LEGISLATIVE ROUNDUP: Senate Finance Discussion on PFMLA Raises Big Questions – Answers Needed

What a great idea! A chance to get the facts before actually hearing the bill so committee members can have the best information available and ask the most relevant questions. Muñoz is also doing the same thing with Senate Bill 279 that tackles semiautomatic firearms. Some members of the committee objected to the absence of the sponsor being in attendance. However, think about that for a minute. If you bring the sponsor into the discussion, suddenly you’ve turned a fact-finding forum into a bill hearing, which sometimes is a contested event with arguments going back and forth. The bill will be heard later, and the sponsor will have her day to advocate.

Some Great Questions

As part of the Senate Finance Committee analyst presentation, the analyst raised these questions:

• What is the $9,000 “refund” payment to parents exactly a refund of? There were no payments made by the parents, so is this just a way to attempt to get around the constitutional “anti-donation” clause? And will it hold up in court?
• What will be the cost of administering opt in/opt out provisions? What’s the experience of other states, which some say is quite costly?
• Why is the definition of “safe leave” broad and not well defined, who will define this and what documentation will be required (from the New Mexico Counties Association)? In addition, the definition of “close association” to define a family member seems overly broad, so who will define what this means?
• What is the fiscal impact of choosing the cap on payments being the state’s median or mean income levels?
• Can the Early Childhood Care Trust fund be tapped to pay for the welcome child “refunds?”
• Why is the State Investment Council managing the funds created in HB 11 instead of the state treasurer, who normally handles short-term investments?

Senate Majority Whip Michael Padilla (D-Bernalillo) asked a number of penetrating questions driving at the heart of the legislation, some of which require more analysis and research:

• Who pays for everything? When I come with a bill, I have to identify funding sources. Are there funding sources identified in the bill, for example where is the $193 million to pay for the welcome child refunds coming from?
• The Early Childhood Care Trust fund is “my baby,” and I’m concerned about tapping that fund. Does this bill contemplate using the ECE trust fund?
• Do I understand correctly that the startup costs of this bill are close to $50 million before any benefit has even been paid?
• Where are the triggers in the bill that determine when taxes, fees or appropriations are needed to pay for the program? Can a matrix be developed to make that clear?
• Can you produce an analysis that looks at the impacts on small, medium and large businesses? Similarly, can you provide data from states similar to us that have implemented this kind of program and what happened in terms of fund solvency, uptake rates, income levels, job growth, cost per citizen, etc.

Sen. Nicole Tobiassen (R-Bernalillo) had these concerns:

• What happens if the parents are estranged and one parent tries to claim the entire $9,000 benefit when the benefit should be split between the two? Who’s responsible for monitoring these payouts and preventing abuse by one parent or the other?
• What happens if someone who has been a resident of another state moves here for six months and wants to claim either the family wellness and/or welcome child benefits but their employer is out of state (remote work) and the employer has not paid into the fund? Does six months qualify for welcome child benefit because no one has to pay into the fund? Sen. Steven Lanier (R-San Juan) had a similar question, what happens if a New Mexico employer hires all out-of-state employees – does the employer still have to pay into the fund?
• Can both the family wellness and welcome child benefits be taken together, for example with childbirth?
• My analysis shows that the cost of replacing an employee with a temporary employee is between $6K and $16K, can you verify those costs?
• Are the welcome child “refunds” subject to federal taxation? If so, how much of that benefit will be owed for taxes?
• What are the net benefits paid out to workers? With taxes, it could be as little as 30% of normal wages, can you verify?
• Are there any limitations on how many family members can take family leave in order to take care of another family member?
• Is there any actual actuarial analysis available?

Sen. Linda Trujillo (D-Santa Fe) asked:

• Can state and local agencies/governments opt out? What’s the cost of opting out, and who pays for that? If it’s through fees, is there any cap on how much the fees charged can be?
• Can you show us the effects on low-income wage earners, median- and mean-income earners?
• What if neither parent works for 6 months – can they still get the $9,000 “refund”?

Sen. Pat Woods (R-Curry, Harding, Quay & Union) raised these issues:

• Is there any tie between the welcome child benefit and receiving home visitations from the Early Childhood Education and Care Department?
• If not, should there be as it appears only about half of new parents are receiving home visitations that teach parenting skills?
• What is the dollar difference between using mean and median income levels?
• What additional data can we get from other states about uptake rates and other issues they’ve faced in implementing similar programs?

