Lawmakers weigh health care ownership reporting, property tax transition rules and agency budgets in multiple committee hearings
Lawmakers on Thursday heard detailed testimony across several committees on proposals and administrative changes that would add reporting requirements for health care ownership, reshape property tax administration and appeals, and fund agency operations and programs. Committees discussed mandates, penalties, and authority for implementation, and officials described specific budget requests and fiscal figures.
Health Care — corporate practice of medicine reporting, H.71 and oversight
The House Health Care Committee considered provisions tied to H.71 and related proposals aimed at modernizing the corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) oversight and establishing reporting and enforcement mechanisms. Witnesses described model language that would require public-facing reporting of ownership and investment in clinics and would task the Green Mountain Care Board with organizing such materials for easier public access.
Testimony said the bill would allow the board to share information reported with other state agencies, including the Attorney General, to reduce duplicative reporting requirements and to facilitate oversight under Vermont law, while providing for confidentiality protections for sensitive provider information. Speakers cited national examples and guidance, including an American Medical Association statement recommending oversight mechanisms and enforcement to make CPOM laws effective, and described Oregon’s SB 951 as a predecessor model that informed the proposal.
Provider representatives and advocates described lengthy negotiations over regulatory scope. One speaker identified H.71 as the bill on the wall and said earlier draft language had included a broad regulatory framework that the group had sought to narrow; others said compromise language had been proposed but that stakeholders had not reached agreement in recent negotiations. Testimony also referenced concerns about conflicts of interest tied to private equity, management fees and sale-leaseback arrangements and underscored the importance of reporting paired with enforcement to achieve intended impacts.
Ways & Means — regional assessment districts, dwelling-use attestations, Act 73 transition language
The House Ways & Means Committee reviewed multiple tax and property administration changes, including language tied to regional assessment districts (RADS), dwelling-use attestation penalties, and conforming or transition provisions derived from Act 73.
Committee discussion included draft language directing the commissioner of taxes to identify and submit proposed geographic boundaries for regional assessment districts that are aligned with school district boundaries and have a minimum of 10,000 parcels. A transcript passage described the statutory intent language that the General Assembly enact RAD boundaries based on the commissioner’s proposed geographic boundaries, while noting the commissioner may at the commissioner’s discretion identify boundaries that cross or subdivide school districts.
Members discussed the repeal or replacement of Act 73 transition provisions and whether to replicate prior transition language with updated dates. A description of conforming changes noted a proposal to repeal statutory sections from Act 73 related to regional assessment districts and transition provisions and to replace them with new language, with a referenced effective date provision that would bar the Director of PVR from ordering any new municipal reappraisal not part of a regionalized reappraisal system on or after 01/01/2028.
The committee also reviewed new dwelling-use attestation requirements and associated penalties. Draft language described a two-tiered approach: fraud in filing a dwelling-use attestation would carry a 100% penalty (the same as for fraudulently filed homesteads), while errors or omissions found not to be fraudulent would be subject to a lesser penalty handled by the municipality — described as 5% in the draft. The language specified different administrative pathways for assessing penalties depending on whether the commissioner finds fraud.
Members additionally reviewed technical tax classification changes connected to non-homestead residential properties and long-term rental treatment, and clarified appeals and municipal guidance: the commissioner would provide written guidance and technical assistance for municipalities when hearing appeals related to property classifications.
Appropriations — agency budgets, Criminal Justice Council figures, and one‑time requests
Senate and House Appropriations panels received briefings from executive branch entities on staffing, systems, and budget requests. The Vermont Criminal Justice Council presented a fiscal overview that included percentage increases and specific dollar figures for its proposals and recent budget work.
🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁
The Criminal Justice Council reported a general fund increase of $71,443, cited as a 0.68% increase, and an interdepartmental transfer (IDT) budget increase of $43,527, noted as an 11.11% increase. Committee materials said the department had exceeded the governor’s recommended 3% target by roughly $40,472 during development of its submission and used vacancy savings to align with the 3% recommendation. Witnesses discussed vacancy savings and carry-forward balances, with one slide noting vacancy savings of 10% in FY25 and 12% in FY26 and commentary that the FY27 budget was presented with an actual vacancy savings of zero in the department’s request.
Appropriations members also reviewed a one-time funding request of $30,000 for language access. Testimony explained that translating a single policy (the fair and impartial policing policy) into 13 languages plus an ASL video had cost $18,000, and the council had sought $30,000 in one-time funding to support translation of additional key documents.
The Senate Appropriations presentation described administrative and system improvements, including updated professional regulation procedures, a new written entrance test to address disparate outcomes for test takers, and deployment of a records management and scheduling system (Cadence) to improve tracking of training and licensing records.
House Appropriations testimony summarized a range of programmatic budget adjustments across child care, housing, and aging services. The committee highlighted a $6.2 million general fund increase proposed for the Child Care Financial Assistance Program and discussed transfers and proposed reinstatements for several community programs, including foodbank support and recovery center funding. The committee also noted a $7.45 million general assistance concurrence and discussed reallocations and one-time grants tied to program infrastructure.
Other committee highlights
Multiple other committees held hearings touching on mandates, authority expansion, penalties and spending. The Senate Health & Welfare Committee discussed hospital service reductions in draft S.189; witnesses described proposals requiring hospitals to provide notice and public engagement before reducing or eliminating services, with the Green Mountain Care Board retaining the authority to adjust hospital budgets where AHS grants approvals. Testimony cited federal Rural Health Transformation Program funds and a $15,000,000 federal allocation for data analysis to inform hospital and regional transformation planning.
Energy and housing committees considered mandates and enforcement related to building energy codes, municipal authority to enforce codes, and municipal tools for addressing abandoned properties and housing development. Ways & Means and other panels also heard extended testimony on producer responsibility for beverage containers, proposed transfers from the Clean Water Fund for program start-up grants, and requirements for stewardship plans and redemption convenience standards.
Across panels, witnesses and committee members repeatedly raised implementation details: who would hold authority to act, how penalties and appeals would be structured, the administrative burden on agencies and providers, and specific dollar amounts or percentages associated with budget requests and penalties.
Conclusion
This report covers multiple committee hearings held on February 26, 2026, including sessions of the House Health Care Committee, House and Senate Ways & Means committees, House and Senate Appropriations committees, and other panels. Lawmakers reviewed proposals addressing corporate practice of medicine reporting and oversight, property tax administration and transition language tied to Act 73, penalty provisions for dwelling-use attestations, and agency budget requests and program funding, with testimony focused on mandates, authority, penalties, and spending impacts.
FYIVTBOT | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Instagram
#fyivt #vtleg #goldendome #vermontpolitics
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply