13

THE MALDEN ADVOCATE–Friday, July 26, 2024 Page 13 BHRC | FROM PAGE 12 firearms in additional public spaces like schools, polling places and government buildings;expanding the 2018 "red flag" law that allows school administrators and licensed health care providers to petition a court to temporarily take firearms away from someone deemed a threat to themselves or others; closing loopholes that allow the modification of legal firearms into illegal automatic weapons; and providing a legacy clause so all firearms legally owned and registered in Massachusetts as of the effective date of the bill will continue to be legal and may be bought and sold within the state. “Today, as we consistently do in the area of firearm safety, we take the lead in making the commonwealth a safer place to live by giving law enforcement the tools they need to go after ghost guns, keeping battlefield weapons out of our neighborhoods and keep our schools, homes, town halls and polling locations safe,” said Rep. Mike Day (D-Stoneham), House Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary. “While Washington is paralyzed by dysfunction that endangers Americans across the country, we in Massachusetts address our challenges directly and take the steps necessary to modernize our firearm laws to keep us safe.” “In the decade since we last updated Massachusetts’ gun statues, our nation and our commonwealth have continued to be rocked by mass shootings and gun tragedies at an alarming rate,” said Majority Leader Sen. Cindy Creem (D-Newton).“This legislation proactively addresses the root causes of gun crime to curb the epidemic of violence and prevent tragedy before it strikes. It does so by ensuring that ghost guns, Glock switches and assault-style firearms are kept off our streets and out of the wrong hands.” “While we all share the same fundamental goal: to ensure the safety and well-being of our families, our neighbors and our communities, it is critical that we approach it with a balanced perspective that respects Constitutional rights while striving for effective solutions that target violent crime,” said Rep. Joe McKenna (R-Sutton). “Unfortunately, the legislation passed, while well-intentioned, did not achieve that goal.The reality is that the commonwealth already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. As a result, those who choose to exercise their Second Amendment Constitutional rights have jumped through hoops for decades to remain law-abiding citizens. Meanwhile, those intent on committing violence -- and doing so with a firearm -- will continue to have no regard for these proposed laws or for those already on the books.” "We were given less than 24-hours to read a 116-page bill with potentially serious legal repercussions for lawful firearm owners in a state that already has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton).“An overwhelming number of my constituents reached out to my office expressing their opposition to this legislation and their concerns about the lack of transparency regarding this bill throughout the entire legislative process. This bill unfairly punishes law-abiding gun owners and doesn't do enough to address the root cause of gun violence in our communities." (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Paul Donato Yes Rep. Steven Ultrino Yes Sen. Jason Lewis Yes CLEAN ENERGY (H 4884) House 131-25, approved a bill that supporters said would increase the state’s supply of clean energy by setting new renewable energy generation storage procurement targets, and by streamlining the state and local permitting process. The Senate has already approved a different version of the measure and a House-Senate conference committee will hammer out a compromise version. Provisions include streamlining the permitting process for small clean energy projects under 25 megawatts and small energy storage systems under 100 megawatt-hours by allowing project developers to submit a permit application seeking a single permit that consolidates all necessary local permits and approvals. Municipalities would retain permitting authority over these projects and would be required to issue a single, final decision within 12 months of the receipt of a complete permit application. "The legislation passed by the House today is a historic and necessary step forward for the commonwealth at this juncture in our energy transition," said Rep. Jeff Roy (D-Franklin), House Chair of the Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy. "Reforming the siting and permitting process will allow for the swift development of the clean energy generation we need to reach our climate goals, and the rapid build-out of the transmission infrastructure that will power our electrified clean energy future. Setting procurement targets for clean energy and energy storage and incentivizing the adoption of innovative climate technologies will ensure that the buildout of our clean energy infrastructure is accomplished efficiently and equitably and is supportive of consumers and ratepayers." “This legislation represents the House’s fervent, continued commitment to meeting Massachusetts’ long-term emission reduction targets, as it builds on the work that the Legislature has already done to modernize the commonwealth’s energy grid, increase clean energy generation, and to combat the climate crisis,” said House Speaker Ron Mariano (D-Quincy). “The bill makes significant changes to the local siting and permitting processes for clean energy infrastructure projects, some of which undermines local control,” said Rep. Kelly Pease (R-Westfield) who voted against the bill. “This expedited process is great for energy suppliers, but not necessarily for local communities.” “[The bill] was intended to streamline and accelerate permitting for renewable energy projects, but it did not add important safeguards I requested to make sure that projects are built safely and sustainable,” said Rep. Steven Xiarhos (R-Barnstable).