That’s a lot of great questions, and it’ll likely take a few days for staff to come up with answers. As the Albuquerque Journal posted this evening, “Solvency questions swirl around paid leave proposal as session nears homestretch.” Read the story here.

As you can see, this kind of discussion is great preparation for a hearing, laying the foundation based on “just the facts.” As Tobiassen said, she wants definitive facts, not “hopes and dreams.” That’s a great summation, and all New Mexicans deserve the answers. Stay tuned.

Compounding the challenge of getting care, a high percentage of people in New Mexico have insurance that provides care through an HMO, which will not pay for out-of-state treatment. As a female patient from Santa Fe said, “New Mexico should not be a state for only the healthy and the wealthy.” The committee completed taking public testimony and will conduct committee discussion and a vote on Friday. The Chamber has been and continues to be a very strong advocate for malpractice reform. You’ll see below a letter we sent to the committee.

But back to that patient’s quote. Without more health care professionals in our state, that is exactly what we’re becoming. A state for the healthy and wealthy. And count the trial lawyers among the wealthy. In fact, the crazy litigious nature of our state often sees suits being brought by out-of-state lawyers because New Mexico, unlike many other states, puts no caps on attorney fees or amounts of punitive damages. It’s a huge incentive to sue, and that’s exactly what happens. SB 176 would place a cap on attorney fees – 33% if the case goes to trial, 25% of the judgement if the case is settled. If punitive damages are awarded, 75% goes to a patient fund to ensure injured parties are cared for and additional training for professionals can be provided. And 25% would go directly to patients. Also, New Mexico allows lump-sum payments rather than payments as ongoing medical expenses incur. SB 176 would ban lump-sum payments to ensure that patients receive lifetime payments if that’s necessary.

It’s no secret that the results of New Mexico’s med-mal laws are out of balance. Here are some stats: We have the second-highest number of medical malpractice suits in the nation. Insurers pay out $1.83 for every dollar collected in malpractice premiums. There are few companies left that are willing to write medical malpractice policies. Malpractice premiums are twice as high on average in New Mexico as they are in other states. An imminent neurosurgeon who left New Mexico after 23 years and moved to Phoenix reports his malpractice insurance is five times less than in New Mexico and, perhaps more importantly, he’s not under constant threat of being sued. In his experience, lawsuits are brought in order to force a settlement rather than going to trial that could result in punitive damages. (Settlements are paid for by insurance, punitive damages, which can be more than excessive – a recent award in Albuquerque was for $412 million – come out of the physician’s pocket, which obviously could bankrupt them.) The potential for large punitive damage awards is what lures trial lawyers to sue, sue, sue.

A long parade of doctors and patients reported how difficult it is to get an appointment for primary care and, even more difficult, an appointment with a specialist. One specialist reported a waiting list of 2,100 patients even though she has worked longer hours and given up her administrative time. Moreover, 30% of physicians are set to retire within the next five to 10 years. Only about 25% of medical school graduates stay in the state. There are 2,400 doctors in the state and that number is declining. A health care recruiter reported that in the recent past, there were about 300 positions open for various health care professionals. Today, the number is 769. The recruiter sent out 2,500 solicitations to submit resumes and only received 185. Candidates are looking at Arizona, Texas and Colorado, all of which have much less litigation and much lower malpractice premiums.

In fairness, there were a number of heart-wrenching stories from patients about pain and suffering experienced due to malpractice. Clearly, patients who are victims need reasonable compensation, nobody argues against that. However, it’s our observation that they’re missing an important point: if we don’t significantly increase the number of health care professionals willing to practice here, they’re not going to get the care they deserve and probably can’t afford to get by going out of state.

As we mentioned above, the Chamber sent the following letter to the committee in advance of the hearing:

Honorable Members of the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee

On behalf of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, I want to lend our support to SB 176. You all know the statistics on how out of balance our medical malpractice insurance is, so we won’t recite a litany of them. Rather, I’d like to focus on this problem from a business and economic development perspective. There’s a saying that it’s not health care if you can’t get a doctor’s appointment. Health care is a major quality-of-life factor. and quality of life matters to businesses and employees when considering whether to locate or expand here.

There are several key factors influencing doctors’ decisions about practicing in our state. One is the high cost of malpractice insurance and the litigious nature of our state. Our system is out of balance. No one wants to see a patient injured by malpractice go without adequate care and treatment. However, there is a heavy thumb weighing on the side of litigation rather than patient care. The scales need to be rebalanced, and that’s what SB 176 does. It balances the interests of patients, physicians and litigators. The bill is sensible and models best practices from around the country.

