, we are just trying to look at streamlining this process to make it easy and efficient for the department, but also for the children as they apply for this services, also it allows the DSSs and those involved at the department to more appropriately put the children in the program that they need to be into. Because a lot of times what happen this parents, and this children are coming forward they have no idea where to start. So this will allow them to streamline that process to put it in the more appropriate program for them, that is basically the two parts of this bill. >> Representative Insko. >> Thank you Mr Chairman. This is something that we've been trying to do for a long time and It would be certainly support the concept, will there be the big uniform application, it will these be entered, my question has to do with whether or not this involves any, including we have the hardware and software in place to do this, it looks like it's gonna be be a computer based system. >>. Representative Dodson. >> I thin k that will be, thank you for the question, I think that will be part of then study to find out if we have the capability and then come back to the over stock committee to make a recommendation to it, so we really, we don't and I ask that when we're in committee do we have the capability both in hardware and do we just have the capability with logistics and the hardware to actually make this happen. So I think that's gonna be part of the study to first see if we can do this and second if we can to make a recommendation on how do it. >> Thank you. >> Further discussion, further debate, the chair would entertain the motion. Representative Representative Brawley you're recognize. >> Mr. Chairman move the approval of house bill 1013, committee substitute with favorable report - >> Is this a referral or it's just got to the floor. >> Floor. Gets to the floor. >> where the referral for the floor unfavorable to the original bill. >> Representative Brawley moves for a favorable report to the committee substitute for house bill 1013 and favorable to the original. All those in favor signify by saying aye, all oppose no. The ayes have it. Representative Dobson you're recognized for house bill 1014 once again we have we have a proposed committee substitute without objection, proposed committee substitute as before us, Representative Dobson. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, again I'll start by addressing what the proposed committee substructure is, came at the request of Representative Carney and with your indulgence Mr. Chairman I'll let her have the appropriate appropriate time to address that part of the PCS. >> Do you like for Representative Carney to be recognized at this time? >> That will be fine we can go ahead and do that part with your indulgence and then I'll come back to what the technical change is. >> Representative Carney you're recognized. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you representative Dobson for agreeing agreeing for this name change to be placed, and within this bill. Members back in August, you all passed unanimously a bill that established the rare disease advisory council so I went to his house that UNC, Chapel hill And since then I have been following closely the young lady who was the impedance for this bill coming forward from her amazing mother. Sharon King and Charlotte. There's a little bit about Barton's disease that Taylor contracted when she was seven years old And it is absolutely a fatal disease but she is now 17. And she's lived beyond what they thought she would o predicted and it's still in part to her mother's passion about rare disease and she's established a Taylor's tale that I will send you all the link to. But it's an amazing effort by family to reach out nationally to other families with rare disease diagnosed children. So this advisory council was established and we've all All of that would love to go back and file. Taylor's still with us and rename the bill to be Taylor's law establishing the advisory council in rare diseases so I ask for your support. >> Thank you representative Carney. Representative Dobson. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman This one is clearly technical in nature all we're doing, Mort four

no longer is called Mort four it's the North Carolina Pre K program so it's just making a technical change on that, is all this bill does. >> Further discussion, further debate. If not the chair will entertain a motion Representative Setzer is recognised for a motion. >> I move for a favorable report for house bill 1014 unfavorable original bill. >> Representative Setzer moves for a favorable report to the committee substitute for house bill 1014 unfavorable to the original. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed no, the ayes have it. Representative Dobson you're recognized for house bill 1040 once again there's a PCS before us without objection. PCS is before us. Representative Dobson. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, before I forget I would like to recognize my other primary sponsors on this bill And their willingness to help and be a part of this. Representative Horne, Representative Jeter, Representative Earl, Representative Martin and Representative Marlon. I appreciate their hard work on this bills as well .>> And the chair would like to note that Representative Horne came in right on cue as you mentioned his name so Representative Horne welcome to the health committee. Representative Dobson Please continue. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. The PCS adds the review of the administration of the program to the evaluation of the total slot calls. So we're looking at the administration which could include the LEAs the local partnerships so we're just trying to find out the cost of that as well. It's what the PCS does. So this bill This bill as the title says,we're trying to get a breakdown. The department I think has a good handle on what the overall cost is for our Pre-K program, but we don't have a good breakdown of what the local cost are, and all that encompasses. So this allows and directs the department to come back with a study or study it and come back to us and let us know what report, what they come up with as far as what the breakdown is by county, by school boards, the feds, smart staff, all of the stakeholders to find out the overall total cost in breakdown of Pre-K not just the overall cost further discussion, further debate, if not the chair will entertain the motion. Representative Adcock you're recognized for a motion. >> thank you Mr. Chairman I move approval of PCS for house bill 1040 unfavorable to the original bill. >> Representative Adcock moves for a favorable report to committee substitute for house bill 1040 unfavorable to the original. All those in favor will signify by saying aye, all oppose no. The ayes have it. Representative Dobson, four for four, very good and in record time. >> Thank you all for allowing the bills to be heard and members of the committee thank you for your support. >> Congratulations, thank you committee, representative Brawley you're recognized for an inquiry the Chair, I notice representative Murphy is wearing a coat but not wearing a tie, did we suspend the rules for him today? >> I believe representative Murphy is very welcome to be with us, and Dr. Murphy we are glad to see you in a tie today. I'll try to wear my dinner jacket next week and we'll try represent at the patient's well Representative Murphy, you are recognized for a response. >> Yes, sir. >> Ask Representative Browleyif he's had his exam this year. [LAUGH] And with that Representative Pendleton and let me say for the committee we welcome Representative Brigadier-General Pendleton to the stage. He is the co-Chair of our committee now and we wanna recognize that. We're thankful to have him and Representative Pendleton, you're recognized. >> Mr Chairman [INAUDIBLE] >> Yes, sir. Turn your microphone on, speak into the microphone and he would like to recognize a particular group. Representative Pendleton you're recognized. >> Psychiatrists back here. Some of them may be psychologist, I don't know. They've got white coats. Would you please stand so we can welcome you. >> [APPLAUSE] >> Follow up. >> We have [INAUDIBLE] to see if they'd like to do anything that Representative [INAUDIBLE]. >> Now that all the consultations have been scheduled after the committee, ladies and gentlemen this committee stands adjourned. Thank you.