logo
#

Latest news with #AssemblyCommitteeonCommerceandLabor

Industries line up to tear down proposal to rein in price-fixing
Industries line up to tear down proposal to rein in price-fixing

Yahoo

time07-03-2025

  • Business
  • Yahoo

Industries line up to tear down proposal to rein in price-fixing

"This bill does not cap in any kind of way how much someone can charge for something as long as they aren't knowingly, fraudulently or deceptively engaging in conduct" said the bill's sponsor, Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford. Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford this week said his proposed legislation to crack down on 'knowingly deceptive' price fixing would bolster consumer protections and that opposition from industry groups are relying on 'a bit of hyperbole' to attack it. 'If you're not being deceptive, if you're not being fraudulent, this bill would not apply to you,' Ford said. 'If you are using deceptive and fraudulent means to manipulate the price of necessities beyond those basic forces of supply and demand, this bill speaks directly to your activities.' Assembly Bill 44, heard Wednesday at the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor, expands the state's existing Unfair Trade Practice Act to include knowingly deceptive price fixing of essential goods and services. The bill defines essential goods as those 'needed on a daily or recurring basis for the livelihood of a person,' including 'food, medicine and shelter.' An amendment proposed prior to the hearing tweaked the definition to include 'food purchased for off-premises consumption, clothing and footwear, gasoline and other energy goods, pharmaceutical and other medical products, housing, household utilities, ground transportation, telecommunication services, and internet access.' Ford told state lawmakers he was working on an additional amendment but didn't offer details of what it would include. He said the efforts to crack down on price fixing came from concerns about the increased cost of housing. Landlords and property owners have come under fire in recent years for using rent-fixing software to artificially raise the price of rents. Real estate software companies, like RealPage, have been sued by several state attorneys general and the federal government in the last year. RealPage has denied wrongdoing in these cases. Nevada has not taken action against RealPage. 'We learned of rental prices being increased by virtue of some unfair and illegal price fixing tactics,' Ford said. 'We learned about that through not only complaints from our constituents but also from other attorneys general who are prosecuting agencies and entities that are engaging in that in their practice.' The cost of living, the state's 'consistently high unemployment rate' and the potential of cuts to the federal social safety net programs such as Medicaid being considered by congressional Republicans are putting 'both the health and financial livelihoods of so many Nevadans at risk,' Ford said. During times of financial stress, he added, it's easy for people to be exploited through deceptive practices including price fixing. While the state does have a mechanism to go after some industries that engage in price fixing under the Nevada Unfair Trade Practice Act, he said the office was seeking more specific language to give them additional tools. 'This bill would fill current holes in statutes that have proven insufficient to stop these practices from occurring,' Ford said. Multiple times during the hearing, Ford reiterated the bill wouldn't apply to businesses that have to increase prices because of inflation, supply chain disruptions or operational costs. Still, many concerns around the bill stemmed from how the legislation would affect small businesses. Republican Assemblymember Melissa Hardy, a former small business owner, questioned how the bill would affect businesses that have to raise prices 'because our rent went way up, or our products increased substantially.' Ford said the scenario described was a basic instance of supply and demand. 'The threshold question for this bill is whether there has been knowingly fraudulent activity,' he said. Ford used the example of a small business owner raising prices because the commercial space they occupy raised the rent. If the property owner colluded with other landlords or price-fixing algorithms to raise the rent for the small business owner, Ford said, the landlord 'might fall within the bill' but 'raising your prices because of your rent increase would not.' The Vegas Chamber, Retail Association of Nevada, T-Mobile, AT&T, Nevada Realtors and the Nevada State Apartment Association were among the many industry groups opposed to the bill. They labeled the legislation as overly broad, 'government price control' and government 'overreach.' One went as far as saying efforts to prevent deceptive price fixing would 'impose rent control.' 'The manipulation of price prevention, while it mentions fraudulent or deceptive conduct, will make normal, everyday market activities legally suspect,' said Miranda Hoover, a lobbyist with the Energy & Convenience Association of Nevada. The bill would mean 'raising prices for any reason could bring legal action and result in liability.' Ford called their statements hyperbolic. 'We are talking about engaging in knowingly and deceptive conduct,' he said. 'That's the threshold. We don't get to the question about how much the price has increased … This bill does not cap in any kind of way how much someone can charge for something as long as they aren't knowingly, fraudulently or deceptively engaging in conduct. You can charge what you want to charge.' He reminded lawmakers that some of the same groups against his bill also opposed efforts to restrict price gouging during a state of emergency. AB 44 also includes price fixing by utilities, but the legislation exempts utilities that are already regulated by the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada. Several Democratic lawmakers questioned the strength of the provision and whether all the state's utilities would essentially be exempt under this provision. 'I can't think of any that are not already regulated,' Democratic Assemblymember Elaine Marzola said. Ford said telecommunications providers, like AT&T and T-Mobile, were deregulated in the state. It is 'not beyond the pale of imagination that an entity that right now is regulated may no longer be regulated,' he added. The Nevada Coalition of Legal Service Providers was the lone organization to testify in support of the bill. 'This is about scammers trying to fleece Nevadans,' said Jonathan Norman, the coalition's advocacy, outreach and policy director. 'When I think of the consumers we see, the people coming into our offices, they almost uniformly, no matter the issue, had economic harm happen to them. We appreciate any bill that stands up for those consumers' The committee took no action on the bill.

