Asm. Mary Beth Walsh

Expressed concern that while individual mandates may be small, collectively they increase health insurance premiums and make coverage more expensive for employers and consumers.

Expressed concern that the bill may be preemptively addressing potential federal deregulation rather than actual threats, and suggested focusing on things actually happening rather than things that might possibly happen.

Raised concerns from the NFIB that the bill imposes cumbersome burdens on small businesses, creates vague definitions of supplemental compensation, and gives plaintiffs' attorneys sweeping presumptions that shift the burden of proof to employers.

Argued the state, which legalized sports betting and profits from it, should increase its $12 million treatment funding rather than shifting costs to insurers, which will ultimately increase premiums for all consumers.

Announced the Minority Conference would vote in the negative, though noted there may be some exceptions.

While the task force addresses an important issue, excluding Minority representation violates the principle that task forces should include both sides of the aisle. With all appointees from the same party, the group could simply hold a meeting rather than establish a formal task force.

The bill creates problems by imposing a harsh penalty—inadvertent disclosure—if businesses miss the 60-day deadline, ignoring real-world realities that people make mistakes. The renewal process adds significant administrative burden across 100+ agencies and authorities, increasing opportunities for sensitive information to be disclosed. The Business Council opposed the bill citing risks to critical infrastructure and trade secrets.

The bill has been pending since 1996 with no supporting data on the scope of the problem. Existing DFS regulations already govern claim practices. Restricting information requests could impede fraud detection and disputes over whether insurers have met the 'special articulable circumstances' standard could result in costly court litigation and court congestion.

The bill has been pending since 1996 with no supporting data on the scope of the problem. DFS regulations already address claim practices. Restricting information requests could impede fraud detection and create court disputes, potentially increasing premiums rather than reducing them.

Expressed concern that "maximum extent possible" language telegraphs a desire to favor teleworking over agency culture preferences, and noted that private industry has backed away from remote work post-pandemic. Questioned how performance would be measured and raised concerns about economic impacts on Albany.

Walsh opposed the bill as redundant, noting mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts have been prohibited in New York since 1984. She argued the bill could confuse businesses and consumers by running contrary to existing law and noted the Insurance Association's opposition.

Acknowledged the bill's good intentions but expressed concern that it relies on hearsay evidence that would not be admissible in court, and that the sponsor's assertion that abuse victims would not fabricate claims is unrealistic. Worried creditors bear uncompensated legal costs if they deny a claim later found valid in court.

While acknowledging good intentions and sympathy for abuse victims, the bill has significant problems in its current form and needs work; expressed concern that false claims could be made and exploited.

Argued the bill bends over backwards to help the cannabis industry while other small businesses and MWBE programs struggle; questioned whether 150 additional shops are necessary and expressed concern the entire cannabis program is flawed; noted the cannabis industry rollout has been a 'ridiculously horrific' failure.

Expressed concerns that the chapter amendment does not adequately address all original concerns, particularly regarding technological barriers for older testators and the lack of detailed implementation guidance on document storage and the "contemporaneously executed" requirement.

The bill paints with too broad a brush and may eliminate legitimate restrictive covenants for religious or community organizations; such issues are better addressed case-by-case by courts rather than through blanket legislation.

Argued the bill places adult interests over child safety by eliminating anonymous reporting for adults, will chill legitimate reports from neighbors and family members, and cited a case where anonymous calls saved severely malnourished children's lives. Stated the carveout for minors does not address the core problem and that malicious reporters will simply use mandated reporters as workarounds.

Argued the bill puts the cart before the horse by legislating preemptively before the FDA study is complete. Questioned why New York would adopt WHO guidance over its own FDA for this medication alone, noting no other medication receives such treatment. Expressed concern about relying on WHO standards when the federal government has just withdrawn from the WHO.

Expressed concerns about the bill's implementation, noting unclear burden on financial institutions to determine if statement requests are for public assistance and potential need for procedural updates at credit unions and lenders.

Walsh opposed the chapter amendment, arguing it does not improve the original bill and creates murky rather than transparent Medicaid reimbursement rate information. She preferred the original bill and voted in the negative.