Asm. Josh Jensen

Contended that existing oversight by the Department of Health, Medicaid Inspector General, and nursing home ombudsmen, combined with five-star quality ratings, already provide relevant information. Argued that requiring disclosure of laundry and food service contractors at admission is burdensome and does not meaningfully affect care quality or admission decisions.

Questioned whether data supports the mandate, noting no evidence of disease spread in NY summer camps and that camps already can require vaccinations voluntarily. Argued the bill eliminates parental choice without offering alternatives like homeschooling does for schools, and that outdoor camp settings pose lower transmission risk than indoor schools.

Argued the bill may not achieve its intended result because Federal law preempts State law and injured parties can still file Federal lawsuits. Contended vaccine providers already have medical malpractice protections and the bill is an unnecessary reaction to a movement from four to five years ago.

Jensen questioned the practical utility of the data collection requirement, noting that counties lack universal autopsy procedures and may struggle to identify heat-related deaths. He argued that common-sense solutions do not require extensive administrative burden on counties, the city, and DOH, and questioned whether the data would actually result in policy action beyond advisory opinions.

Questioned whether moving from opt-in to opt-out departs from healthcare privacy norms, sought clarification on patient notification mechanisms, and expressed concern about automatic sharing of out-of-state residents' medical records without explicit consent.

Questioned the epidemiological rationale for mandating a blood-borne pathogen vaccine alongside respiratory disease vaccines, and noted the bill places hepatitis B in the wrong section of law compared to meningitis, which allows for informed declination.

Questioned the transparency and methodology of the medical academies, asking whether they publish recommendations annually, conduct peer-reviewed research, or use other rigorous processes. Raised concerns about potential conflicts between different academies and whether the bill adequately addressed scenarios where organizations might disagree on vaccine recommendations.

Argued the bill, though well-intentioned, risks producing opposite outcomes by discouraging investment in roads, sewer systems, water infrastructure, and electrical upgrades. Warned that making it harder to recover costs creates rational incentive to invest less, leading to aging infrastructure and declining conditions. Called for a clear capital improvement recovery mechanism and differentiation between maintenance and capital investment.

Argued the bill, despite good intentions, creates unintended consequences by discouraging property owners from investing in capital improvements. Warned that making it harder to recover costs through rent increases will lead owners to invest less, resulting in aging infrastructure, declining property conditions, and ultimately harming the residents the bill aims to protect. Called for a clearer capital improvement recovery mechanism and differentiation between maintenance and investment.

Questioned the practical enforceability of requiring the New York hotline on nationally televised ads, noting companies may accept fines rather than comply, and expressed concern about the Gaming Commission's pre-approval authority over federally-regulated broadcast content.

Opposed the bill because both companies negotiated the $1.25 million requirement to operate in New York, and changing it only four years later without any study showing it's unnecessary is premature. Noted that Turo makes $1 billion in profits and the change protects a large corporation at public risk.

Questioned whether OCA had been adequately consulted (noting their stated preference for delay), whether public hearings were held in affected districts, raised concerns about the $9.6 million fiscal cost without appropriation language, and asked about the process for assigning individual judges to new districts.

Expressed concern that most New Yorkers already know hospital policies through existing relationships with providers and facilities. Worried about the onerous reporting burden on hospitals and DOH, and concerned about the possibility that certain providers could be targeted based on services they do not provide, even though that is not the legislation's intent.

Argued the bill is unnecessary because DOH already issued comprehensive guidance in 2023 requiring community notification and public meetings, and that the bill's procedural requirements could jeopardize hospital viability during financial crises.

Argued the bill is unnecessary because DOH already implemented similar requirements through 2023 guidance and expressed concern that procedural delays could jeopardize hospital financial viability. Noted that existing DOH processes protect healthcare access and that the Governor's veto last year was correct.

While supportive of the bill, expressed concerns that eliminating prior authorization removes important health metrics monitoring for PrEP and PEP effectiveness. Also noted the state's Medicaid obligations have expanded far beyond original intent and questioned whether the bill duplicates existing protections already on the books.

Raised concerns about insufficient safeguards against coercion, focusing on practitioner coercion, systemic coercion, and self-coercion. Argued that vulnerable individuals might feel pressured to choose medical aid in dying due to perceived burden on family or concerns about nursing home costs, beyond explicit family pressure.

Argued the bill lacks evidence specific to New York, where the two existing for-profit providers have no fraud allegations. Questioned why the legislature would artificially ban providers when New York has only one hospice provider per 500,000 residents and ranks 50th nationally in access. Advocated for DOH oversight rather than a blanket ban.

Existing processes handle individual deaths; requiring DOH plan review during active emergencies adds confusion and delays crisis response; lack of statutory minimum storage capacity requirements could force facilities into costly capital projects or vendor competition during crises; best-laid plans often fail in actual emergencies.

Began questioning the Chair regarding the MCO tax, characterizing it as a 'legalized money laundering scheme,' though the transcript cuts off before his full remarks.

The bill's prohibition on biomedical uses is overly broad. Horseshoe crab blood is essential for endotoxin testing in vaccines and medicines, extraction methods are safe with best practices, and synthetic alternatives lack widespread FDA approval. An exemption for biomedical research should be included.

Noted the bill applies only to fully insured policies covering 50 percent of the market, questioned its practical impact, and pointed out that federal law and a 2019 Division of Financial Services circular letter already prohibit cost-sharing for preventative care meeting USPSTF standards.

Horseshoe crab blood (LAL) is critical for endotoxin testing in vaccines and medicines; the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has best practices ensuring crab survival after blood extraction. Synthetic alternatives lack widespread FDA approval and require costly case-by-case approval. The biomedical exemption should be preserved, particularly given horseshoe crabs' role in COVID-19 vaccine development.

Horseshoe crab blood is critical for endotoxin testing in vaccines and medicines, with synthetic alternatives lacking widespread FDA approval. The bill should carve out biomedical uses, as the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has best practices ensuring crabs survive the blood-harvesting process.

Noted the bill applies only to fully insured policies covering 50 percent of the market, questioned whether the protections already exist under the Affordable Care Act and prior 2019 state guidance, and raised concerns about creating unequal mandate environments where some maintenance drugs have co-pays and others do not.

Expressed concerns about the onerous nature of the tiered reduction thresholds and increased strain on hospital operators and the Department of Health, noting potential conflicts with existing August 2023 DOH guidance and questioning whether temporary bed reductions would trigger the full process.

Questioned whether the bill is necessary given existing state law prohibitions on gag clauses and federal protections under Medicare and private insurance requirements. Argued that enforcement of existing law would be more effective than clarification, and suggested the real issue is PBM non-compliance rather than unclear legal language.

Argued that federal law already prohibits plans from penalizing pharmacies for informing patients about cost differences, and that state protections already exist. Questioned why PBMs would follow this new law if they are already violating existing state and federal law, and noted the bill lacks enforcement mechanisms for bad actors.

Expressed concerns about the onerous nature of public notification requirements and increased strain on hospital operators and the Department of Health. Questioned whether the bill's timing requirements conflicted with existing August 2023 DOH guidance and whether the tiered thresholds were too complex for implementation.

Questioned the necessity of the bill, noting that New York law already prohibits gag clauses and federal law already protects pharmacist speech about price differences between insured and uninsured costs. He argued that if PBMs are violating existing law, enforcement should be strengthened rather than clarifying legislation passed.

Argued that federal law already prohibits plans from penalizing pharmacies for informing patients about cost differences between insured and uninsured options. Questioned why additional state law is needed if PBMs are already violating existing state and federal law, and noted the bill lacks enforcement mechanisms for bad actors.