“Communities across Cape Cod are expressing concern over the possible health, safety, environmental and financial effects of these projects. Ultimately, I believe this bill was not in the best interests of the people of the Fifth Barnstable District, who support clean energy generally but who want assurances about the safety of this infrastructure.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Paul Donato Yes Rep. Steven Ultrino Yes HEALTH CARE CHANGES (S 2871) Senate 38-2, approved a bill that supporters said includes urgent reforms to the state’s health care system to boost oversight and transparency in the market, improve patient access to prescribed medication and treatment and plug holes in oversight of hospitals, especially for-profit systems like the bankrupt Steward Health Care. The House has already approved a different version of the measure and a House-Senate conference committee will hammer out a compromise version. Provisions in the Senate version include expanding oversight of private equity firms, real estate investment trusts and management services organizations involved with Massachusetts health care providers; requiring a new insurance carrier to honor any prior authorizations approved by a previous carrier for at least 90 days following a patient’s enrollment in the new health plan; establishing a health insurance bureau within the Division of Insurance to conduct rate reviews of premium rates for health benefit plans and disseminate information to consumers about health insurance coverage; and establishing licensing structures for certain health care providers currently not licensed, and not subject to Department of Public Health oversight, including office-based surgical centers, urgent care centers, and health care practices. “Massachusetts is the health care capital of the world because we take seriously our responsibility to invest in and protect our systems, providers and patients,” said Senate President Karen Spilka (D-Ashland). “As we stare down a health care market plagued by high costs and the fallout from private equity mismanagement, the Senate has doubled down on our responsibility to our residents, making us a national leader in safeguarding patients, expanding access to car and holding private equity accountable.” “I’m pleased that the Senate has taken an expansive overhaul of the commonwealth’s struggling health care system with this regulatory redress bill,” said Sen. Mike Rodrigues (D-Westport), Chair of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. “The collapse of Steward Health Care shows us that it’s now time to reform the system and make transparent the process of costs in relation to services rendered to patients. While Massachusetts is known throughout the world as providing the very best in health care, this legislation will make that care more affordable and accessible.” Sen. Mark Pacheco (D-Taunton), one of two senators to vote against the bill, said that his vote was designed to send a message protesting the lack of action from the Legislature to prepare for the threat the Steward crisis poses to healthcare access in Massachusetts. “Though I support provisions found in this bill, I believe it is important that the Legislature be more proactive as this Steward crisis unfolds," said Pacheco. "Except for senators who have Steward facilities in their district, there was not an appetite to do that, and that is what led to my 'no' vote to protest the lack of protections the Senate bill should have required. This is a message that we are not doing enough to ensure that patients have access to the important care that these facilities should be able to provide." (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Jason Lewis Yes DUAL ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS (S 2871) Senate 7-32, rejcted an amendment that would allow dually eligible individuals, also known as duals, who qualify for Medicare and MassHealth, to access care from any specialist or hospital enrolled in Medicare or MassHealth. “The adoption of this amendment would ensure that dually eligible individuals can receive necessary healthcare services without being restricted by provider network limitations,” said amendment sponsor Sen. Mark Pacheco (D-Taunton). “This provision maintains continuity of care, prevents sudden disruptions in services and ensures that duals, who often have long-standing relationships with providers managing their complex health and functional needs, are not forced to lose access due to network disruptions.” Amendment opponents said a separate bill, similar to this amendment, was shipped off to a study committee because there are not yet sufficient estimates of the cost of the bill and other problem relating to it. Sen. Cindy Friedman (D-Arlington), the Senate chair of the Committee on Healthcare Financing, did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call asking her to comment on her opposition to the amendment. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Jason Lewis No FINANCIAL INSOLVENCY (S 2871) Senate 10-30, rejected an amendment that would allow the Executive Branch to take immediate control of a healthcare provider’s assets in cases of the provider’s financial insolvency. The Executive Office of Health and Human Services would also play a part in developing a pathway, through regulations, to stabilize healthcare providers. “We must safeguard the healthcare services our communities rely on, even in the face of financial challenges faced by providers,” said amendment sponsor Sen. Mark Pacheco. “We are in a moment of tremendous uncertainty about the future of Steward Health Care. If Steward hospitals were to close, hundreds of thousands of people in the commonwealth would be at risk of living in a healthcare desert. This crisis goes beyond dollars and cents. It is a matter of life and death.” Pacheco said he will continue to push the Legislature to create a plan in order to protect patients in case negotiations between Steward, the courts and the Executive Branch lead to the closure of facilities. Amendment opponents said the amendment should be rejected because no one has any idea of the cost of the amendment, which they said would be very expensive. Sen. Cindy Friedman (D-Arlington), the Senate chair of the Committee on Healthcare Financing, did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call asking her to comment on her opposition to the amendment. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Jason Lewis No DRUG COUPONS (S 2871) Senate 6-33, rejected an amendment extending until 2030 the current law, due to expire in 2026, that allows consumers to use coupons to get discounts and rebates when purchasing prescription drugs. In 2012, Massachusetts was the last state to lift a ban on the use of prescription coupons. Amendment supporters said this program helps some consumers to save up to 80 percent of the costs of prescription. They said the program has worked well and should be extended to 2030 or be made premanent. Amendment opponents said the program does not expire until 2026 and it is unnecessary to extend the program right now. Some argued that the use of coupons drives up health care costs by luring consumers and encouraging them to request highpriced brand name medication. Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester), the sponsor of the amendment, did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him to comment on his support for the amendment. Sen. Cindy Friedman (D-Arlington), the Senate chair of the Committee on Healthcare Financing, did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call asking her to comment on her opposition to the amendment. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment extending the use of coupons. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Jason Lewis No ALSO UP ON BEACON HILL VOTE BY MAIL APPLICATIONS – Secretary of State Bill Galvin told voters this week to check their mail for an official 2024 Vote By Mail Application. His office is sending applications to all registered voters who have not already applied for a state primary ballot. Voters who already applied earlier this year will not receive another application. Any voter who wants to vote by mail in their party’s September 3 primary can use this pre-addressed, postage pre-paid application to request their ballot. Unenrolled voters, also known as “independents,” can vote in either party primary but they must indicate their party ballot selection on the application. “These applications will look very similar to the ones that were sent to voters in January, ahead of the presidential primaries,” said Galvin. “You will only receive an application if you haven’t already applied, or if you didn’t make a party selection on your previous application. If you prefer to vote in person, early voting for the state primaries begins August 24th, Applications being mailed to voters this week allow a voter to apply for a September Primary ballot, a November general election ballot, or both. Voters who prefer to apply online may do so at www.VoteInMA.com PET CEMETERIES (H 4206) – The House has shipped off to a study committee a measure that would require the owner of any property used or to be used for a pet cemetery to file in the Registry of Deeds a dedication restricting the property to be used only for the operation of a pet cemetery. Bills that are sent to a study committee bills are rarely actually studied and are essentially defeated. It is a way to kill a proposal without holding a vote on the bill itself. Supporters say the bill would preserve existing pet cemeteries by preventing the construction and development on the property that is or holds out to be a pet cemetery. "Our pets hold a special place in our hearts, and the places where they are laid to rest deserve the same level of reverence and protection as any other memorial site,” said sponsor Rep. Rodney Elliott (D-Lowell). “This legislation ensures that pet cemeteries are upheld with the dignity and respect they deserve." BILLS STUCK IN COMMITTEE – These three bills were all given initial approval by the House in April but have not moved since. They are stuck in the Bills in Third Reading Committee. EXPAND PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENTS FOR POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS (H 2890) - Would expand the current law which provides a property tax abatement to the surviving spouses and minor children of police officers and firefighters “killed in the line of duty.” The bill provides that the abatement also go to the families of officers who “died in the line of duty.” “Killed in the line of duty” has a limited definition usually meaning the individual lost their life in an incident, accident or due to violence that are directly related to their service. “Died in the line of duty” is broader and can account for a number of medical emerBHRC| SEE PAGE 14

14 Publizr Home