Florida 'dangerous dog' bill: Parents of boy mauled to death by dogs optimistic bill will become law
The Brief
Florida lawmakers passed the "Pam Rock Act," aimed at tightening regulations on dangerous dogs after the deaths of Pam Rock and 8-year-old Michael Millett.
The law, awaiting Gov. Ron DeSantis' signature, would require dangerous dogs to be confined, microchipped, and insured.
Families of the victims vow to keep fighting for even tougher penalties against negligent dog owners.
DELAND, Fla, - Florida's dangerous dog bill is one step closer to becoming law. On Monday, the bill passed unanimously in the Florida Senate. The week before, it passed unanimously in the Florida House. Now, it heads to Governor Ron DeSantis' desk.
What we know
Florida's "Pam Rock Act," a bill aimed at strengthening regulations on dangerous dogs, has passed unanimously in both the state Senate and House. It now awaits Governor Ron DeSantis' signature.
The legislation would require owners of dangerous dogs to securely confine their animals, ensure they are microchipped, spayed or neutered, documented in a statewide registry, and covered by $100,000 in liability insurance. Law enforcement would also be granted the same authority as animal control officers under the law.
What we don't know
It is still uncertain whether Gov. DeSantis will officially sign the bill, although supporters remain hopeful. It's also unclear whether the law's current provisions will be enough to prevent future tragedies, with some, including Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood, arguing that stricter measures are still needed.
The backstory
The act is named for Pam Rock, a Putnam County mail carrier who was killed in 2022 by a pack of dogs with a known history of aggression. Michael Millett, an 8-year-old from Volusia County, was similarly mauled to death by two roaming dogs earlier this year. In both cases, no criminal charges have been filed against the dog owners. The families of both victims have now united to advocate for stronger legal protections.
Big picture view
The legislation represents a significant step in holding dog owners accountable in Florida, but advocates like Volusia County Sheriff Chitwood warn it's just the beginning. Community leaders and grieving families are calling for even harsher penalties in future legislation, recognizing that while the bill addresses immediate safety measures, broader change is still needed to protect residents.
What they're saying
The Pam Rock Act aims at strengthening regulations on dangerous dogs. The act is named after a Putnam County mail carrier who was brutally killed in 2022 by a pack of dogs – with a known vicious history. The Rock family is now partnering with Michael Millett's parents to fight for change. Michael, 8, was mauled to death by two dogs that were roaming his Volusia County neighborhood on January 13.
The new law can't change Michael's fate, but his parents, Michael Millett and Tiffani Connell said it could save another family from heartbreak.
"This is how we want him to be remembered," said Connell, pointing to photos of Michael on her T-shirt. "A smiling, happy, super funny, such an amazing little kid. Like just a little built-in best friend."
No charges have been filed in Michael or Pam's cases. Michael's parents say it's a connection they never wanted but are glad to have the support.
"Out of all people, they know how we feel," said Connell.
The law would require dangerous dogs be securely confined, microchipped, spayed or neutered, and documented in a statewide dangerous dog registry.
"It's almost more about holding the owner accountable, more so than the dog," said Millett.
The law would also mandate dangerous dog owners to have $100,000 in liability insurance, and it gives law enforcement officers the same authority as animal control officers. Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood said it doesn't go far enough.
"You shouldn't get a free pass because your animal never bit anybody before, and then it mauls a child to death," Chitwood said. "This is just the first step. You know there's a lot of other things we need to do to protect our residents from dangerous dogs."
Chitwood testified before lawmakers in Tallahassee advocating for the law. He said this case sticks with him.
"When I went to see Michael during the autopsy, it was one of the most horrific things that I've ever seen done to a child," Chitwood said.
Chitwood and Michael's parents hope to fight for harsher penalties for dangerous dog owners in the future. According to Millett and Connell, from their front door, they can see the house of the person who owned the dogs that killed Michael.
"They're free to live their lives and were suffering in the worst way possible," said Connell.
The dogs have been euthanized. Chitwood expects Governor DeSantis to sign off on the bill.
"How do you look at these families and know something was taken from them, that they'll never ever get back?" Chitwood asked. "Fingers crossed there's maybe a good chance that the Governor signs this by next week."
Millett and Connell said they would gladly make the trip back to Tallahassee to be there for the moment.
"Hopefully the Governor signs it, and then we can next year between us and the rock family will be up and Tallahassee again fighting for stricter laws," said Millett.
What's next
If passed, the law would go into effect July first.