We urgently need to remove the medical malpractice obstacle in order to attract more health care professionals to our state. Without a strong and vibrant health care system, not only do New Mexicans lack the care they deserve, but it retards economic growth and the creation of new jobs. Please support SB 176 with a “yes” vote.

Terri Cole

President and CEO

Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce

Unfortunately, SB 176 is only getting its first hearing today (Day 50) even though it was introduced on Day 8 of the session. We hate to say it, but it’s improbable this bill can make it through the entire process before adjournment. It has to get out of this committee and then two more committees before reaching the Senate floor, then there’s House committees and the House floor. In our view, if the governor was ever going to call a special session for something, this should be at the top of the list, along with other initiatives that may or may not get enacted this session. A special session with a focus just on health care would shine a bright light on what needs to be done to cure our health care crisis.

CHILD ADVOCATE, GOES TO SENATE FLOOR

The bill outlines specific professional qualifications for the State Child Advocate. House Speaker Javier Martinez (D-Bernalillo) appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee today as the bill’s chief sponsor. The committee ultimately gave the bill a unanimous 9-0 “do-pass” recommendation.

The advocate would be housed in the Department of Justice and be an independent source of investigating complaints received, initiating prosecution, if appropriate, and holding the Children Youth and Family Department (CYFD) accountable for delivery of quality services. The office would increase transparency by publishing public reports on CYFD’s performance, actions taken by the advocate and generally requiring accountability. The secretary of CYFD said the administration agrees with most of HB 5 except it wants the oversight agency to be housed in the executive branch rather than the Department of Justice.

Both Sens. Katy Duhigg (D-Bernalillo) and Antonio “Moe” Maestas (D-Bernalillo) had proposed amendments. However, after extensive committee discussion and because the amendments were only presented this evening, the committee decided to advance the bill and add appropriate amendments on the floor of the Senate, a suggestion made by Majority Leader Peter Wirth (D-Santa Fe), who is also a member of the committee.

We notice there’s a strong desire to get this bill moving pronto and onto the governor’s desk. Here’s our speculation on the reason for urgency. It’s rumored the governor might veto HB 5. If the bill is delivered to her more than three days before the end of the session, she must take action on the bill within those three days, i.e. while the Legislature is still in session. This sets up an opportunity for a veto override. Legislators on both sides are fed up with the poor performance of CYFD, which extends far beyond this administration. There could be strong bipartisan support for an override. Just sayin’. …

Here’s a list that’s a bit more descriptive of the powers and duties of the Office of the Child Advocate:

• Reviewing the Children, Youth and Families Department’s (CYFD) service delivery to children and families or of any entity that provides services to children and families through funds received from CYFD;
• Investigating and receiving complaints made on behalf of children receiving services from CYFD;
• Determining the extent to which CYFD’s policies enhance the protection of children and their personal dignity, right to privacy, health care and education.
• Setting up a system to receive complaints, monitoring best practices and new federal or state laws affecting child welfare. The advocate has the power to subpoena witnesses to provide testimony in cases of fatalities or near-fatalities.
• Referring any instances of violation of constitutional rights, reckless disregard for the health and safety of a child or repeated instances of violating child welfare laws to the attorney general.
• Providing children and families with information about their rights as they relate to CYFD.
• Issuing an annual report with specific information related to child welfare and juvenile justice.

Herndon said there would be $300 million a year put into the fund until it gets to $2 billion, and then the state stops putting money into it. This is when the fund starts to draw off of the interest and funds itself.

J.D. Bullington testified in support of the bill on behalf of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce:

“The bill does a lot of things, which are all aimed at ensuring the state can sustain the Medicaid program, whether there are reductions in federal matches or through expanded usage or levels of care. And as we know, the costs of Medicaid have grown exponentially to the point where it places the second-largest demand on the general fund, just below public education. How does the bill do this? Through a variety of creative mechanisms, seeding it with an appropriation, unexpended amd unencumbered balances from state agencies and also reverting capital outlay. It distributes the money in a way that will help gain federal matching dollars. So this bill addresses what’s likely to be a critical need, and the Chamber asks for your support.”