Industries line up to tear down proposal to rein in price-fixing
Industries line up to tear down proposal to rein in price-fixing

Yahoo

time07-03-2025

  • Business
  • Yahoo

Industries line up to tear down proposal to rein in price-fixing

"This bill does not cap in any kind of way how much someone can charge for something as long as they aren't knowingly, fraudulently or deceptively engaging in conduct" said the bill's sponsor, Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford. Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford this week said his proposed legislation to crack down on 'knowingly deceptive' price fixing would bolster consumer protections and that opposition from industry groups are relying on 'a bit of hyperbole' to attack it. 'If you're not being deceptive, if you're not being fraudulent, this bill would not apply to you,' Ford said. 'If you are using deceptive and fraudulent means to manipulate the price of necessities beyond those basic forces of supply and demand, this bill speaks directly to your activities.' Assembly Bill 44, heard Wednesday at the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor, expands the state's existing Unfair Trade Practice Act to include knowingly deceptive price fixing of essential goods and services. The bill defines essential goods as those 'needed on a daily or recurring basis for the livelihood of a person,' including 'food, medicine and shelter.' An amendment proposed prior to the hearing tweaked the definition to include 'food purchased for off-premises consumption, clothing and footwear, gasoline and other energy goods, pharmaceutical and other medical products, housing, household utilities, ground transportation, telecommunication services, and internet access.' Ford told state lawmakers he was working on an additional amendment but didn't offer details of what it would include. He said the efforts to crack down on price fixing came from concerns about the increased cost of housing. Landlords and property owners have come under fire in recent years for using rent-fixing software to artificially raise the price of rents. Real estate software companies, like RealPage, have been sued by several state attorneys general and the federal government in the last year. RealPage has denied wrongdoing in these cases. Nevada has not taken action against RealPage. 'We learned of rental prices being increased by virtue of some unfair and illegal price fixing tactics,' Ford said. 'We learned about that through not only complaints from our constituents but also from other attorneys general who are prosecuting agencies and entities that are engaging in that in their practice.' The cost of living, the state's 'consistently high unemployment rate' and the potential of cuts to the federal social safety net programs such as Medicaid being considered by congressional Republicans are putting 'both the health and financial livelihoods of so many Nevadans at risk,' Ford said. During times of financial stress, he added, it's easy for people to be exploited through deceptive practices including price fixing. While the state does have a mechanism to go after some industries that engage in price fixing under the Nevada Unfair Trade Practice Act, he said the office was seeking more specific language to give them additional tools. 'This bill would fill current holes in statutes that have proven insufficient to stop these practices from occurring,' Ford said. Multiple times during the hearing, Ford reiterated the bill wouldn't apply to businesses that have to increase prices because of inflation, supply chain disruptions or operational costs. Still, many concerns around the bill stemmed from how the legislation would affect small businesses. Republican Assemblymember Melissa Hardy, a former small business owner, questioned how the bill would affect businesses that have to raise prices 'because our rent went way up, or our products increased substantially.' Ford said the scenario described was a basic instance of supply and demand. 'The threshold question for this bill is whether there has been knowingly fraudulent activity,' he said. Ford used the example of a small business owner raising prices because the commercial space they occupy raised the rent. If the property owner colluded with other landlords or price-fixing algorithms to raise the rent for the small business owner, Ford said, the landlord 'might fall within the bill' but 'raising your prices because of your rent increase would not.' The Vegas Chamber, Retail Association of Nevada, T-Mobile, AT&T, Nevada Realtors and the Nevada State Apartment Association were among the many industry groups opposed to the bill. They labeled the legislation as overly broad, 'government price control' and government 'overreach.' One went as far as saying efforts to prevent deceptive price fixing would 'impose rent control.' 'The manipulation of price prevention, while it mentions fraudulent or deceptive conduct, will make normal, everyday market activities legally suspect,' said Miranda Hoover, a lobbyist with the Energy & Convenience Association of Nevada. The bill would mean 'raising prices for any reason could bring legal action and result in liability.' Ford called their statements hyperbolic. 'We are talking about engaging in knowingly and deceptive conduct,' he said. 'That's the threshold. We don't get to the question about how much the price has increased … This bill does not cap in any kind of way how much someone can charge for something as long as they aren't knowingly, fraudulently or deceptively engaging in conduct. You can charge what you want to charge.' He reminded lawmakers that some of the same groups against his bill also opposed efforts to restrict price gouging during a state of emergency. AB 44 also includes price fixing by utilities, but the legislation exempts utilities that are already regulated by the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada. Several Democratic lawmakers questioned the strength of the provision and whether all the state's utilities would essentially be exempt under this provision. 'I can't think of any that are not already regulated,' Democratic Assemblymember Elaine Marzola said. Ford said telecommunications providers, like AT&T and T-Mobile, were deregulated in the state. It is 'not beyond the pale of imagination that an entity that right now is regulated may no longer be regulated,' he added. The Nevada Coalition of Legal Service Providers was the lone organization to testify in support of the bill. 'This is about scammers trying to fleece Nevadans,' said Jonathan Norman, the coalition's advocacy, outreach and policy director. 'When I think of the consumers we see, the people coming into our offices, they almost uniformly, no matter the issue, had economic harm happen to them. We appreciate any bill that stands up for those consumers' The committee took no action on the bill.

