Capitol Letter for March 21

An Unprecedented, Breathtaking Assault on American Democracy: LWV Responds to Trump Administration’s First 60 Days

“But no matter what they throw at us, we will not back down. Americans have proven we can overcome the toughest of circumstances together. And for over a century, the League has remained steadfast in our commitment to empowering the American people and defending our democracy.” - League of Women Voters of the United States CEO Celina Stewart

Please visit our Take Action page for Timely Actions, opportunities to join us, and tools for being effective advocates and organizers in this moment. The US House is now expected to vote on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act the week of March 31st. Please see the talking points from LWVUS and learn how the SAVE Act would undermine voter registration for all Americans from the Brennan Center for Justice. This recorded webinar from Nonprofit VOTE provides updates about how the SAVE Act would impact our voter engagement work. Let’s keep the pressure on; we are making a difference!

  • Take Action: Send a pre-formed message to your US Representative to vote "NO". Dial 833-346-1779 to be connected to your Representatives office and leave them a message about your opposition.

  • Action by our Local Leagues: LWV New Ulm held a rally on International Women’s Day voicing their opposition to Rep. Brad Finstad’s position on the SAVE Act along with a press release. LWV Edina President Colleen Feige wrote in her local paper about how “The SAVE Act would serve to disenfranchise many past and future voters from exercising their right to vote.”

 

Observer Reports from the State Capitol

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Amy Caucutt

    HF1051 (Robbins) amendments to the "Sacred Settlements" Act was presented along with the A-3 amendment, which the author admitted was a work in progress. There appears to be contention between "religious freedom" and local community control on health, safety, and perhaps even zoning. The City of Maple Grove wants local licensing oversite, because now, they claim, to not be able to respond to tenant safety & health complaints. 7 testified in support of current law, with only "clarifying changes". They were residents, church leaders, and tiny home consultants. Their experiences were moving beginning with this approach to helping homeless people and a religious calling of "building the church and loving the world" during/after the covid epidemic. Many DFL members had questions fearing that amendments would be broader than clarifying MS 504 (tenant law) and begin to move to allowing cities to move from an administrative process to a political one, pitting neighbors against churches. A squabble at the end between chair Quam and lead Freiberg over cutting off DFL questions led to several requests for adjournment, which failed. The bill was held over for...not sure if for inclusion in a larger bill, or until Rep Robbins works out an author's amendment to bring 'peace in the valley’. The next bill HF16 was the really contentious one (bill requiring local law enforcement to aid ICE).

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Shannon Moore

    HF1377 - Public Television Bill, Author: Rep. Paul Anderson - This bill provides grants for public television in our state which has a long history of serving Minnesota with educational, cultural and public affairs programming. The system includes multiple stations that provide content to 6 different regions of Minnesota: Twin Cities TPT in St. Paul, Pioneer serving Southwestern MN based in Granite Falls, Lakeland in Northern MN, PBS North in Duluth, KSMQ in Austin, MN and Prairie Public Station based in North Dakota but also serving Northwestern MN.

    MN provides funding to public television through matching grants, equipment grants and block grants. Through this committee, the legislature has funded public television with matching and small equipment grants but these block grants have not been increased since 2013. This bill includes an increase in those grants. Rep. Anderson finished by stating that block grants have been supported by the committee, being reinstated 2 years ago after a suspension of 10 years.

    Two testifiers in support of the bill:

    Les Heen, represents the MN Public Television Association - Public Television in MN is different than in other states. Other states may have public universities or a state agency which provide infrastructure to support their public television. Moreover, MN has 6 regional non-profits and they are all community based with local Boards and local decisions.

    Patty Mester, General Manager and CEO of PBS North in Duluth and also President of the Minnesota Public Television Association. Fundamental Mission - Serving life long learning for all ages. 1/3 of our primary channels is devoted to high quality non commercial educational programs that help children master essential skills such as reading, math, science and problem-solving. This is critical because in some of Minnesota’s most rural communities approximately 55% of children do not attend preschool. Programs serve as an essential bridge supporting parents prepare their children for kindergarten and beyond. 20% of MN teachers use PBS content in the classroom. Children who watch PBS programming score 8% to 10% higher then those who do not. State grants are fundamental to PBS. These operating grants and matching grants require PBS to raise funds locally before receiving state support. Block grants are the backbone of PBS operation. They support everything from equipment to paying utilities. Equipment grants are equally vital helping PBS maintain our expensive transmitter towers and computer systems. All over the air programming and on line content remain free to the public. If you have an antenna or an internet connection you have access to PBS programming.

    There were no questions or comments from the Legislators. Bill was laid over for possible inclusion.

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Cathy Thom

    HF1652 (Elkins - DFL - Bloomington) - Formulary changes prohibited during the plan year. Rep. Elkins stated that plans and PBMs negotiate their drug prices over the course of the summer with drug manufacturers, and they get those prices through the next plan year, starting in the fall. The bill says that they must not increase these prices or drop medications within a plan - it does not say they can't add cheaper drugs to existing plans.

