Judiciary — Closed Captions

>> And the order. Lisa, please call the roll Chair Yarborough here. Vice Chair Burton, Senator Berman Senator Deciglie Senator Gaetz Senator Hooper. Senator leak here. Senator Osgood Senator Passadomo Senator Polsky Senator Trumbull, a quorum is present. Thank you, Lisa. Senator Burton is excused from today's meeting in just a friendly reminder. Please make sure you silence all electronic devices and anyone wishing to speak before the committee should complete an appearance form and hand it to a member of the sergeants office. If you select to waive your speaking time, your position will be included in the committee meeting records at this time. I'll recognize Senator leak to chair the meeting. Thank you, Senator. >> Thank you. That would go to tab 3 Senate Bill 624. On batteries, intervention program activities by Senator Yarborough Senator Yarborough. You're recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman senators Senate Bill 624, authorizes batterers intervention programs to offer supplemental faith-based activities to participants. However, no participant may be required to participate in a faith-based activity while in the program. Dcf currently allows be IP providers to include supplemental faith-based activities. But the faith-based content cannot be a mandatory part of the program. Curriculum, Mr. Chair. That's the bill. Thank you, members other questions on the bill. Senator Berman for the question. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So when you say it will be supplemental, I just want to understand. So there is already very there are very specific requirements about what these better intervention programs have to have. So will the supplemental be in addition to I mean, that's the normal definition of supplemental. But I just want to clarify that. That's the case. Senator Yarborough. >> Thank you. Chair threw the chair to Lieberman. Thanks for the question. The activities that would be supplemental leader would be supplemental to the core curriculum and they're not stated in the bill. But as our analysis points out that can involve homework, journaling group discussion or additional support groups, but it would not be it would not be a mandatory requirement in order for you to complete. The batterers intervention program is just supplemental and it would be optional for the person to take advantage of. >> Thank you. Any follow-up. Thank you, Mr. Yes, they recognized. I'm so it's not in place of any of the requirements that are already in the program. And what would the person in that program have to spend more time? Because it is supplemental. You're recognized. >> Thank you. I don't know that they would have to spend more time. We have 4. Thank you for the question later. What we have is that the program has to last at least 29 weeks and include 24 weekly sessions. But it does not. It doesn't contemplate extending the program to a longer time than what is required by law. The court orders that the person has to do it. >> Thank you. Okay. Further questions you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> The fact that these courses are going to be provided by Faith, Faith based organization, does that mean they're going to be allowed to use faith-based materials in their program unlike other programs that are not faith-based? >> Senator Yarborough, you're recognized. Thank you. Chair threw the chair Senator Polsky. They would be able to senator, which is the main reason we're making it optional for the participants, but it's not a requirement. So it's their choice if they want to participate knowing that that could be a part of that program through that supplemental information and materials that they can be provided. >> Any follow-up you're recognized. Thank you. And >> is that monitored in the same way that current programs? I'm honored to make sure the the language that may be more faith-based is appropriate for what they're trying to accomplish here. Senator Yarborough, you're recognized. >> Thank you. We don't get specific down to the curriculum level with that. Senator we again, we're we're making it optional. So if the individual I wanted to evaluate what those supplemental activities or materials would be as part of what that program offers, again, the main thing is that it's not a requirement for them to be able to go through a complete the program. So the judgment would rest with the individual as to whether they would like to engage in and take advantage of those supplemental activities any further questions? >> Members, any further questions seeing? No further questions. Are there appearance forms? Thank you for our first up. Beth Gearhart speaking for you're recognized. >> Thank you so much. And wanted to address the first question about the curriculum content and having the supplemental faith-based materials in there. We will be submitting that to Florida DCF in the certification process. They will be reviewing that material along with our base curriculum. I appreciate this bill being here. We have current deficit in our state for certified providers. Every year. We're losing a few more providers. So this bill will actually open the door to allow more faith-based providers to come in along side of the secular providers and open the door so that our probation departments and our court system is not facing such a backlog with be IP clients trying to find a program that would fit their needs. So I'm asking you today to please move this bill forward for us. Thank you so much. >> Thank you for your testimony. Next up, we have Kevin Drinking speaking for you're recognized, sir. >> Thank you. And good morning. I have been an ordained minister for over 20 years and I'm also a license. Pastoral counselor who serves individuals and families across Central Florida in my rule is made will roll as both a minister and a counselor. I have witnessed firsthand the profound impact that faith-based batterers intervention programs have had in addressing the root causes of destructive behaviors for many of the clients that I've served their active faith, whether they're Protestant, Catholic, Muslim or Jewish or some other serves as a cornerstone for accountability, hope learning and change. I believe the current domestic violence situation in Florida over the past few years has become worse and not better. And it is now estimated that 12 phone calls or place the tower to Florida law enforcement regarding domestic violence SB 624. To once again allow faith providers back on the playing field to continue making the difference. They once used to the Christian Counseling center where I work has been have been helping probationers for over 35 years. Over that time, our counselors have earned the respect of the courts and the local probation departments because they know our testimony has been one of success and helping people to not re offend. Despite our record, our center was notified in the fall of 2022. That a newly enacted administrative code eliminated us as being a client provider. This bill would allow domestic violence perpetrators, the option of seeking A B B IP provider that aligns with their spiritual beliefs. I believe faith-based be IP is address not only the offenders behavioral patterns, but also the emotional and spiritual wounds that often underlie physical violence by restoring this client choice. This bill would empower individuals to be able to pursue a path that best resonates with their beliefs and values, thereby enhancing the likelihood of lifelong transformation. Lastly, let us remember the biblical promise of personal renewal. King David after he blew it, wrote these words create in the A clean heart Lord and renewal right spirit within me. I am in favor of this bill moving forward and ask that it be passed. