Latest news with #HB477
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Montana governor vetoes bill that would phase out styrofoam use in food industry
Top view of a stack of polystyrene containers (number 6 plastic). Gov. Greg Gianforte went beyond the regular duties of his office — sending a letter to lawmakers informing them of the reasons he vetoed a bill — and shared a video on social media explaining why he didn't sign a measure that would have phased out the use of styrofoam in the food industry. 'This bill would create a new government program costing $300,000,' said Republican Gianforte in the video on May 5, the day he vetoed the bill. 'The state banning styrofoam is costly government overreach, and like many Montanans, I enjoy hot coffee in a styrofoam cup, because it keeps it hot. And this bill is a hot mess.' But the sponsor of House Bill 477, Rep. Marilyn Marler, D-Missoula, said she didn't think the governor understood what the law actually intended — protecting human health and the environment. 'What he said was wrong. He was trying to be bombastic,' Marler told the Daily Montanan. 'He put more effort into his silly video than in trying to understand the bill.' House Bill 477 would have created a five-year phaseout of expanded polystyrene foam — commonly called 'styrofoam' — containers used in serving or packaging food from restaurants and food establishments. The phase out, which would have applied to roughly 7,500 establishments in Montana, would have included coffee cups, plates, trays and other food and drink containers. It would not have applied to other industries, such as packaging and shipping products, which the bill sponsor and other proponents said was intended to address some of the direct harms of styrofoam. Studies have shown that hot, fatty and acidic conditions — for example a takeout container of pork carnitas — can cause styrofoam to leach chemicals into food, increasing the amount ingested and contributing to the growing number of microplastics found throughout human bodies. Styrene and other chemicals found in food packaging have been linked to cancer, hormone disruption and other chronic health conditions, a fact that created a diverse coalition of supporters for HB 477. Sen. Daniel Zolnikov, R-Billings, carried the bill through the Senate and described himself as a 'Make America Healthy Again Republican.' 'I don't think people realize the fact that it leaches into food,' he told the Daily Montanan. 'Change is hard, but children have these chemicals leaching into their food, and we just know more about that than we used to. It seemed like a logical thing since we've realized how unhealthy it is.' Zolnikov said it was worth getting the bill through the Legislature, but that the governor's veto was 'probably to be expected.' House lawmakers passed the bill 56-44 in March, and the Senate passed the bill 26-24 in April. All Democrats and a total 26 Republicans voted for the bill, and Marler said many businesses had supported the bill. But Gianforte, in his veto letter, said that styrofoam bans and 'hyper-regulation' are features found in progressive blue states — such as Oregon, Washington California and New York — and don't belong in Montana. Calling it 'textbook government overreach,' Gianforte said banning styrofoam would increase costs for restaurants and consumers and create a new government program at the Department of Environmental Quality. 'I'd prefer to keep government limited, not grow it unnecessarily,' he wrote. Marler also said Gianforte misrepresented the cost of the bill, which would not have come from taxpayer funds. Instead, it would have come from an existing Solid Waste Management Account funded by fees paid by businesses seeking exemption from the phase-out, or by fines levied by DEQ. Roughly $75,000 a year would have paid for a part-time employee to oversee parts of the program. Gianforte's veto letter also questioned why the legislation was aimed at only the food industry, which 'seems inconsistent with the purported purpose of House BIll 477.' Marler said she tried to set up a meeting with the Governor to help talk about the bill after it passed the Legislature, but never heard anything back. 'I just feel that if he had looked at the vote count and seen the variety of people who voted for it and asked just one question, he would have heard that people were really concerned about the health effects,' Marler said. In addition to House Bill 477, Gianforte has vetoed one other bill as of Tuesday afternoon, House Bill 607, sponsored by Democrat Paul Tuss, to expand insurance coverage for hearing loss. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Bill allowing Alfa health benefit plans passes Alabama Senate
Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, speaks to a colleague on the floor of the Alabama Senate on April 3, 2025 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. The Alabama Senate Thursday approved a bill handled by Orr in the Senate that would allow the Alabama Farmers Federation to sell health care plans to members. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector) The Alabama Senate passed a bill Thursday to allow the state's dominant agricultural organization to offer its members health benefit plans. HB 477, sponsored by Rep. David Faulkner, R-Mountain Brook, would allow the Alabama Farmers Federation (Alfa), the state's dominant agricultural organization, to offer a health plan that is outside of state insurance regulations and only available to its members. The bill passed 30-2 and heads to the governor. Supporters said the legislation would help farmers and other self-employed agricultural workers who do not have access to employer-sponsored plans to get more affordable coverage. 'If we don't do something to help our young farmers out, we're not going to have any because they've got to go to work somewhere else just to get insurance,' said Sen. Jack Williams, R-Wilmer. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The bill specifies that Alfa would not be engaged in the business of health insurance and imposes a 1.3% tax on premiums. Alfa's health benefits must include coverage for ambulatory patient services; hospitalization; emergency services; laboratory services; mental health and substance abuse disorder services and prescription drugs. Benefits or services covered under a health benefit would not be subject to an annual limit of less than $2 million per year per enrollee. 'This is a freedom-of-contract issue … it's a simple issue in my in my head, as far as the freedom to contract, freedom to do what you want, and have a an organization enter into this type of arrangement with its members for some form of health coverage,' said Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, who is handling the bill in the Senate. Democrats tried to amend the bill on the floor to align the proposed health benefit plan more with health insurance, but each amendment was voted down due to concerns about keeping the price of the health plans low. Sen. Linda Coleman-Madison, D-Birmingham, who said she was concerned about denied claims and how consumers could appeal such denials, offered an amendment that would have authorized the Alabama Department of Insurance to 'enforce' the bill in order to offer consumer protection. Similar language was added in an amendment to the original House bill but later removed from it. 'What happens to the health services when an emergency claim is denied? Who do the farmers go to get some kind of mediation?' asked Coleman-Madison. The amendment failed on a 9-24 vote. Sen. Bobby Singleton, D-Greensboro, raised concerns about pre-existing conditions and the potential impact on farmers. He said that farmers may work around substances like ammonia, which may negatively impact their health. '[Farmers] want to get insured, because they all are supporting this plan, but they going to be in for some rude awakening when they go there and get their record check, and now they have some kind of lung disease or cancer or something, and then they're going to be told that they can't get insurance,' Singleton said. His amendment failed on a 9-23 vote. Singleton offered another amendment to raise the premium tax from 1.3% to 1.6% for each year based on the premiums collected. 'I don't think it will kill them, that they could pay that back to the people of the state of Alabama,' Singleton said. Orr opposed the amendment, saying that he thinks 'it's important to keep tax rate low and make this an affordable policy for people that want to participate.' The amendment failed on a 8-25 vote. When asked after the bill passed if he was concerned the plan would not be regulated like health insurance or that it could negatively impact a policyholder, Williams said that 'some coverage is better than none.' 'If you don't get the whole foot in, you get eight inches in, and it's working, it's better than what you got,' Williams said. The bill now heads to Gov. Kay Ivey for her signature. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Montana moves to ban styrofoam containers in food industry