Joining the Chamber in support of the bill were Think New Mexico, the New Mexico Health Care Association, New Mexico Pharmacy Business Council, New Mexico League of Women Voters, AARP New Mexico, NAMI New Mexico, Disability Rights New Mexico and The Disability Coalition.

Rep. Joanne J. Ferrary (D-Doña Ana) loved the idea of the bill yet had some concerns about financial points and asked if this was addressed in House Bill 2. Herndon said the initial fund was set up at $300 million to ensure the fund is first sustainable, and the additional amounts will be from investments interest from throughout the state. She said there is money to start the fund and what the bill is looking for is to grow it over the years until it reaches that $2 billion benchmark.

Minority Whip Rep. Alan Martinez (R-Sandoval) was supportive as the bill would help fund Medicaid should federal cuts come in October. “We have promises from the new administration that they’re going to finally balance the federal budget. I don’t know if we’re going to have the 7-to-1 match, the 4-to-1 match. I think it’s going to be closer to a 1-to-1 match. So we need to keep that in mind. It seems like we’re moving around money here, money that we’re counting on that we don’t have in hand yet. I mean, that’s always a concern for me. I think planning for the future is a great idea. I’m not too worried about what’s going on in the stock market right now. It’s going to correct itself.”

Rep. Jenifer Jones (R-Doña Ana, Hidalgo & Luna) expressed her concerns on why a health care committee would hear a money bill. “I just am irritated with having to make a decision on a bill that is a money bill. This is all about money, even though, you know, we acknowledge that, yes, it’s going to go on to finance, and they’re going to fix everything and amendments and so forth, but I have to make a decision on a money bill. (If) you asked any of us, do you want New Mexico to have good health care? We’re going to say, heck yeah, we love good health care. We want that for New Mexicans. I want good health care for New Mexicans. I want to make sure that we can pay for it. But I can’t make a decision on this bill. I’m tired of having my name on a bill, and I have no idea how this is going to work out. So that’s where I stand, a little frustrated.”

A motion was made for a “do-pass” vote as amended. The committee voted in favor on a 6-1 vote, sending the bill to the House Appropriations & Finance Committee.

The new definitions are fact-based, not speculative about what a person may or may not do in the future. This provides clearer direction to judges on when a person should be committed to mandatory treatment or supervision. The goal is to reduce the revolving door. Currently, nearly all those committing a misdemeanor may spend a night in jail or an emergency room, only to be turned back out on the streets. Rinse and repeat. What’s needed is a way to get more people the help they need to stop the vicious cycle. Sometimes, voluntary commitment works. Other times, when there is a threat to self or others, the courts must order mandatory treatment before a greater tragedy occurs. This an important component in expanding access to behavioral health care in the state.

TO ITS LAST COMMITEE, HOUSE JUDICIARY

The bill is aimed at helping bioscience startups get off the ground. Frequently, these startups bloom from work done at our universities, but the lack of investment capital in New Mexico sends them to other states for funding. No other state investment funds target individual bioscience startups.

Enrique C. Knell represented the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce’s strong support for investing in the Bioscience industry:

“We want to ensure that New Mexico gains a larger share of this very lucrative industry with good, high-paying jobs. The bioscience industry is responsible for major medical advancements and technology, everything from modern lab equipment to new, highly effective medications and cures for a range of diseases. While the state has other investment and venture capital funds, none are dedicated solely to attracting and growing bioscience investments. This sector is highly competitive and requires dedicated attention. We need to get into this game in a much bigger way, and SB 119 is a good start.”

SB 119 increases investment capital available for New Mexico-based bioscience and biotech firms by adding the Bioscience Authority to the current group of existing funds and investors assessing and making investments in New Mexico companies. This industry is fast-growing and has enormous economic impact. New Mexico has 7,600 people employed in the BioScience industry with an average salary of $75,000. Geographically, 30 of New Mexico’s 33 counties have at least one bioscience company, with 341 of them in Bernalillo County.

House sponsor Rep. Meredith Dixon (D-Bernalillo) laid out how the bill works. “It complements LEDA, the Local Economic Development Assistance Fund, by helping bioscience startup companies get established, which LEDA cannot do. This investment structure is designed to attract high-growth companies while better protecting the state’s investment. Investments in this fund require a two-to-one match from co-investment partners, meaning that for every $1 from the New Mexico Bioscience Authority, partners contribute $2. Individual investments will range from $500,000 to $2 million, and each investment round will include six to 10 companies that could support 30 to 100 employees per round. Businesses must maintain a minimum in-state workforce of five employees with a minimum median annual salary of $60,000 as a condition of the investment. 100% of the funding will go to investments, not to broker fees or staff salaries. The New Mexico Bioscience Authority must report activities for the prior fiscal year to the governor and the appropriate legislative interim committees.”