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Next up, we have Douglas is that have mains come close, close. Good. You're recognized. >> My name is Douglas Man. It's been a minister for 36 years. I've Council all 36 years and I'm now license through fact. Federal Association of Christian counters there for us. I have in in the the working part of the hurt in our communities for for a long time past 2 years I went back. I got my master's degree in counseling because of this dire need and people that are hurt an some got so many people are seeking that and where they believe where the heart is in Gaza. What I want to share with you is this people that come to see me, maybe the difference in providers. I think everybody cares or they wouldn't be doing what they were doing. You guys care about what happens in our state. That's why you're doing what you're doing. The reason I do what I do, it's because I care when people walk in to see me, I don't judge what they do, what they think judged by who they are. I want to help the person. So when we come into the office to see me, what I'm done demanded by my lord to do is to repeat with love when they walk into the place they want to receive love enough. I love them. I care about them. I care about their needs, their hurts their wants and I'm going to help change the pattern of behaviors that are going to give them a life that is more beneficial than the one that they've been living is more beneficial to the people around him. I just thank you all for considering this. A thank you for bringing this bill. I hope you a pass it. I believe lives will be changed because the thank you so much. >> Thank you, sir. And I just learned you're married to a very important person and a friend of mine. Please tell Celeste. I said hello. Next up, we have John Labriola. You're recognized, sir. >> Good morning, senators. My name is John Labriola. I represent the Christian Family Coalition and we are statewide organization that advocates for religious liberties and we feel this bill is very important because all it does is it provides choice the individuals that want to use faith-based program and it gives an opportunity which they don't have right now. As you heard before, that this is created a backlog because there's not some simply not enough people that addresses program. And the important thing to understand is that they use their own money. This is not state money. This is freedom of choice. We believe that it's important that you restore that choice. We feel that the prohibition that was enacted administratively back in 2022, was played an active religious discrimination in the 3, 6, free state of Florida. That shouldn't happen. So we're asking you to please support this Bill. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Next up, we have Barney Bishop waiving in support. We have Aaron DiPietro waiving in support members. We are now in debate. Is there debate Senator Berman? >> That thank you, Mister Chair. So in 2022, we change the rule. And so I do. What do you have a question that I didn't ask the sponsor so hopefully he can address that. So are we going to have to do some rulemaking now to go back? But when we change the rule, there is actually a lawsuit and the state prevailed in the lawsuit and the state said that the change of the rule was proper. And in the lawsuit, they said the curriculum and presentation of court-ordered be eyed Peas are government speech. And that was why they said it was okay that we had change this law. I don't understand why we're going back backwards. Now, this is another instance where we're blurring the line between the government and religion. So I have a real problem night. Listen to one of our speakers who talked about the fact that this is being done because we have a shortage of the IP is if the reason why if we have a shortage of the IP is let's address it. But we're being told that this was just a supplemental thing to help people. So is there a shortage or is this actually a supplemental program? I just find that there's too many issues right now for me to vote for this. Maybe I'll change my mind as it moves through the process. But right now I'm concerned that word, you know, changing our position on what is government speech. So I'm going to be a no today. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any further debate? >> Any further debate seeing no further debate. Senator Yarborough, you're recognized to close on your Bill. >> Thank you, chair leader. Thank you for your for your comments and debate on the bill. I would say that we we have a balance in the bill that's before us because there's no mandate and we know constitutionally that we we have a balance there because we don't want to restrict free speech. We want to ensure that individuals have the we have an obligation to ensure that they can exercise their believes freely. But we also you we also can establish any federal or state laws that establish a belief and a specific religion. We're not doing that here. We're just saying that individuals in a specific program have the opportunity. If they want to participate with an entity or organization to fulfill a court order that's been put on them from that process that they can choose to opt into this and have those supplemental activities be a part of that they don't have to, but they can if they want to. So that to me is balance. I hope that speaks to the concern you have would love to earn your support on it. But I do believe it's balance. This is important and we have providers that are willing to help individuals out there who need it. And I think this is a good step forward for so I would ask for your support. Thank you, chair. >> Thank you, Lisa. Please call the Roll and Senate Bill 624. >> Senator Berman Senator Deciglie Senator Gaetz Senator Hooper. Senator leak. Yes, senator Osgood, senator Passadomo. Yes, senator polsky senator Trumbull. Yes. Senator Burton chair Yarborough. Yes. >> Second yeas, 2 nays. Thank you. And by your vote Senate Bill 624, is reported favorably members. We're going to move to Tab 5 next Cs for SB 834, by Chair Yarborough. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman Senate Bill 834, repeals a recent provision affecting nonprofit religious organizations known as Health Care Sharing Ministries are hcs sums that prohibits them from partnering with licensed insurance agents to market or sell faith-based programs. Acsm Azure, 501 C threes that facilitate the voluntary direct member to member sharing of each other's medical expenses. Hcs M's are made up of communities of face entered people who support one another financially and prayerfully through life's health challenges. Hcs M's have a statement of share. Religious beliefs of the community agrees to hold since 2008. Florida's recognize these is that this is distinct from insurance. They're not insurance products. Repealing this restrictive language allows trained agents to educate families about lawful, faith-based alternatives. At a time when health care decisions are more complex and personal than ever, the current ban limits consumer education and also raises First Amendment concerns. Repealing it restores free speech, removes unnecessary business barriers and maintain strong consumer protections. Existing oversight by the attorney general, the Department of Financial Services and the Office of Insurance Regulation remains unchanged to ensure agents and health care sharing ministries do not mislead consumers by holding products or arrangements out as Insurance SB 834, restores the statute to its original intent and upholds constitutional rights and also empowers Florida families to make informed decisions concerning their healthcare Mr. Chairman, that's the bill. Thank you, members. Are there any questions? >> Senator Polsky, thank you, Mr. Chair. If insurance agents can sell this, then how is it not an insurance product? Senator, your Bill. >> Thank you. It would give the through the chair to Senator Polsky. It would give the agents the opportunity to help market. And so this senator, but we have strict guidelines in statute and safe harbor language that's required to be given to individuals who wish to participate. And I type of ministry like this to let them know clearly and unequivocally this is not an insurance product. So just because agents may have the ability to assist a ministry with marketing and with them with selling these types of things, it doesn't mean that it then becomes an insurance product to just and hinges them basically from being able to have that speech and have that opportunity to talk to people about it if they choose to engage and so they don't have to Senator Polsky. >> Are there any other products that insurance agents can sell that are not technically insurance? Senator Yarborough. >> Thank you. As our bill analysis points out, there is one type of entity in the agriculture space that was given the ability to do this. But it's also not considered unofficial insurance product and it has guidelines that surround it. But outside of that, I'm not aware of any other that we might have there could be, but I'm not aware of them. >> Senator Polsky, is there any guidelines on with respect to the amount of commission that insurance agent can get from these entities? >> Senator Yarborough, I don't know the answer that question, senator, but I can get one and let you know any further question. Senator Polsky. >> Thank you. It has been reported that the commission could be 10 to 15% versus 3% from an insurance company. Why would they have a higher Commissioner Mitten who would set that commission mate, Senator Yarborough, if you know. >> Thank you. I do not know the answer to that either, senator, but I'm happy to research it and let you know. >> Any further questions we do that are close to you. I mean, that seems like a huge issue because wouldn't there be an incentive for an insurance agent who has the trust of the consumer that is coming to them to say I think you should go with this product is cheaper. It's better for you for X, Y and Z and then they make a much larger commission. So what's to prevent them from pushing this product that actually has been reported to be very unsafe for patients. Senator Yarborough. >> Thank you. A two-part answer. Your question, Senator. And I'll address that last part first. I mean, some could argue that it's that it's unsafe. But we also have stories from individuals who say this works well for them. They voted with their feet and they have chosen this option if they think that's best for them and for their family, I would point back to even on your valid commission question we we have and this is also listed in the analysis on Page 5. I believe we have the language that they have to put out. That makes clear that this is not an insurance product. It's not subject to the regulatory requirements are consumer protections of the insurance code. It's your choice to do it. There's no guarantee for some of these things. They have to provide that for consumers. So it's it's up to them if they choose to engage. And we have quite a number of people who do. >> Any further questions for question, what would you be? Would you be open to capping the >> commission rate at the same as other plans? Because what's why should one incentivize insurance agent to push one product over another Senator Yarborough? >> Thank you, chair. I would consider that senator, but I'd like to research and get answers to your first 2 questions you asked related to commission first before giving an answer definitively on that. >> Thank you. My final question is can you further explain the First Amendment concerns mean if you are, for example, a member of the bar or your licensed insurance agent? There are restrictions on things you can do and say because the government is licensing you and you have this position of power. So if the government is saying that you have to do certain things, a certain way to be a license earns agent isn't the idea of being an insurance agent license by the state potentially Critelli speech. So why is this could telling the First Amendment rights to sell a product? Senator Yarborough? >> Thank, you know, is very good question, Senator. I'm glad you brought it up our own later boys, an insurance agent. He would not have the ability like you me or anyone else sitting up here is not an agent or anyone else out there in our state or anywhere from talking about these programs, pitching their benefits, talking whatever way we would choose you and I will to do that. He has a restriction on what he can talk about. He may want to talk about it and advocate for or maybe not advocate for it with someone out there. And even if he if we lift this and he's unable to one, it doesn't force agents to do it. If they don't want to, it doesn't force ministries to engage with them. If they don't want to, it just gives the option. So at the root of your question, no, it's putting a restriction on someone like leader Boyd from being able to talk about this. If he wants to do that, it's it's a restriction just on the insurance agents. >> Senator Polsky, yes, I understand that. But there are restrictions in there for reasons that because the things that insurance agencies regulate, for example, I'm not a member of the Florida bar either Boesky for question. This is a question I can't give legal advice. Is that restricting my First Amendment right to I can't give some legal advice that's acting the part of law. Just like acting as an insurance agent, something a product that they the government is saying they can. So how is that affecting first right there living within the bounds of that license? >> Senator Yarborough, I think understand the question. But it's but it's still a restriction that right now today they cannot if they were, if they choose to or from ministry, wanted to engage with someone like that to help them, they are prohibited from being able to do that under the current law. And remember, just because we lift this doesn't mean they can then go hold it out as insurance. I understand the other questions and the route I don't want consumers don't want Floridians to be misled, but we still have to give them the disclaimer. Clearly, this is not insurance. So in the course of providing help to ministry, if they wanted to do that, they still can't go around the enforcement provisions that the accountability provisions in the safe harbor language that we have said. You have to tell Floridians what it's about and what it's not and all of that or you're going to run afoul of the law and there's going to be accountability there. So just