Medical field needs more training like cultural competency, not less, Nevada lawmakers argue
Medical field needs more training like cultural competency, not less, Nevada lawmakers argue

Yahoo

time11-02-2025

  • Health
  • Yahoo

Medical field needs more training like cultural competency, not less, Nevada lawmakers argue

LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — A proposal to encourage — not require — medical practitioners to get training in subjects ranging from suicide prevention to cultural competency drew an extremely cold reaction from lawmakers on Monday. 'Offensive' is the word members of the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor used to describe Assembly Bill 56 (AB56). Presented as a way to simplify and streamline ongoing training requirements for doctors, physician assistants and anesthesiology assistants, AB56 is a collaboration of Nevada's boards for medical examiners and osteopathic medicine. Sarah Bradley, executive director of the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners, gave lawmakers a summary of how the bill would reward medical professionals by giving them double-credit. But they were having none of her explanation. Democratic Assemblymember Daniele Monroe-Moreno said if the medical community was taking the training as required, there would be no need to look for ways to encourage it. 'When you say encourage, encourage, encourage … if the physicians and the occupations that this bill refers to were already taking the courses that this body required them to take, you wouldn't have to encourage them to do it,' Monroe-Moreno said. Constituents informed lawmakers of the medical profession's failures, she said. A letter from the Nevada State Medical Association also expressed concern about fee adjustments proposed in AB56. The bill seeks a change from license renewal every year to a biennial (once every two years) renewal. Because of that change, the license fee would be doubled — at least. The current $800 cap on licensure fees would grow to $1,200. Bradley said that fee hadn't been adjusted since 1997. The medical association sees that as a possible barrier to bringing in more doctors. In addition to cultural competency, which had several lawmakers' attention, the currently required training also includes guidance on prescribing opioids, dealing with addictive patients, recognizing suicide risks and other courses related to terrorism and terrorism reporting. 'We have a huge problem in our state. We have a huge opioid addiction problem. Our mental health issues here are out of this world and obviously cultural competency is very, very important in our state,' Committee Chair Elaine Marzola (D-Las Vegas), said. 'So to sit here and read this bill, and it be suggested that we go into an 'encourage' model instead of required, I'm a bit confused,' Marzola said. Assemblymember Selena Torres-Fossett said the 2023 Legislature agreed not to increase cultural competency training for psychiatrists from four hours to six. She said she regrets that now. 'I'm going to be honest. I think this bill is quite offensive. You're proposing changes that the Legislature has made in the last three sessions, including the elimination of cultural competency.' When Bradley said the training is directed at some medical personnel who don't see patients, Assemblymember Sandra Jauregui said those employees are 'public-facing' and should get the training that was being targeted in this bill. Monroe-Moreno suggested that Bradley take AB56 back to the boards and consider changing the language so there could be a better discussion of possibly moving forward on some of the ideas. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store