Presenters pointed out that the Legislature passed similar bioscience legislation two years ago that was vetoed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. Sponsors worked with the Governor’s Office to alleviate her concerns, including adding stronger clawback provisions for companies that don’t hold up their end of the bargain.

Nobody spoke against the bill, but several people from the business and economic development community showed up in force to support state investment in bioscience. Stephanie Tofighi, the executive director of the New Mexico Bioscience Authority, elaborated on the bioscience industry and the benefits of SB 119:

“This bill not only supports urban biotech companies, but it also supports rural agricultural science, which does fall under the bioscience umbrella and is something that the Bioscience Authority is able to really help burgeon with their collaborations with New Mexico Tech and New Mexico State. We are a comprehensive board of directors that includes members from those different research universities. We’ll work extensively with their research offices to help their researchers to commercialize their innovation. And we’re really excited to be able to use this fund to not only help with that innovation, but also to recruit companies from outside the state that are looking for a low cost of living, better commuting, and a better environment to raise their kids in. These are the kinds of arguments that we bring to the table when we’re talking to entrepreneurs that are currently stationed in San Diego and San Francisco and Boston. New Mexico has so much to offer.”

The bill passed 10-0 and heads to House Judiciary next.

Megacorp: ”Hi, I’d like to build a plant in New Mexico. I’m willing to invest a gazillion dollars, and we’ll bring 5,000 jobs. What sites do you have ready to go?”

New Mexico economic developer, “Uh, well, let’s see…we could have one ready in two or three years.”

SB 169, sponsored by Sen. Michael Padilla (D-Bernalillo), would ensure that conversation never happens. The bill has passed the Senate and had its first House hearing this evening in the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee. It passed 8-0 and heads to House Appropriations and Finance before it can move to the House floor for final passage.

The bill establishes a $24 million fund under the auspices of the Economic Development Department to find and select sites that are prime candidates to become shovel-ready for development. Sites from around the state are eligible for consideration. The sites could be publicly or privately owned and would be selected with the help of a diverse advisory committee. Sen. Padilla confirmed to the committee that the budget bill does include the $24 million for this undertaking.

Enrique C. Knell testified in favor of the measure on behalf of the Chamber:

“SB 169 is all about increasing the number of sites ready for business development and reducing the amount of time businesses must wait for their site to be ready for building. Right now we have very little inventory for medium- to large-scale commercial, industrial or other uses. And these sites can take anywhere from two to four years or longer to prepare utilities and be ‘ready’ for development. Rather than risk asking the next Netflix or Amazon if they can wait a few years, SB 169 proactively allows New Mexico to create an inventory of strategic economic development sites around the state that will make New Mexico more competitive with other states and attract significant capital investment, tax revenues and jobs.”

It’s estimated that New Mexico is losing 30% or more of prospects because of the lack of building sites. Thirty-six states already have such a program.

Selected sites could be eligible for predevelopment funding, including engineering, site preparation, environmental remediation and housing studies. Predevelopment funding could also include loans or grants for infrastructure extensions such as roadways and utilities.

Padilla pointed out to the committee that this bill (along with Senate Bill 170) help fill in a piece that is absent in our state’s economic development efforts. “We do have a key ingredient missing in our economic development toolkit, and that key ingredient really is site readiness. Site readiness is something that we can easily do for ourselves, which a lot of other neighboring regional states do in our area. But essentially what we do is we build a site characterization study that is overseen by a strategic economic development site advisory committee that knows what to look for.”

SB 169 and companion measure SB 170 are very much top priorities for all of us interested in economic development and private-sector diversification. SB 170 is waiting for its hearing in this committee. We’ll keep you updated on the progress of this pair of important economic development initiatives.

The bill passed the Senate today 39-0 and heads to the Governor’s Office for final signature. The bill has an emergency clause, which means it will become law the instant it’s signed. So HB 47 is nearing the end of its legislative journey.