A bill to ban polystyrene foam takeout containers has passed the Montana Legislature. (Getty images) Senator Daniel Zolnikov brought one of life's biggest dilemmas to the Senate floor over the weekend: When you're microwaving leftovers, how do you determine the perfect amount of time needed to evenly heat your food? Specifically, how long should you heat up your takeout pork carnitas in its styrofoam container? 'Is it a minute? A minute-and-a-half? The ultimate, ultimate microwave dilemma' Zolnikov asked. 'Better to do it a little longer than have it still be cold in the middle.' However, that decision comes with increased risks 'But you microwaved it too long, and the styrofoam has had some small portions that now also melted.' Zolnikov carried House Bill 477 through the Senate, a bill that would ban the use of styrofoam containers in the food industry within five years. He, and other proponents of the legislation, urged lawmakers to consider the known health risks of polystyrene foam, as well as the environmental concerns of using a material that doesn't break down easily. But opponents in the Senate, and in prior House debates, decried the legislation as governmental overreach and asked for free-market solutions to handle the problem. HB 477, introduced by Rep. Marilyn Marler, D-Missoula, provides for a phase out of expanded polystyrene foam — commonly called styrofoam — containers used to serve or package food from restaurants and food establishment, including coffee cups, plates, trays, and other food and drink carriers. The law would affect roughly 7,500 establishments in Montana, according to the bill's fiscal note. The bill creates a three-step process for the phaseout beginning in 2028 with the use of styrofoam containers used to serve food consumed on site. The next year it expands to packaging prepared food, and in 2030 will apply to food packagers and include bakery items and other prepared food. The Department of Environmental Quality would be tasked with ensuring compliance with the rule and issuing fines. House lawmakers passed the bill 56-44 in March, and the Senate on Saturday passed the bill 26-24. In Zolnikov's microwave example, he asked lawmakers to contemplate a meal of pork carnitas, ordered as takeout from a favorite restaurant, a delicious dish that is hot, fatty and acidic. Those three conditions enhance the leaching of chemicals into food, increasing the amount ingested, and contributing to the growing number of microplastics found in all human bodies, including newborn babies. In addition, styrene and other chemicals found in food packaging have been linked to cancer, hormone disruption and other chronic health conditions. 'The thing is, consumers assume our food and food storage products are safe and healthy, and when we realize they aren't, we take action, or we're supposed to,' Zolnikov said. The bill applies only to styrofoam in the food service industry — not its use in transportation, construction or health and safety industries. It also exempts 'raw, uncooked meat, fish, or eggs,' where styrofoam is often used as an insulator to keep those items cold, lowering the risk of chemical leaching. Despite the health concerns — widely agreed on by lawmakers — several Senators opposed the bill for its overreach into people's lives. 'You should not be heating up food in your microwave in a styrofoam container, in a plastic container, on melamine plates, just about anything, except maybe glass. What you should be doing, if you're concerned about your health and your kids' health and your grandkids' health, heat it up in a frying pan. Not a frying pan with Teflon in it. A good old cast iron frying pan,' said Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson, adding that he felt such a law should be the role of the federal government. 'That's the problem with this bill. There are so many other products out there that are causing harm to our health … I don't like styrofoam either, but this isn't the answer.' Eleven other states have passed similar statewide laws, as have numerous local governments. Other opponents raised concerns that the bill might set a precedent to expand to other industries in the future, while proponents expounded on the environmental benefits. 'I've seen them floating in ponds or water. I've seen fish eating the particles that break up,' Sen. Shane Morigeau, D-Missoula said. '…You also will see birds picking up styrofoam, using it in nests and other places eating it as well. And so there's other things that styrofoam is actually impacting, not just on the food service side.' The bill was amended in a Senate committee to extend the phase-out timeframe from five to 10 years, but the Senate body changed the bill back to its original form on the floor. 'If all those arguments aren't enough to get everybody to vote yes on this, I've got a few more,' said Sen. Bruce 'Butch' Gillespie, R-Ethbridge, who brought the amendment on the floor. He said that businesses in Montana could manufacture biodegradable packaging using sustainable sources such as hemp. 'Let this be the beginnings of a whole new industry for Montana here.' HB 477 contains a process for a business to request a waiver if they can show undue hardship, such as finding no suitable alternatives for food packaging. A fiscal note for the bill also shows the state would fund a half-time employee to develop and oversee the exemption program. 'We have chemicals in our food, we have chemicals touching our food, we are being poisoned in more ways than we know,' Zolnikov said. 'This is an easy way to say if the feds aren't gonna do it, we're gonna do it. We're gonna phase it out.'