    TESTIFIERS: Laurel Ries, MD - Family Physician, St Paul - Testified in favor of HF 1652, stating that health insurance is complex and inconsistent, and the bill will provide consistency of care when people buy a plan that works for them, they will be assured that the medications that they want will have guaranteed availability and pricing throughout the length of the contracted plan. Under current law there is no such guarantee for patients.

    Dan Endreson - MN Council of Health Plans - Testified against the bill due to the fact that price increases most often happen because of manufacturer price increases, not due to insurers arbitrarily increasing them. He stated that the timing of prices increases should be left up to insurers.

    Michelle Mack - PCMA - National Trade Association for PBMs. Testified against the bill because it does not include an exception for drug shortage situations and manufacturer prices increases to be able to substitute more readily available drugs or to adjust prices during the plan year.

    Joe Sellwood - Assocation of Accessible Medicine - Testified that an exception needs to be added for biologic similar drugs when it comes to drug substitutions. Upcoming brand name patent protection expirations and the increases in the use of biosimilars makes this increasingly necessary or Minnesotans may lose access to biosimilars they may need.

    Elliot Butay - NAMI - Testified in favor of the bill. Patients with mental illness that have spent a long time finding the right medications that work for them, and they need to know that they will not be victims of a "bait and switch" situation where their providers or their medications will be dropped from the plan during the plan year, making the plan not work for them anymore but not be able to switch plans for months.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Kristin Bahner (DFL - Maple Grove) - Pointed out that PBMs and health insurers in general get a pass when it comes to honoring contracts. Consumers must stay with the plan and pay their premiums and honor their end of the contract, while PBMs and health insurers can change medications, providers, and other terms of the contract without penalty, whenever they decide they want to do so. It's inherently not fair, she said, and it can be very bad, or even deadly, for patients. She stated that she is strongly in favor of the bill.

    Rep. Tina Liebliing (DFL - Rochester) - Pointed out that consumers pay insurers to shift the risk onto the companies, and the PBMs are basically saying that they don't want to take on the risks they are paid to take on. She stated that she is also strongly in favor of the bill and that it is long past time that this fairness disparity was fixed.

    Rep. Nadeau (R - ) - Asked some technical questions about how PBMs and plans establish their pricing. Rep. Elkins reiterated that PBMs get their pricing locked in by early August, and it remains the same throughout the year - it does not increase mid-year as the PBM testifiers claim.

    Chad Hope - Pharmacy Director and MNDHS - Clarified that the state's Medicaid & Medicare federal formularies can change quarterly, and so this bill could perhaps cost the state some money to cover price increases if the cost is not passed on to plan consumers.

    Rep. Pursell (DFL - Northfield) - Pointed out that Canada does not seem to have problems with high drug prices due to shortages - nor even egg prices due to bird flu. She also stated that it's not just mental health patients, it's also those with chronic diseases like Crone's Disease or other conditions that depend on plan consistency. The bill was laid over for possible consideration.

    HF1075 (Elkins) - Pharmacy benefit managers and health carriers required to use prescription drug rebates and other compensation to benefit covered persons. Rep. Elkins says that similar bills have been adopted in other states, most notably Arkansas. He read from a WSJ article that explained the convoluted and inconsistent nature of how drugs are priced in the USA. It is so bad that sometimes paying out of pocket from online pharmacies costs less than going through their health plans. The drug payment systems does not work like a functioning market - and much of the reason for that is because of the insertion of PBMs into the process - PBMs have a self-interest in pursuing higher rebates for lower premiums over lower prices for drugs. That means that the true cost of plans are paid for via pharmaceuticals - those with lots of prescription costs are thus subsidizing lower premiums for other plan consumers.

    TESTIFIERS: Dan Endreson - Testified in opposition to the bill, stating that it adds an extra layer of complexity, rather than simplifying it, due to the nature of requirements and formularies required by the ACA. People choose plans according to whether or not they want lower drug prices through point of sale rebates, or they prioritize lower premiums. The bill would confuse consumers.

    Michelle Crimmins - Prime Therapeutics (a PBM based in MN) - Testified in opposition to the bill because it has the unintended consequence of raising the cost of health care by allowing consumers to get point of sale rebates as individuals - premiums would rise across the board, and manufacturers would likely reduce their rebates as well, so those savings would be less overall.

    Michelle Mack - PCMA - Opposed the plan because it would shift costs across the board, not reduce them, and would increase unnecessary drug spending. It also does not address the high prices of drugs themselves.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Danny Nadeau (R - Rogers) - Asked if the bill would exclude state programs. Legal counsel replied that it would. Rep. Nadeau raised concerns that this bill would increase premiums on commercial plans significantly across the board. It is simply shifting the cost to premium payers across the board in order to save individuals that pay a lot for prescriptions money. He said if that is the goal, then we should just say that up front and write a bill that does that outright. Rep. Elkins replied that currently the insurers are choosing to use rebates to lower premiums for their plans rather than providing any of those savings at all to those who rely on high-cost prescriptions, which are where the rebate money actually comes from with the manufacturers.