Pope fielded the lone question from Sen. Pat Woods (R-Curry, Harding, Quay & Union), who wanted to know if the Legislature had already acted on this. Pope replied that this is solely the enabling legislation. ”We passed this, and then we sent it to the voters. It passed as a constitutional amendment to raise the property tax exemption from $4,000 to $10,000. Then they would get additional exemptions on their total property tax at the rate of their disability. This bill right here with the emergency clause is really the enabling language. In 2025, the $10,000 exemption would start, and in 2026, the rating off of their disability would start.”

The Chamber has supported this bill since its filing and testified in support at each stop. The Chamber wants to make New Mexico more attractive for active-duty personnel and veterans to serve here and stay in our great state. HB 47 is a good investment in New Mexico’s economy and the many veterans who are business owners, consumers and contributors to our state’s success.

HB 47 is nearing the end of what we expect to be a successful legislative journey. We’ll let you know when the governor takes action. The bill first has to be “enrolled and engrossed.” Once that process is done, the bill is transmitted to the Governor’s Office, and she has three days to act on the legislation.

MOVE TO NEXT COMMITTEE ON A 5-3 VOTE

Terri Cole, president and CEO of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, spoke in opposition of HB 259, saying:

“Mr. Chair and members of the committee, we believe the fees and fines increases are pretty shocking. If the basis is to adjust for inflation, then we’d very much appreciate learning what the base year is and the calculations that lead to the proposed adjustments

“Fines are presumably designed for punishment. Punishment exactly for what? Our oil and gas industry has been extremely cooperative and forward-thinking. The industry by and large has a very good record in compliance with state and federal regulations and, as we all know, is the cash cow of the state’s treasury. So, we’re left questioning what infractions the state is after and why are such extraordinary increases necessary and justified?

“We are very concerned that the proposed adjustments should not be arbitrary but rather backed up with some kind of evidence that explains the need and the presumed effectiveness. At this point, we oppose HB 259.”

Joining the Chamber in opposition were the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, New Mexico Oil and Gas Association and Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico.

Rep. Nicole Chavez (R-Bernalillo) questioned if there was evidence that supports the need for increasing penalties per violation and if it will lead to compliance, and what type of non-compliance is happening currently.

Rep. Christine Chandler (D-Los Alamos, Sandoval & Santa Fe) said she thinks it’s ironic that many think raising fines and penalties when it’s in the criminal context is some sort of really great tool — a deterrent. So is it a deterrent when we have a corporation that presumably has people running it with rational thinking and can evaluate the risks and the benefits of what they’re doing on a financial basis? And we compare that with a criminal who usually does a lot of things that are irrational and not well thought out, but we talk a lot about increasing penalties on those folks? “In a world where rationality is working, fines and penalties and the like should be viewed as something that’s a viable deterrent.”

With a motion for a “do-pass” vote, the committee voted 5-3, which moves it to House Appropriations & Finance.

J.D. Bullington testified in support of the bill on behalf of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce:

“This bill targets the leaders of enterprises that are committing heinous crimes that should be felonies. Specifically, it makes it a crime to solicit or coerce another person, including a minor, into being a member of or working with a criminal enterprise. And we also know that human trafficking is a growing problem, largely because of the organized criminal development that’s involved. Racketeering statutes are designed to go after these kinds of organizations and these kinds of people, and prosecutors need Senate Bill 70 to have a new set of tools to protect the public.”

Rep. Tara L. Lujan (D-Santa Fe) wanted to make sure the bill wouldn’t lessen the law when it comes to sexual assault. Rob Hart, director of the Organized Crime Commission and a Bernalillo County deputy district attorney, said nothing changes as far as the law goes. The crimes will be charged. “You can think of it as an enhancement, but the prosecutor still has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an enterprise going on and that the defendant was a member of that enterprise.”

A motion was made for a “do-pass” vote, and the committee passed it 9-0. The bill moves on to the House Judiciary Committee.

SCHOOL-LOAN HELP HEADED TO SENATE FLOOR

SB 411 passed 8-0 this morning in the Senate Finance Committee and now heads to the Senate floor. Just before the vote, Terri Cole, Chamber president and CEO, emphasized the Chamber’s strong support of SB 411’s approach to getting more doctors in New Mexico:

“New Mexico is in a health care crisis as 30 of its 33 counties are designated health professional shortage areas. SB 411 creates a lifeline to provide loan assistance to doctors practicing in one of those designated health professional shortage areas. As health care is key for economic development, the Physician Loan Repayment Act not only would give the ability for New Mexicans to be cared for across the state, it would also be positive in keeping New Mexico competitive in the health care arena.”