STAY CONNECTED WITH FOX 35 ORLANDO:
Download the FOX Local app for breaking news alerts, the latest news headlines
Download the FOX 35 Storm Team Weather app for weather alerts & radar
Sign up for FOX 35's daily newsletter for the latest morning headlines
FOX Local:Stream FOX 35 newscasts, FOX 35 News+, Central Florida Eats on your smart TV
The Source
This story was written based on information shared by the Florida Legislature, Michael Millett and Tiffani Connell, and Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Twin federal proposals threaten provider taxes, key source of Medicaid funding for states
Republican efforts to restrict taxes on hospitals, health plans, and other providers that states use to help fund their Medicaid programs could strip them of tens of billions of dollars. The move could shrink access to health care for some of the nation's poorest and most vulnerable people, warn analysts, patient advocates, and Democratic political leaders. No state has more to lose than California, whose Medicaid program, called Medi-Cal, covers nearly 15 million residents with low incomes and disabilities. That's twice as many as New York and three times as many as Texas. A proposed rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, echoed in the Republicans' House reconciliation bill, could significantly curtail the federal dollars many states draw in matching funds from what are known as provider taxes. Although it's unclear how much states could lose, the revenue up for grabs is big. For instance, California has netted an estimated $8.8 billion this fiscal year from its tax on managed care plans and took in about $5.9 billion last year from hospitals. California Democrats are already facing a $12 billion deficit, and they have drawn political fire for scaling back some key health care policies, including full Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants without permanent legal status. And a loss of provider tax revenue could add billions to the current deficit, forcing state lawmakers to make even more unpopular cuts to Medi-Cal benefits. 'If Republicans move this extreme MAGA proposal forward, millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,' Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement, referring to President Donald Trump's 'Make America Great Again' movement. The proposals are also a threat to Proposition 35, a ballot initiative California voters approved last November to make permanent the tax on managed care organizations, or MCOs, and dedicate some of its proceeds to raise the pay of doctors and other providers who treat Medi-Cal patients. All states except Alaska have at least one provider tax on managed care plans, hospitals, nursing homes, emergency ground transportation, or other types of health care businesses. The federal government spends billions of dollars a year matching these taxes, which generally lead to more money for providers, helping them balance lower Medicaid reimbursement rates while allowing states to protect against economic downturns and budget constraints. New York, Massachusetts, and Michigan would also be among the states hit hard by Republicans' drive to scale back provider taxes, which allow states to boost their share of Medicaid spending to receive increased federal Medicaid funds. In a May 12 statement announcing its proposed rule, CMS described a 'loophole' as 'money laundering,' and said California had financed coverage for over 1.6 million 'illegal immigrants' with the proceeds from its MCO tax. CMS said its proposal would save more than $30 billion over five years. 'This proposed rule stops the shell game and ensures federal Medicaid dollars go where they're needed most — to pay for health care for vulnerable Americans who rely on this program, not to plug state budget holes or bankroll benefits for noncitizens,' Mehmet Oz, the CMS administrator, said in the statement. Medicaid allows coverage for noncitizens who are legally present and have been in the country for at least five years. And California uses state money to pay for almost all of the Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants who are not in the country legally. California, New York, Michigan, and Massachusetts together account for more than 95% of the 'federal taxpayer losses' from the loophole in provider taxes, CMS said. But nearly every state would feel some impact, especially under the provisions in the reconciliation bill, which are more restrictive than the CMS proposal. None of it is a done deal. The CMS proposal, published May 15, has not been adopted yet, and the reconciliation bill is likely to be altered significantly in the Senate. But the restrictions being contemplated would be far-reaching. A report by Michigan's Department of Health and Human Services, ordered by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, found that a reduction of revenue from the state's hospital tax could 'destabilize hospital finances, particularly in rural and safety-net facilities, and increase the risk of service cuts or closures.' Losing revenue from the state's MCO tax 'would likely require substantial cuts, tax increases, or reductions in coverage and access to care,' it said. CMS declined to respond to questions about its proposed rule. The Republicans' House-passed reconciliation bill, though not the CMS proposal, also prohibits any new provider taxes or increases to existing ones. The American Hospital Association, which represents nearly 5,000 hospitals and health systems nationwide, said the proposed moratorium on new or increased provider taxes could force states 