because they can push under the Advocate doesn't make it insurance, doesn't change anything else about the law. >> Any further questions. Senator Berman, thank you, Mister Chair and Senator Yarborough. If is there any guarantee fun if these HC these healthcare Ministry ceased operate? Senator Yarborough, thank you. Not that I'm aware of leader any further questions. Yes, Senator Berman, thank you, Mister Chair. And so I've seen some studies that are some information that they some of these healthcare ministries are only paying like. >> $0.56 of every dollar on healthcare or even less. What someone the study that showed they'll $16 out of every 100 was spent for health care. And we know that under the Affordable Care Act, only 20% can be spent on administrative fees. Does this concern you that so little of the amount is actually being paid for medical care? Senator Yarborough. >> Thank you, chair. Thank you. Chair to Leader Berman. So it would concern me that anyone who gives their word to do something would not be fulfilling their word, whether it's this issue or a ministry like that or anybody out there. But what I would say is consumers have the ability to choose that if they want to and there are many in our state and across the nation who choose these and they have the opportunity to review information the same way that you and I and everyone else says when they evaluate and actual insurance product or anything else, they wish to engage in insurance or otherwise. And so while we are charged with being the gate keepers and protecting and all of that, we have a balance here with that safe harbor language, which already has to be put out, even if we weren't even talking about this today related to what agents can help them do if we passed that already has to be done today. And we know that our accountability measures are working because if there's because of some bad actors and you have alluded to a little bit, those that are out there and our state and others who may have not paid when they should have paid or said they would or others who have been taken to task by some of their activities that proves that the accountability measures are working. So the bottom line is consumers have the ability to make that choice if they want to. And that information is out there for their review. Senator Berman, thank you. >> Should we be considering at least some additional regulation on these entities to make sure to protect our consumers? Because I don't think that an average consumer reading that disclaimer will know that they may only be getting paid $0.50 up $0.50 on the dollar for medical coverage. When you consider, I think it would be prudent to add some additional regulation to that effect on these entities. >> Senator Yarborough, thank you for the question later. I'd be open to that. But I want to give just a word of caution. What we're talking about is more specifically related to allowing the insurance agents to help these ministries if they want to versus getting into and actually changing the what is allowed in the structure of the ministry's and entities and and things of that nature. So certainly open to the conversation. But the bill has been designed to be narrowly focus more on allowing the insurance agents that freedom of speech and the ability to help the ministry's versus making changes to the actual allowable mechanisms and functions of the ministry's themselves. >> But a conversation that thank you, Mr. Chair. So if we're if you're less entitled to regulate them based on that fact, how about doing something where we collect data, Colorado and Massachusetts already collect data. >> So that we could at least monitor and see how they're being used and maybe use that data for future legislation. If we see abuses, would you be willing to consider collecting some data on requiring them to report so that we know what is actually happening with these HC these healthcare ministries? Senator Yarborough. >> Thank you, chair. Thank you, leader. I'd be open to evaluating the two-state you mentioned and that option later and happy to continue that conversation. >> Any further questions there. Senator Polsky for second round. Thank you. >> I don't know much about these healthcare ministries. So just wanted a little more information. Could any group qualify as a healthcare ministry and then in your bill if it passes, be able to be sold by a licensed insurance agent, Senator Yarborough. >> Thank you, chair. I would need to research who can qualify. Senator, for those to answer the first part of your questions and the first part of your question and the second part was, did you ask whether that would then mean a licensed insurance agent could help them? So whatever it is they have all together. >> Yes, I can clarify. Couldn't insurance agent if your bill passes, could insurance agent sell any product? Could any church to say, hey, we have an insurance plan, go sell it or do they have to qualify and some of the way to be considered something more valid? >> I need to research that. Senator, I do think I have an answer to that. Your first question if I could our chair on page 3 of our analysis, the hcs sums. There's some there's some bullet points in there in our analysis that described. I won't I won't read them because they're there in front of us. But of what criteria they have to meet in order to qualify to be an agency somewhat. They're exempt from what the required auditing and things of that nature is in our analysis. >> Senator Polsky, thank you. Final is how so how would an insurance agent know which ones are allowable to sell? Which ones qualify is there if there's no regulatory body had they know which ones are plans that they could sell Senator Yarborough? >> I'll check into that to Senator. They may be that we have a requirement that they have to register with the state we have. It's a we do. We do lead to the existence of them in our statutes and we do have them in Florida. Have to check for you to see how we go about seeing how many we have in Florida any further questions. >> Members, any further questions seeing no further questions. We'll move on to appearance forms. We have a number. First up, we have Lindsay Swindle speaking for you are recognized. >> Good afternoon chair and committee members. My name is Lindsay. So and on the director of policy and government affairs at to share. Thank you so much for this opportunity. Again, reiterating what chair Yarborough is saying that this is just repealing language that has been in place since 2008. It is giving agents the opportunity to if they get a call from somebody and they want to talk about their faith and find a health option that meets their families needs, it's allowing for that. We're currently they're restricted from. If someone was sharing about, you know, that they're nervous. How do they navigate their faith and just being able to open that and not necessarily saying of how healthcare sharing ministry should work, but if it's okay to share, Mr. Chair in the statute and 6, 24.1, 2, 6, 5, again, much Senator Polsky. It does list out what a healthcare sharing ministry is. You're able to point to that and direct and again just giving an option. It's not mandating that insurance agents have to talk about health care sharing ministries. It is just allowing them the opportunity, should they wish and then that any questions. >> Thank you very much. Next up, we have Joel looks like Noble. You're recognized, sir, coming our bureau