Brandt says the budget bill includes $10 million for this loan repayment program. The Higher Education Department (HED) will manage the program and monitor usage, “We’ll get a report from HED as to how much it’s been used and know what we need to get in there next year to make it stable.”

Brandt says doctors have to sign a commitment to stay in New Mexico four years before qualifying for the loan repayment assistance. “And that’s what we want, we want these doctors to love it so much that they never leave New Mexico,” Brandt told the committee.

“The problem is we need doctors, and we need to recruit them from everywhere,” Brandt said. “We are hemorrhaging doctors right now. We’ve lost over 600 doctors in the last two years. We have got to add doctors to our state. This is just one way of doing that.”

We absolutely agree with Brandt, and we’ll let you know when this bill is brought up on the Senate floor.

SAILS OFF HOUSE FLOOR TO SENATE

The Chamber has supported this and other medical professional compacts every step of the way this session. A motion was made for a “do-pass” for the bill. With no opposition, it sailed through the House floor with a vote of 56-0. The bill heads to the Senate.

UNANIMOUS ‘DO-PASS’ VOTE TO HOUSE FLOOR

J.D. Bullington spoke in support of the bill on behalf of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce:

“There are a number of bills authorizing New Mexico to enter various health care compacts. All are designed to bring health care professionals to our state. When approved, the compact will eliminate the need for licenses in multiple states. We all know how important attracting mental health professionals is as we wrestle with rebuilding the state’s behavioral health system. HB 242 offers one answer to how do we attract these professionals to New Mexico. We urge your support of HB 242.”

Joining the Chamber in support were AARP New Mexico, Think New Mexico and NAMI New Mexico.

With little discussion and no opposition, a motion for a “do-pass” vote was made, and the committee voted in favor, 7-0. The bill heads to the House floor.

1.  Felon in Possession of a Firearm: Three bills sponsored by two Republicans and one Democrat have all been stymied in their first committees. These bills are HB 166, HB 496 and SB 253. The House bills are stuck in the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee, and the Senate bill is stuck in the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee.
2. Criminal Competency Changes: Part of House Bill 8, the “public safety” package. which has been signed into law by the governor.
3. “Harm to self and others:” in Senate Bill 166, which passed the Senate 39-0 and has been sent to the House.
4. Sharing ballistics reports: Through previous budget appropriations to both the Department of Public Safety and the Second Judicial District Attorney’s Office, progress is being made. For example, DPS significantly expanded crime data reporting through the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) required by the FBI. By year-end, 77.6% of New Mexico law enforcement agencies were submitting NIBRS data, up from 63.8%, covering 86 percent of the state’s population. This increase has allowed the FBI to include New Mexico in its national crime data estimates after several years of exclusion, an essential step toward understanding state crime trends.
5. Racketeering Expansion: Senate Bill 70 adds several heinous crimes; it’s passed the Senate 38-0 and its first House committee, with one to go.
6. Amending the Controlled Substances Act: Also part of HB 8, the crime package, which enhances prison sentences for fentanyl and other drug trafficking. In addition, several bills are stuck in various committees that would increase penalties for fentanyl trafficking resulting in death: HB 107 is stuck in House Consumer and Public Affairs and SB 95 is stuck in Senate Judiciary. In addition, HB 274, trafficking fentanyl as a first-degree felony, is also stuck in HCPAC; HB 303, making exposing babies to controlled substances child abuse, is stuck in House Judiciary; and HB 383, making child exposure to fentanyl child abuse, is also stuck in HCPAC.

The only measure that was introduced in the special session not introduced in this session is one dealing with pedestrians in medians. Throughout the special session, this and previous sessions, the Chamber has been a staunch advocate for strong public safety measures. While progress is being made in this session, there’s still more to be done, including improving pretrial detentions, addressing fentanyl and other drug trafficking, enacting juvenile justice reforms and tackling felons caught using a firearm in a subsequent crime. As you can see from the list of bills above, there is a lot of good legislation stuck in committees, and that needs to change.

We will continue strong advocacy for these and other measures that we sincerely believe will protect citizens and make New Mexico a much safer place. Our very real high-crime rate lessens New Mexico’s competitive position for growing and attracting business. Quality of life is very important, and crime, education and health care are top of the list when companies consider New Mexico as a place to do business, since employees want to ensure they and their families are safe and have ready access to quality health care and education. The job to improve all of these quality-of-life issues has a good beginning, but the work is far from done.