'to make significant cuts to Medicaid to balance their budgets, including reducing eligibility, eliminating or limiting benefits, and reducing already low payment rates for providers.' Because provider taxes draw matching federal dollars, Washington has a say in how they are implemented. And the Republicans who run the federal government are looking to spend far fewer of those dollars. In California, the insurers that pay the MCO tax are reimbursed for the portion levied on their Medi-Cal enrollment. That helps explain why the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment is sharply higher than on commercial enrollment. Over 99% of the tax money the insurers pay comes from their Medi-Cal business, which means most of the state's insurers get back almost all the tax they pay. That imbalance, which CMS describes as a loophole, is one of the main things Republicans are trying to change. If either the CMS rule or the corresponding provisions in the House reconciliation bill were enacted, states would be required to levy provider taxes equally on Medicaid and commercial business to draw federal dollars. California would likely be unable to raise the commercial rates to the level of the Medi-Cal ones, because state law constrains the legislature's ability to do so. The only way to comply with the rule would be to lower the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment, which would sharply reduce revenue. CMS has warned California and other states for years, including under the Biden administration, that it was considering significant changes to MCO and other provider taxes. Those warnings were never realized. But the risk may be greater this time, some observers say, because the proposed changes are echoed in the House-passed reconciliation bill and intertwined with a broader Republican strategy — and set of proposals — to cut Medicaid spending by close to $800 billion. 'All of these proposals move in the same direction: fewer people enrolled, less generous Medicaid programs over time,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy. California's MCO tax is expected to net California $13.9 billion over the next two fiscal years, according to January estimates. The state's hospital tax is expected to bring in an estimated $9 billion this year, up sharply from last year, according to the Department of Health Care Services, which runs Medi-Cal. Losing a significant slice of that revenue on top of other Medicaid cuts in the House reconciliation bill 'all adds up to be potentially a super serious impact on Medi-Cal and the California state budget overall,' said Kayla Kitson, a senior policy fellow at the California Budget & Policy Center. And it's not only California that will feel the pain. 'All states are going to be hurt by this," Park said. Wolfson writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Florida's long-awaited budget cuts spending, saves money for future downturns
TALLAHASSEE — After weeks of infighting and stalled negotiations, Florida's legislative leaders released a slimmed-down budget for the next fiscal year on Friday. The $115.1 billion spending plan is supposed to limit what lawmakers say has been a trend of runaway spending in Tallahassee and counter uncertainty over federal funding from Washington. Lawmakers are slashing more than 1,700 vacant positions across state government and stashing millions of dollars for the state's rainy day fund, but are still funding priority projects with millions of dollars. 'We thought this day would never come, but it did,' Senate budget chairperson Ed Hooper said Friday. Lawmakers are set to vote on the budget Monday evening, ending one of the most contentious legislative sessions in recent memory and setting up a potential clash with Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. Unlike a typical year, where lawmakers produce a budget within Florida's usual 60-day session, lawmakers took 102 days to put together their final product. That's partly because legislators have been feuding with DeSantis since January, when he called lawmakers in for a special session to address immigration without any clear goals or proposed legislation. The three special sessions ate up critical time that would have been used to work on the budget. 'There were contributing factors that largely were out of the control of either chamber,' said Republican Rep. Lawrence McClure, the House budget chairperson. DeSantis, who has been ruthless in cutting lawmakers' projects in happy times, has until the end of this month to issue vetoes. Earlier this year, amid the feud with DeSantis, the House overrode some of his budget vetoes from last year. The Senate did not. Although lawmakers didn't give DeSantis everything he wanted in the amounts he wanted — including money for his priority Hope Florida program — they still gave him millions for the Florida State Guard and the Florida Job Growth Grant Fund. Millions also stayed with first lady Casey DeSantis' cancer research fund. The idea that 'the governor's priorities are being funded at a lower rate' is wrong, McClure said. Overall spending was smaller across the board, he said. Despite producing a smaller budget than the year prior, Florida's budget has still grown by more than 26% since DeSantis came into office in 2019. The budget's growth has outpaced population increases and often outpaced inflation. House Speaker Daniel Perez, R-Miami, pushed for a leaner budget this year, saying state government spending had swollen and run afoul of conservative values. 'We spend every new dime of recurring revenue while congratulating ourselves for giving easy-to-fund, non-recurring sales tax holidays,' Perez said on the opening day of the session in March. McClure blamed too much federal money in previous years for Florida's 'not sustainable' spending habits. About a third of the state's budget is federal money. But lawmakers are now facing a potentially abrupt reversal from the feds. Under President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress, federal lawmakers could pass major cuts to Medicaid, food assistance and other social programs. There are also discussions about ending the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Senate President Ben Albritton said that if the federal government cuts costs, he thinks Florida wouldn't be able to avoid shouldering some of the burden. State lawmakers are also preparing for a potential recession, socking away at least $750 million for the state's rainy day fund and proposing making the annual funding permanent through a constitutional amendment next year. The last time the fund was used was during the Great Recession, prompting lawmakers at the time to consider raising taxes. 'I never want a future Legislature to have to be in that position,' Perez said last week. But some Democrats have raised concerns about this year's budget tying the state's hands. 'I think that the state actually should be preparing to help carry its people through that tough time, not looking for ways to cut funding,' said House Democratic Leader Fentrice Driskell. House lawmakers this year took particular interest in DeSantis' spending habits and governance, focusing in part on the thousands of vacant positions across state agencies. To slim the budget, they're slashing many of those positions for the next year, including more than 1,000 in Florida's health care agencies, including the Department of Children and Families and the Department of Health. Lawmakers also set aside a smaller amount of money than usual for teacher and school employee raises — $100 million instead of previous years' roughly $250 million. And they're also not funding $2 million for DeSantis' Hope Florida program, which is supposed to steer constituents in need from state services to local churches and nonprofits. Lawmakers' scrutiny has caused DeSantis to rage against them in news conferences and online videos this year. But he's still getting much of what he requested. For the Florida Job Growth Grant Fund, lawmakers set aside $50 million, $25 million less than he wanted. A state cancer grant fund, backed by the first lady, got $60 million. And while the Legislature put more than $500 million toward the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, it fell short of the more than $600 million DeSantis wanted, with lawmakers pointing to how much of the prior funding remained unspent. Some of the ideas in the budget popped up in the final days of negotiations, including a $3 million fund to give grants to local jails that contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for immigration enforcement. The Florida Senate also put aside $23 million to fund the Florida State Guard, which DeSantis has used as a tool in his immigration enforcement and deportation plans. But Hooper, R-Clearwater, said that the funding had more to do with the possibility of FEMA being dissolved than it had to do with immigration enforcement. Both chambers together supported more than $100 million to increase the nursing home reimbursement rate. About $28 million will go toward a farmer food share program prioritized by Albritton, along with about $104 million for another priority of his: citrus research. Lawmakers this year are cutting taxes — but mostly for businesses. Legislative leaders are eliminating the business rent tax, saving companies across the state about $900 million per year. DeSantis also proposed eliminating it in his budget. They're not taking any action to reduce property taxes, however, and the House's plan for a sweeping sales tax cut has been whittled down to a limited sales tax reduction plan, which includes making the back-to-school sales tax holiday a permanent event every August and permanently exempting taxes on some items, like sunscreen and life jackets. Though lawmakers initially billed the tax package as being targeted to benefit Florida families, the final package exempts or reduces taxes on things like NASCAR tickets, card rooms and slot machine licensing fees. The final tax bill also sets aside $1 million for Florida's Office of Economic and Demographic Research to do a study on the state's property taxes. DeSantis has proposed cutting or eliminating property taxes, which could leave local governments without a critical revenue source. But he proposed no concrete ideas for how to do that. The governor in March offered a temporary plan to use $5 billion to give people a $1,000 homestead property tax rebate. But neither the House nor the Senate took up the idea. A month into the legislative session, Perez made a surprise announcement that the House wanted to cut the state's sales tax from 6% to 5.25%. It would have been the largest state tax cut in Florida's history, saving Floridians nearly $5 billion per year. But the Senate wouldn't go along with the plan. When asked why lawmakers decided to give businesses the largest tax break this year, Perez said the ultimate goal was to cut the amount of money lawmakers could spend. 'We have become accustomed to spending recurring dollars,' Perez said, adding: 'What we are trying to do is stop that from happening into the future.' Times reporter Jeffrey S. Solochek contributed to this report.