and members of the committee. Thank you for having me today. My name is John Noble. Hear from Peoria, Illinois, and I'm representing him Samaritan Ministries. I'm the director of public policy and we're one of the 3 largest national health care sharing ministries and a founding member of the Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries. So for 31 years, Samaritan has been serving as members as Christians bear one another's burdens through healthcare sharing. That currently includes over 10,000 individuals here in Florida. And I've been blessed to have been serving in the healthcare sharing ministry field for over 25 years. I'm here today to ask you to oppose a 34 in its current form and ask for you to urge the sponsor to instead bring new better language. The law in 34 states including the one here in Florida, which we refer to as safe harbors were passed. To clarify that healthcare sharing. We're not engaging the business of insurance and not subject to the insurance code but allowing the use of agents and brokers would contradict that insurance. Agents and brokers are engaging in the business of insurance and are subject to the insurance code you've heard from the proponents of this is the attack on free speech. Understand that in the free state of Florida, an attack on free speech in the constitutional right would be deeply concerning. However, it's simply not true that this is a free speech issue to say that a licensed agent or broker being prohibited from selling not insurance. Health care sharing ministries would mean that they would be unable to have a conversation with someone at church and mention healthcare sharing is a ridiculous conclusion and wholly untrue. I've noticed my time here that you have something in common with my home state of Illinois. We also restrict grocery stores from selling a spirits within the main store. Like here, they build a separate entrance and walled off. If I weren't Publix and I asked the store manager in the soup, I'll his opinion on Rome and he gave it to me with Publix, lose their liquor license with a be fined for talking to me about spirit outside of that wall done area. Obviously not. It's the selling of the product. That's the problem and the selling of the project here. You may also hear that they're already safeguards in place to prevent agents from acting unethically and punish them as relates to selling health care sharing ministries, Florida, like many states war on their brokers and agents about the risk compound least first related to health plans. However, this relates to health plans and health care sharing ministries are not health plans. No insurance at all and correctly, not 72. The Tran statutes in Florida as a 501 C 3 nonprofits. The ministry's themselves are regulated and subject to the oversight by the attorney general related to deceptive practices. But the current ban on agents is removed. How can DFS go after an agent? If the issues only related to health care sharing ministries, they sell, they can't or they could try and likely not succeed. There is strong consumer protections in place against the ministry's, but there's really no consumer protection in place against the agents. The use of agents and brokers causes consumer confusion, which naturally leads to consumer complaints, which we sport is all health care sharing ministries, including respectful ministries, choosing not to use brokers like mine in our over 31 years of existence. To our Knowledge, Samaritan Ministries has never had a member complaint in any state, any Department of Insurance or any consumer advocacy group. Yet when news stories emerge about members being harmed often after being misled by brokers, all health care sharing ministries are lumped together as dangerous unreliable. It may be argued that this is an isolated, bad actor and there are no longer in business, but the harm that the use of brokers can it will cause still exists. There are numerous other reasons that it's bad for health care sharing. But because it limited time I move on, I'll be happy to expound during questioning. So again, I would ask that you vote no on 8.34, until new better way, which can be added. Thank you for your time to be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Senator Osgood. >> Thank you. And I'm listening carefully. I'm an associate minister at my church. And so in that church, we are intentional about membership haven't privileges. So it's in my church. I have a member of my church. That's the shot spoke of and we decide to do this program. Help me understand why you're seeing that shouldn't be if that's what you're saying. I'm really trying to understand which is you're recognized, threw the chair to Senator. >> I'm all I'm saying is that license agents since they are selling insurance and this is not insurance, often causes consumer confusion. If some of the licensees and your church and they want to talk to someone about healthcare sharing, some comes to them and says, hey, I'm considering this healthcare sharing ministry, they can talk to about it. The issue arises in the selling of it. It's already been mentioned, the outrageous commissions and the that they're correct. That's a huge incentive to sell health care sharing ministries by agents as opposed to the transplant. >> Thank you. And thank you fans because the weighted I'm thinking about, I'm really trying to see both sides. So if I have a member of my church who is the agent that talks to me about this and gets a commission from meant, then I'm looking for that commission to go back into the church to support other ministries in the church because that person is a member. So I'm trying to understand when you say the problem would be with that person selling it, could you elaborate on that a little bit more? You're recognized, threw the chair to senator. >> As I said, health to sharing its not insurance. So when folks go to an insurance agent, they're expecting insurance that insurance agents most likely any use insurance language. They're going to talk about coverage and deductibles and premiums and none of that applies to health care sharing ministries because we're not insurance. And when the use terminology like that, when there, you know, in the morning selling insurance in the afternoon, south selling healthcare, sharing what we've seen in other states and the and through consumer complaints is that folks, I think that they're getting insurance or there walk away, thinking they're getting something different than what what they're expecting. And so what we're trying to do is the non insurance healthcare sharing ministry, separate from assurance that the whole point of the law in Florida. And so the current ban is consistent with that law that we're not insurance. >> Thank you, Senator Osgood, thank you. Once had a question in your years of experience, have you found that the health care sharing ministries a more attractive and more affordable ways of having health care for younger families? >> Threw the chair to the senator and what I found is the driving forces. Usually consumer choice being outside of insurance allows our members to control their healthcare dollars and and not be controlled by their employer or the government or anyone else on this. Affordability is not something while it is more affordable is not something that we have Samaritan Drive. It's more consumer Choice. Senator Polsky. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair does one have to be a member of that. That particular church to be part of the healthcare ministry. >> You're recognized to the chair to senator. There's different health care sharing ministries out there. Most of them are going to be non denominational and it's not based in in certain church Samaritan who I represent were not connected to any church. We're just we're Christian in nature. We have a basic Christian statement of belief that a member sign off on, but it's not attached to any particular church. >> Senator Polsky, thank you. So potentially an insurance agent could sell one of these if this bill passed across the country to any other church work health ministry plan because it's been sounding like a member of that particular church was talk to the neighbors about joining their particular churches plan. But what? But it sounds like now, if an insurance, if this bill passes in insurance to to sell from anywhere, is that your understanding? You're recognized that Senator? >> Absolutely. And that's what we see is these agents cell nationwide and except in the states where it's already banned. So states like Pennsylvania or for monitor Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, their states that have said that because you're not insurance, it's not. I write for an insurance agent to sell. And it's interesting when these bad actors came up and we're taking 80% of the money coming in and only Levy 20's center be shared, which is already been alluded to the states that we're not really harm to the states where it didn't see really any providers being left for the states that already had a ban in place. And he was the states that unfortunately did not restrict agents that were hit hardest. Florida being the 3rd largest when this bad actor by the time they went out of business. >> I have a couple questions. So healthcare sharing services provide coverage of health care cost to its members through a non-traditional insurance arrangements that set fair. >> To the chair to senator. So there's no coverage and because we're not insurance and stone are standing and saying they're sharing the cost. Yes, but there's no transfer risks to did get to the ministry's. And that's why it's not insurance. There's no transfer. There's no pulling. So it's just member to member sharing. Best example is I've been with Samaritan. I've not had insurance in 25 years when my kids were born, I receive checks in the mail from other members catch. Those went paid my my doctors. >> And there's nothing in this bill that would require your organization to to use agents to sell products and correct. >> Threw the chair to senator. No, we would not be required to use agents except when agents cause consumer harm. That I end up testifying in a number of states against bad bills that are going to shut my ministry down when when this happens, there's no discrimination among the regulation and harm that that Thompson. Okay. Thank you. Are there any further questions to this? >> Presenter? Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next up, we have Daniel Martinez waiving in support Devin Graham waiving against Greg Black waiving in support Aaron DiPietro waiving in support John Labriola waiving in support and George Phase you speaking for you're recognized. >> Good morning. Chair members of the committee, George Page, 40 partners here working with a Christian Care Ministry and sorry I was in another committee and ran over 7, heard the full debate. But one of the points that I just wanted to make is I'm actually a licensed insurance agent. I always had it on the consulting side of never actually worked agency and sold right, but actually go to First Baptist right around the corner. And the line that I've used on on this specific piece of legislation that's been in the statute for the last 2 years is at church. I can't speak about health care sharing ministries, but my wife is a 4th grade teacher. She can write. So if you're looking at this as a consumer protection, I would say that's not what it is. It's actually it's a ban on lawful speech, lawful commerce from a particular group of professionals. All right. There's actually a whole agency DFS that would regulate and insurance agents license and put if you're doing something. That's if areas, right, there's actually more higher bar on agents. Right? So so that's really when you when you dive into what the point of this bill is, it healthcare ministries have been around for a long time. The statute that's being amended here is a safe harbor from regulation that's been there since 2008. It is not a regulatory structure for these ministries to a safe harbor from regulation. As a lot of if you do X, Y Z, then you'll have that safe harbor. This do not was stuck in 2 years ago. Christian chemistry that's based out of Melbourne. They didn't know was they're coming back now to explain why we do understand why somebody might have thought that would be a good thing that once you see the other side of it, it starts to become a little bit nonsensical. So this is not about litigating health care sharing ministries today. It is about removing a barrier to lawful commerce and free speech. So thank you. Thank you, Senator Polsky. >> Thank you. Why would you not be able to speak about this? If a friend asked Inter test you, hey, what do you think about these plans? Use a lie can sell it, but it does X Y and Z and you know, as opposed to your blue cross Blue Shield plan and you can consider this, you really think that that would be a violation of, you know, I I want to send a recognize the market. >> I'm sorry through the chair market or sell. Yeah, it speaking about voting, right? There's if there's a thin line there, of course. But I think the way I see it and even taking a step further, it says health plans, which will already argue we don't sell health plans. But in being conservative, the lawyers that, you know, that the companies, of course, are going to say, hey, you might be sacrificing your whole safe harbor if you even start to toe the line, right? But we don't even sell health plans. So wouldn't even say that. But it is even applicable from the words of the statute. But yeah, it's about marketing if I wanted to sell it at my church said speaking, but it. But that's the idea if I wanted to go and share with other folks about this option. And if I wanted to so again, I don't I don't actually sell insurance. It's not my day job, but I am license and this is if you're licensed, right? You can't so high. It's I C e lapses and I can do my cel, not a licensed agent and now I can talk about it. It's just the protection. There doesn't doesn't necessarily make sense. But I will tell you this, if the protections or something it's important to you, there are many robust ones that still remain in the actual statute that's being affected. There's this whole bottom section about disclosures on how this is not insurance. It's nice to be in every application and and in the guidelines. There's also again, for agents, existing DFS that can go in and and pull license or spend or fine or even criminal charges. And then you've also got on the ag right there for that stuff. And I think that it's been mentioned that there's been issues with some of the folks in the past and they've been taken down shows that work. So we don't ban when there's bad actors ban a whole group of folks. We regulate it through through smart regulation and that's what we have in Florida. That's that's existing service. >> Thank