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Alabama House OKs Alabama Farmers Federation health plans
Rep. David Faulkner, R-Mountain Brook, speaks on the floor of the Alabama House of Representatives on April 25, 2024 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. The Alabama House on Thursday approved a bill sponsored by Faulkner to allow the Alabama Farmers Federation to sell health insurance plans. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector) The Alabama House of Representatives Thursday voted to allow the Alabama Farmers Federation to offer health insurance for its members. The chamber approved HB 477, sponsored by Rep. David Faulkner, R-Mountain Brook, by a vote of 98-1. It allows an organization fitting the description of the Alabama Farmers Federation (Alfa) to offer a health care plan that exists outside of state regulations and is only available to people who are members of the nonprofit. 'The rising cost of health care is a significant burden for our farmers,' Faulkner said when he introduced his legislation on the floor. 'As legislators, there is little we can do about fertilizer costs, or the price of cotton. But we can make a difference in one of the largest household costs for many farmer families and other citizens in Alabama regarding their health care coverage.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Faulker's proposal was introduced last week at the Alabama House Health Committee when the committee hosted a public hearing, and members of the public voiced several concerns regarding the bill. Members of the committee considered the legislation once again Wednesday, and several lawmakers on the committee introduced amendments to the bill even though the sponsor did not always agree with all the proposals. Two days later, Faulker's bill was approved in the House and passed onto the Senate. The bill allows Alfa to offer health plans that include outpatient services and hospital visits; visits to the emergency room; mental health and substance abuse services and prescription drug benefits. Members enrolled in the plan cannot be denied coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition. The plan cannot be cancelled because of a medical event. If someone enrolled in the plan must visit a provider that is not in the network, Alfa will pay that provider the median amount of the in-network rate or 80% of the maximum allowed charge for the service. Only members of the Alabama Farmers Federation can enroll in the health care plan, and only after they certify that they are not able to enroll in a health plan sponsored by their employer or that enrolling in the plan is too expensive. Under the bill, only insurance agents authorized by Alfa can market and sell the plan. The Alabama Department of Insurance may also review and comment on any complaint that a person enrolled in the plan files which will then be forwarded to the third party responsible for addressing the complaint. Several people during a public hearing on April 3 expressed concerns regarding the legislation prior to lawmakers introducing amendments to change the bill in committee. They said that it lacks several protections afforded to patients that are in the Affordable Care Act. 'We believe this bill threatens those protections by allowing the sale of health plans that are not required to cover essential health benefits… and can discriminate against individuals with pre-existing conditions, including cancer,' said Jane Adams during the public hearing, government relations director for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) in Alabama, during the public hearing last Wednesday. Numerous changes were made to the bill after several lawmakers in the committee during Wednesday's meeting submitted amendments to include the other benefits, such as prescription drug coverage and mental health and substance abuse and allow for greater oversight by the Alabama Department of Insurance. On the House floor Thursday, Rep. Paul Lee, R-Dothan, the chair of the House Health Committee, proposed an amendment setting the annual limit on the benefits of the health plan at least $2 million. 'We want to make sure that our farmers are taken care of,' Lee said. 'I am the first generation away from a dependence on farming, so I understand it, growing up in it. So, I know the hard times, the late nights, getting up and looking for a cloud in the sky. I understand that. We want to make sure that farmers get the best thing, and anything we can get in this bill.' The Alabama Hospital Association proposed the provision to lawmakers. Much of the debate circled around an amendment proposed by Rep. Frances Holk-Jones, R-Foley, and approved in committee that said the Alabama Department of Insurance 'shall enforce this act.' Faulkner, who opposed the amendment, moved to remove it from the bill Thursday, saying it was 'very confusing.' 'The state's Department of Insurance does not regulate self-funded plans,' he said. 'And the federal regulation that applies to self-funded plans does not have any application to our bill. Our bill is far more comprehensive, and so it doesn't make sense for that to be on there.' The debate over the move took two hours. 'These amendments, this one in particular, that says the plan will be enforced by the Department of Insurance, it is just a precaution,' said Holk-Jones, who has worked in the insurance industry for the past 40 years. 'It is a precaution for those individuals who have this policy. I call it a prenup. While we are in love with each other, and while we are agreeing to everything, that is when we want the prenup.' The chamber voted to remove the language. The bill moves to the Senate. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Alfa health insurance bill gets several changes in Alabama House committee