Los Angeles Times
36 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Twin federal proposals threaten provider taxes, key source of Medicaid funding for states
Republican efforts to restrict taxes on hospitals, health plans, and other providers that states use to help fund their Medicaid programs could strip them of tens of billions of dollars. The move could shrink access to health care for some of the nation's poorest and most vulnerable people, warn analysts, patient advocates, and Democratic political leaders. No state has more to lose than California, whose Medicaid program, called Medi-Cal, covers nearly 15 million residents with low incomes and disabilities. That's twice as many as New York and three times as many as Texas. A proposed rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, echoed in the Republicans' House reconciliation bill, could significantly curtail the federal dollars many states draw in matching funds from what are known as provider taxes. Although it's unclear how much states could lose, the revenue up for grabs is big. For instance, California has netted an estimated $8.8 billion this fiscal year from its tax on managed care plans and took in about $5.9 billion last year from hospitals. California Democrats are already facing a $12 billion deficit, and they have drawn political fire for scaling back some key health care policies, including full Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants without permanent legal status. And a loss of provider tax revenue could add billions to the current deficit, forcing state lawmakers to make even more unpopular cuts to Medi-Cal benefits. 'If Republicans move this extreme MAGA proposal forward, millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,' Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement, referring to President Donald Trump's 'Make America Great Again' movement. The proposals are also a threat to Proposition 35, a ballot initiative California voters approved last November to make permanent the tax on managed care organizations, or MCOs, and dedicate some of its proceeds to raise the pay of doctors and other providers who treat Medi-Cal patients. All states except Alaska have at least one provider tax on managed care plans, hospitals, nursing homes, emergency ground transportation, or other types of health care businesses. The federal government spends billions of dollars a year matching these taxes, which generally lead to more money for providers, helping them balance lower Medicaid reimbursement rates while allowing states to protect against economic downturns and budget constraints. New York, Massachusetts, and Michigan would also be among the states hit hard by Republicans' drive to scale back provider taxes, which allow states to boost their share of Medicaid spending to receive increased federal Medicaid funds. In a May 12 statement announcing its proposed rule, CMS described a 'loophole' as 'money laundering,' and said California had financed coverage for over 1.6 million 'illegal immigrants' with the proceeds from its MCO tax. CMS said its proposal would save more than $30 billion over five years. 'This proposed rule stops the shell game and ensures federal Medicaid dollars go where they're needed most — to pay for health care for vulnerable Americans who rely on this program, not to plug state budget holes or bankroll benefits for noncitizens,' Mehmet Oz, the CMS administrator, said in the statement. Medicaid allows coverage for noncitizens who are legally present and have been in the country for at least five years. And California uses state money to pay for almost all of the Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants who are not in the country legally. California, New York, Michigan, and Massachusetts together account for more than 95% of the 'federal taxpayer losses' from the loophole in provider taxes, CMS said. But nearly every state would feel some impact, especially under the provisions in the reconciliation bill, which are more restrictive than the CMS proposal. None of it is a done deal. The CMS proposal, published May 15, has not been adopted yet, and the reconciliation bill is likely to be altered significantly in the Senate. But the restrictions being contemplated would be far-reaching. A report by Michigan's Department of Health and Human Services, ordered by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, found that a reduction of revenue from the state's hospital tax could 'destabilize hospital finances, particularly in rural and safety-net facilities, and increase the risk of service cuts or closures.' Losing revenue from the state's MCO tax 'would likely require substantial cuts, tax increases, or reductions in coverage and access to care,' it said. CMS declined to respond to questions about its proposed rule. The Republicans' House-passed reconciliation bill, though not the CMS proposal, also prohibits any new provider taxes or increases to existing ones. The American Hospital Association, which represents nearly 5,000 hospitals and health systems nationwide, said the proposed moratorium on new or increased provider taxes could force states 'to make significant cuts to Medicaid to balance their budgets, including reducing eligibility, eliminating or limiting benefits, and reducing already low payment rates for providers.' Because provider taxes draw matching federal dollars, Washington has a say in how they are implemented. And the Republicans who run the federal government are looking to spend far fewer of those dollars. In California, the insurers that pay the MCO tax are reimbursed for the portion levied on their Medi-Cal enrollment. That helps explain why the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment is sharply higher than on commercial enrollment. Over 99% of the tax money the insurers pay comes from their Medi-Cal business, which means most of the state's insurers get back almost all the tax they pay. That imbalance, which CMS describes as a loophole, is one of the main things Republicans are trying to change. If either the CMS rule or the corresponding provisions in the House reconciliation bill were enacted, states would be required to levy provider taxes equally on Medicaid and commercial business to draw federal dollars. California would likely be unable to raise the commercial rates to the level of the Medi-Cal ones, because state law constrains the legislature's ability to do so. The only way to comply with the rule would be to lower the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment, which would sharply reduce revenue. CMS has warned California and other states for years, including under the Biden administration, that it was considering significant changes to MCO and other provider taxes. Those warnings were never realized. But the risk may be greater this time, some observers say, because the proposed changes are echoed in the House-passed reconciliation bill and intertwined with a broader Republican strategy — and set of proposals — to cut Medicaid spending by close to $800 billion. 'All of these proposals move in the same direction: fewer people enrolled, less generous Medicaid programs over time,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy. California's MCO tax is expected to net California $13.9 billion over the next two fiscal years, according to January estimates. The state's hospital tax is expected to bring in an estimated $9 billion this year, up sharply from last year, according to the Department of Health Care Services, which runs Medi-Cal. Losing a significant slice of that revenue on top of other Medicaid cuts in the House reconciliation bill 'all adds up to be potentially a super serious impact on Medi-Cal and the California state budget overall,' said Kayla Kitson, a senior policy fellow at the California Budget & Policy Center. And it's not only California that will feel the pain. 'All states are going to be hurt by this,' Park said. Wolfson writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