    Rep. Bahner - Stated that it is absurd that the bill could make anything more confusing for the consumer than the current system already is. She said that all savings from rebates currently go to insurers, rather than to consumers. Rebates are a "kick back," and we need to treat them as such. What proof do we have that rebates are currently being used to lower premiums? Has anyone asked them for the data that shows this is being done? She reminded her colleagues that legislators work for the people, not PBMs and insurance companies. Rep. Elkins agreed - the PBMs tried to offer plans like this, where rebates went to consumers for drug purchases, but none of the insurers wanted them because they wanted to claim the rebates to use as they wished instead. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion.

    HF1103 (Hemmingsen-Jaeger - DFL - Woodbury) - Medication repository program procedures modified, and money appropriated. Building on Roundtable RX donated medication repository program that was begun last biennium. It has since redistributed over 600,000 life-saving medications to those who need them, at low to no cost. The bill would allow Roundtable RX to purchase at low wholesale cost some medications when donated ones do not meet demand for particular patients. Funding request of $900,000 per year for staffing and drug purchase options.

    TESTIFIERS: Dr. Rowan Mahon - Founder, MN Medication Repository Program - Testified about the need for the bill for patients on these medications to receive their full dosages over time when donated supplies run short. Mail order option is also being adopted, especially for medications for chronically managed ailments.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Dawn Gillman (R - Dassel) - Inquired if local independent pharmacies can access Roundtable RX. Dr Mahon replied that yes, they can - the patients themselves must meet the health and income requirements of the program to access it, and pharmacies simply assist with this. She emphasized that the majority of the Roundtable RX's budget, including the increase, is for staffing, not for purchasing drugs.

    Rep. Liebling - Expressed concerns about buying the drugs from wholesalers - how will prices be negotiated and drugs acquired? Dr. Mahon replied that these are just occasional stop gap purchases - Iowa does them. They just want the option, which they are currently denied. She also said that the price issue is something that will have to be worked out - likely a partnership with an organization that already purchases wholesale drugs. Rep. Liebling requested that language be clarified in regard to this process. She also pointed out that this program also keeps perfectly good drugs from being discarded as well as getting medications to people who need them but can't afford them. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion.

  • LWVMN Observer and Lobby Corps Member Cathy Thom

    HF1800 (Quam - R - Byron) – Voting administration provisions modified, including candidate filing, registration, vouching, election judges, polling places, ballots, and postelection review; reports required; criminal penalties provided; and money appropriated. This committee concentrated on the felony criminal penalties contained within the bill.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Dave Pinto (DFL - St Paul) - Asked how the bill differs from existing law, since most of the offenses mentioned in the bill were already criminal offenses within the criminal codes. He pointed out some discrepancies, such as that the bill actually downgrades a false statement of candidacy to a misdemeanor, but retains a $10,000 fine. He also questioned making any destruction of documents to a felony, even perhaps unintended actions. Rep. Quam said that oral amendments in committee could be accepted. The Committee Chair stated that given the seriousness of the issue and the work needed to be done on it, that offline bipartisan work should perhaps be done with Rep. Pinto. The bill was laid over.

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Amy Caucutt

    HF1843 (Rehm) $1.5M for continuing Lawns to Legumes program was heard and "laid over for possible inclusion in a future bill". 9 enthusiastic testifiers offered support and examples of how this program with 41,000 applicants in all 87 counties, 12,000 participants, and 600,000 website visits in past 6 years has made a difference especially for the rusty patch bee, our state bee and an endangered species, as well as citizens needing help in making a change in their yards to native plants. Several GOP members worried that the appropriation was taking away from needed funding elsewhere as we need to prioritize facing impending deficits.

    HF1611 (Hansen, R.) $1M for a new Lawns to Lunch program was heard and also "laid over for possible inclusion in a future bill". Author noted that this builds on the very successful lawns to legumes program, also using BWSR (Board of Water and Soil Resources) to manage the funds and also allowing them to use U of MN, master gardeners, and local governments. Rep Schultz had wondered why BWSR should be in charge of vegetable gardens. Rep Hansen noted their expertise in managing "the most popular environmental program in the state", lawns to legumes, for the past 6 years. GOP members again questioned need for funding other budget items, and how we would measure success.

 

Additional State NEws Coverage

Please learn more at our 2025 Legislative Session Webpage.

in Memoriam

Martin E. Marty, Influential Religious Historian, Dies at 97 (NY Times) - Obituary

  • “For Marty, the only real swear word was tribalism — watching out for my interest, my family, my town, my country, my tribe — at the expense of others,” Professor (of Christian history at Duke University Grant) Wacker said in an email. “Everyone, and he meant everyone, deserved a seat at the table of public discussion as long as they were willing to play by the rules of civility and reasoned examination of the evidence.”

Capitol LetterLWV MinnesotaSF4432, SF3555, SF3616, HF3651, HF3783, SF4785, HF4043, HF3389, SF3964, HF3276, HF4728, HF4287, HF4745, HF3682, HF4598, HF4593