Rep. David Faulkner, R-Mountain Brook, speaks to a colleague on the floor of the Alabama House of Representatives on Feb. 11, 2025 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector) An Alabama House committee advanced a bill allowing the state's dominant agricultural organization to offer its members health benefit plans but not before making several changes to the legislation. HB 477, sponsored by Rep. David Faulkner, R-Mountain Brook, would allow a nonprofit agricultural organization — fitting the description of the Alabama Farmers Federation (Alfa) — to provide health plan options not subject to state insurance regulations. The bill was the subject of a tense public hearing last week in which farmers' economic fears were pitted against consumer protection concerns. Faulkner told the House Health Committee Tuesday that he had agreed to changes to move the bill forward. 'I think the bill, as is before you, is in great shape, and I don't think it needs any amendments,' he said. 'But still, to address concerns, like we've done, we are going to have some amendments today. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Lawmakers introduced eight amendments. A ninth amendment that would have limited who could be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition was not considered after Faulkner said 'it would kill the bill.' Of the eight amendments, six passed, including one of which Faulkner considered 'not friendly.' That amendment, offered by Rep. Frances Holk-Jones, R-Foley, added a line stating that the Alabama Department of Insurance would enforce the legislation passed. Holk-Jones did not explain the amendment to Faulkner, who claimed he did not understand it, but she said in the public hearing last week that as a career insurance professional, she wanted to be sure that the organization's plans were explicitly stated in law, instead of an expectation it would be included in the contract. Faulkner objected to the amendment. 'This is too vague for me to understand and what that means, and I don't know that the Department of Insurance would know what that allows them to do or they can do,' Faulkner said. Another amendment by Holk-Jones, which Faulkner considered 'friendly,' requires insurance agents and brokers to be licensed by Alabama, a concern she also shared during last week's public hearing. Rep. Bryan Brinyark, R-Windham Springs, offered an amendment that prohibits the nonprofit agricultural organization from increasing premiums if a policyholder utilizes their health benefit plan. 'I hope we're getting a better product for the members. That's what I care about. I want to make sure that the people in my district are getting the best plan that they can get under this bill,' Brinyark said. Faulkner said that he wanted to 'just echo [Brinyark's] comments' and said that had been the intent. 'I just wanted to say because I agree with your comments, and what we've said is that once you're covered on this plan, you're not going to be canceled or your premium raised based on an individual health condition,' Faulkner said. Rep. Jeff Sorrells, R-Hartford, offered an amendment that shifted the premium tax from the Department of Revenue to the Department of Insurance. An amendment by Rep. Mark Shirey, R-Mobile, requires the organization providing the health plan to cover some of the out-of-network costs of emergency care. An amendment by Rep. Neil Rafferty, D-Birmingham, also passed, requiring the health plan to include mental health and substance misuse care, as well as prescription drugs to covered benefits. 'I think I don't have to go into too much elaborate details on why this is crucial and important for all people in the state,' Rafferty said. Another amendment from Holk-Jones that would have required the nonprofit agricultural organization to submit an annual report on the number of people it covers failed after Faulkner called it 'unnecessary.' Another amendment by Rep. Pebblin Warren, D-Tuskegee, would have prohibited the organization from adding or amending annual or lifetime limits without notice, but Faulkner said he could not accept that. 'It doesn't mean I'm not willing to continue to talk and work on this. We have been working on this even today, and so I would ask for the committee not to pass this at this time, because I do believe it's dealing with something that is highly unlikely to ever happen,' Faulkner said. Holk-Jones pushed back, saying that 'if you're not planning on, if it's highly unlikely, then it shouldn't be a problem.' 'All I think Rep. Warren is asking for is the highly unlikely possibility that this is done, that the amendment would say that there would be a 60-day notice,' Holk-Jones said. Faulkner said after the committee meeting that he expects the House to consider the bill on Thursday. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