you. There are no more appearance forms members. We're in debate. Is there debate Senator Polsky? >> Thank you. I'm going to start with what was just said since its top of mind is a big difference in the First Amendment between right to speak and write to sell. I don't know where there's a basis in law, the right to sell anything right to market anything as a business. So and I think that that was just glossed over. I think it's been said pretty clearly that someone who happens to be a licensed Jen can talk about these plans can talk about health insurance in general. I'm sure people would seek them out as experts in the field, but that's exactly the danger. They are experts in the field. So if and insurance agent was promoting one of these healthcare ministry plans, then the person on the other end of that will feel well, they really know what they're talking about. And maybe this is a good plan for me, not knowing that they're making potentially much larger commission and who knows what the you know, the basis of the insurance agent pushing one product over another so uncomfortable that there's no regulation of these products. What is the insurance agent choosing among? They've got, you know, on the right at night and United and Blue Cross and they've got what was mentioned, Good Samaritan First Baptist and then some from across the country. And I'm sure that there could be someone who looks at it just takes the cheapest one because they just knew insurance and we'll take the cheapest one that could be, you know, one of these kinds of plans that has been written about and there's been many Expos 80's. In fact, the first bill analysis in banking insurance showed all these problems. And then somehow that analysis came out of this particular committee. I don't know why. But there's been so many complaints and so many problems you all may be familiar with. Jon Oliver who is was on The Daily Show, has his own show he created. One of these has a bit on a show in 2021 and it was a healthcare ministry plan. So I know they exist and I don't think that we need to waste our time arguing about whether they should exist or not exist. But it's been said this is not insurance. So why should insurance Jen sell it? It's only for the insurance agent who make more money and maybe for some nefarious healthcare ministry plans to try to push their product. But if it's meant as a aye, what it's been described to me because I was unfamiliar this kind of a community health fund and someone gets sick in the community, they all help out. That's great. I don't see why you need to be a plan for that. Everyone can give whatever they want every week every month. It doesn't have to be a plan. They can just give to the church and they could do a go fund me. They could do whatever they want, why it needs to be something in the insurance realm where insurance agents cell makes no sense to me. It seems very dangerous and it should be subject to regulation if they're going to go down the insurance agent path. So I think this is very dangerous. I think it doesn't protect the consumer. It just helps insurance agents. And I think we don't have enough information has been some questions that haven't been answered. I really hope that we can stop this bill now instead of saying, oh, let's see it in the next committee because the danger is not going to go away. And that's why the Judiciary Committee is here to make sure that something is legal and safe. And there's no First Amendment denial. Like I said, a lawyer can just say whatever they want. And so I'm like an insurance agent can to sell whatever they want. There are regulations and the licenses there for a reason. And we need to respect that licensing procedure. So I think that this is a dangerous bill and I hope that we can vote it down. Thank you, members. Is there any further debate any further debate? >> I'm gonna I'm gonna speak in support of this bill. And I just mostly so I can correct a couple of things. First of all, on the issue of free speech. And I think we should also talk about, you know, the very muddy line between what is marketing and selling. And we can't limit that language to solely the act of of of physically selling a product. All right. So so you do run into some speech issues and when it becomes too real, it comes into religious speech which I believe this would fall into, you know, course, religious speech is I think it's a correct statement was given special project protection must much like political speech. The other thing I want to point out is, you know, right now existing the law is a special fiduciary duty that requires agents to inform their customers of all things that they should be able to consider when it comes to providing and getting coverage for their healthcare costs. And I we can quibble about the word coverage, but really it's sharing the health care costs. It is not an insurance product. It is done a different way. But the outcome is sharing healthcare costs for an individual to get those healthcare cost covered. And just very simply, if you want to bring down the cost of health care, create competition, and you will necessarily bring down the cost of health care. And I I think that this bill creates unnecessary competition. So I think it's a good bill. Senator Yarborough support you if there is no other debate. Senator Yarborough, you're recognized to close. >> Thank you, Chairman. Thank you members for the debate and thanks for the questions. I also want to say thank you, Mr. Noble for making the trip down in just yesterday. We received some potential language to consider that we might be able to work into an amendment. So appreciate that. And the time to review, we didn't have it have enough time to look at that before today's meeting. But I appreciate you doing that. You making the trip down just a few final points chair and I appreciate what you just said. And Senator Polsky, you're debate as well. Every state already has the authority to go after bad actors that mislead liar to fraud. Consumers in many states have already driven fraudulent organizations posing as Acsm is using their existing authority, including many states that already have the safe harbor language and law. Florida has the tools to address the concerns we've talked about and 6, 26, 6, 11 6, 26, 6.21, the Fs has clear authority to investigate discipline, suspend or revoke the license of any insurance agent who miss represents with false information such as falsely holding nhts out as insurance that's making a blanket ban unnecessary when targeted enforcement against bad actors is available and then 2 other points quickly. The AG has oversight and enforcement action against charities and nonprofits for deceptive trade practices and in response to a bad actor a few years ago, many agee's effectively utilize their laws and shut them down in their respective states, California. And it's a G have been vocal in their consumer education about health care sharing ministries. They have a state mandate requiring citizens to purchase health insurance but they allow individuals and families who are part of Hcs M's to be exempt. Receive no penalty. California does not ban or restrict hcs hcs M's from using agents and just requires members sign disclosure that hcs M's or not insurance. And then lastly, state of Colorado Department of Insurance is in litigation in response to their own CA unconstitutional law concerning Hcs sums and with all the regulatory burdens listed in that state law, Colorado did not put into place a ban on the use of agents, Mr. Chair members, we have balance in the bill. I know it's a very simple bill. It just basically repeals the restriction on the agents today, but there are still other safeguards in law and the other safe harbor language and all of that to create balance for Floridians if they choose to use these ministries in these organizations. So with that, I'd ask for your favorable support. >> Lisa, please call the Roll on committee substitute for Senate Bill 834. >> Senator Berman Senator Deciglie. Yes, senator Gaetz, senator Hooper. Yes, senator leak, yes, Senate. It's good. Senator Passadomo Senator Polsky Senator Trumbull. Yes. Senator Burton chair Yarborough. Yes. 8 yeas, 2 nays. >> Thank you. By your vote committee substitute for Senate Bill. 34 is reported favorably that we will now turn to tab 2. Senator Wright, thank you, Mr. Chairman, good morning, everyone. We have a strike. All amendment if if if allowed. We'll just go right to the center. Right. Once you go in, take up struggle. Thank you very much. Chairman Amendment Barcode. 5, 4, 4, 5, 7, 0, is a strike. All amendment for Senate Bill. 502. This legislation changes state statute so that the state of Florida will provide concurrent both federal and state legislative jurisdiction when it comes to matters involving a child who was allegedly wild violated a federal law. A nice United States military installation. As long as the military installation is located within the boundaries of the state of Florida, United States attorney or United States District Court for the appellate Apical district in this state has waved exclusive jurisdiction and the violation of federal law is also a crime in this state. This legislation is needed because without concurrent legislative jurisdiction, juvenile misconduct adjudicated in the federal court system. However, the federal court system lacks suitable services for juveniles and often tries them as adults. Concurrent legislative jurisdiction would give juveniles living and military installations access to state juvenile justice system and its resources which provide better prospects for their rehabilitation. And that is the bill. Thank you, members and with your indulgence will hold questions into are back on the bill as amended. But right now we'll take up appearance forms on the amendment, seeing no appearance forms. Is there debate on the amendment seeing no debate on the amendment. Senator Wright, you're recognized to close on the amendment. Will waive close are all in favor of the amendment say yea, all opposed nay. The amendment is adopted. We're back on the bill as amended members. Are there any questions on the bill as seeing no questions on the bill as amended. Are there appearance forms seeing no appearance forms? Is there debate seeing no debate? Senator Wright, you're recognized to close on the bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate your favorable support. Thank you, Lisa. Please call the Roll on committee substitute for Senate Bill 502. >> Senator Berman Senator Deciglie Senator Gaetz Senator Hooper. Senator leak. Yes, senator Osgood Senator Passadomo Senator Polsky Senator Trumbull, Senator Burton chair Yarborough 9 yeas, 0 nays. >> Thank you by your vote show committee substitute for Senate Bill 502, reported favorably. Thank you. Thank you. Let's turn to tab one committee substitute for Senate Bill. 52 security services, places of worship by Senator Gaetz Senator, get you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you. Mister Chairman Houses of worship have always been not only sacred places with safe places, for praise, prayer, meditation and gathering. But unfortunately, as we all know, that safety can no longer be taken for granted. It's now common for synagogues, churches, mosques, tab harm security, often using professional license security personnel. Some congregations who can't afford hiring an outside security service or easing volunteers. Senator 52 exempts people who provide volunteer armed security for churches and other places of worship from having to have Class D Orji licensing which are required a professional security services. That's the bill. Thank you. Members are there questions on the bill. Questions on the bill seeing no questions on the bill. Are there appearance forms? There are Pastor Joshua Burdick speaking for you're recognized, sir. >> Thank you. Mister Chair, members of the Judiciary Committee for your dedicated service to our state and for this chance to speak before you today, I'm pastor Joshua, Burt from campus Church in Pensacola, Florida. And for over 50 years, our churches served in the Pensacola community and served as a place of worship community and safety. For many, they're in Pensacola, including the faculty staff and students of Pensacola, Christian College. And I'm a strong supporter of Senate Bill. 52 sponsored by Senator Gaetz in 2021, Florida passed HB 259 the church carry law, which are from the right of license carriers to possess concealed firearm certain church property for protection. Since then, many places of worship across our state have dedicated congregants, often retired law enforcement or military veteran stepping up is unpaid armed security volunteers, campus Church. We have a group of volunteers who help protect our church family. And I'm grateful for their commitment and service for all they do to keep our church safe. And yet I'm very concerned for them. These volunteers operate in a serious legal gray area under chapter 4.93, and while unarmed volunteers are clearly exempt, armed volunteers, even truly voluntary and uncompensated risk being classified as license security officers. If they receive any consideration like training a shirt or even a bottle water as outlined in an article from the firearm law firm Cats and Phillips, there is no guiding case law to clarify how courts with interpret this in a church volunteer contacts and this uncertainty exposes a good faith. Volunteers like those at my church to fines, license risks and liability and turning the very heroes who stand ready to defend our sacred spaces. And meanwhile, states like Texas has successfully implemented clear exemptions for unpaid armed church security volunteers and pairing faith communities to enhance safety without burdensome licensing hurdles. And those small churches just the costs and getting those licenses. Like last tng licensing, the 40 hours of training needed fees. Insurance renewals are even hiring expensive professionals. They just can't afford that and too many end up vulnerable and unprotected. And I think Senate Bill 52 delivers the clarity. We need a narrow exemption for volunteer uncompensated, armed security strictly on worship premises while preserving all firearm laws that in and accountability. And this is about Morgan's about empowering existing responsible teams to protect life lawfully building, say mostly in HB 259. So I respectfully ask you to advance SB 52 and Power Florida's faith communities to stand strong against these threats. Thank you for upholding the rule of law and our rich legis freedom. Next up, we have Reggie Park Koski speaking for you're recognized, Sir. Good morning, Mr. Cherry Committee. >> My name is Reggie Park. House cat spent 20 years in law enforcement including serving as a police chief. And I'm currently the chief of safety security. It's a quick wrist in college today. I strongly support Senate Bill