[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6393289,"mediaKeyId","2107620-8358e445857828b70fb1ea270e692689","parentId",2107620,"title","Heated hearing on insulin cap: advocates press for statewide coverage; insurers and business groups warn of mandate costs","audioSeconds",5143,"startMs",6639000,"endMs",11782000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2107620-8358e445857828b70fb1ea270e692689&start=6639&end=11782","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2107620-8358e445857828b70fb1ea270e692689/thumbnail_6639000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6393289/North-Dakota/Heated-hearing-on-insulin-cap-advocates-press-for-statewide-coverage-insurers-and-business-groups-warn-of-mandate-costs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6393289-cd2fbc0fa2a364b903baf37e58cf873d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151194&Signature=ARcRlOLlVj-YXnTr2fIfKRY~HqR5dEFAMn-EHcvTsf23HwQcGCQluW5eKboAxlIrq-P-PnxuB1AA~m4SOqPZ5ToTNZxTbtbFhFOyPoY8Zi7paoQgWsGc5JUzTR~iKI4X~8d-O~03b5bmAkT1Orjf3oCezFBob92srxYyGyDkUn0L5~Rofwm90RLEXsGP4GRQzXD30OTsO5cFzpZ7lVB2dPjza0HJz-cJ1Vpbv7ddAKbNAuN6xT-Y8omF-ymDfTiCMPgu9-xR7-0H3pk6qS~9KU1LT4shfk6U~ryb9ucXwoXWUaBrK~vOUAx0HR1dHR7PfCLzeifzw8sVmtG03W3Qmg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Government and Veterans Affairs II, ND","date","2025-01-09T00:00:00Z","article","House Bill 1114, drafted to continue coverage first tested under a PERS pilot, drew extensive testimony for and against the measure in the House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee.

The bill would create a state insurance‑code provision mirroring the $25 monthly cap on covered insulin drugs and diabetic supplies that applied to the North Dakota PERS active group plan during a two‑year pilot (Senate Bill 2140). Rebecca Fricke, executive director of NDPERS, testified that PERS' pilot showed a modest plan‑level cost: the pilot's additional premium cost was 0.14% of premium and Deloitte projected continuing the coverage would cost roughly 0.12% of premium (about $1 million) for the 2025–27 biennium. Fricke told the committee the pilot produced estimated member savings of about $80.15 per affected member per month comparing year‑over‑year data and that plan reimbursements were lower after the cap in part because two manufacturers (Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk) reduced list prices effective Jan. 1, 2024.

Proponents included patients and parents who described rationing, financial hardship and life‑threatening consequences when insulin is unaffordable. Danelle Johnson, a longtime state advocate and parent of a person with type 1 diabetes, said the policy goal is to \"make insulin therapy accessible and affordable to everyone\" and cited precedent in more than 25 states. Her daughter, 16‑year‑old Nina Kritzberger, testified about living with type 1 diabetes and urged the Legislature to act to avoid future deaths from rationing.

Opposition and concern came from the Greater North Dakota Chamber and major insurers. Andrea Fennig, vice president of government affairs for the Chamber, said employers oppose mandates that increase costs; she noted the PERS pilot showed little utilization change and argued the measure shifts costs to businesses. Insurers emphasized that state mandates apply only to the fully insured market (not to ERISA self‑funded plans) and said large portions of the market would not be affected. Megan Ruby of Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota and Dylan Wheeler of Sanford Health Plan said they support affordable medications but oppose broad state mandates as an inefficient tool that can stifle plan innovation and raise premiums; Ruby noted federal and carrier actions already put caps in certain markets (for example, the federal Medicare cap of $35 per month). Crystal Bartuska of the Insurance Department proposed a technical amendment defining \"health benefit plan\" for placement in Title 26.1.

Testimony and committee discussion clarified which commercial plans would be affected if the bill passes: because the Insurance Department regulates the fully insured market, HB1114 as drafted would apply to large employer fully insured groups (typically 51+ employees), while individual and small fully insured markets already have insulin coverage language in the state benchmark. The Insurance Department and committee members said self‑funded employer plans are not subject to state mandates.

Committee members asked for additional analysis and amendments. The PERS board recommended continuing coverage in the PERS active health plans and offered the PERS pilot report and actuarial attachments; the board did not take a position on rolling the cap out to the broader commercial market. The committee did not vote on HB1114 at this hearing and referred the bill for further amendment work and possible subcommittee review.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Government and Veterans Affairs II- Jan 9, 2025\t","oneSentenceSummary","Supporters urged lawmakers to extend a $25 monthly cap on covered insulin and diabetic supplies tested in a PERS pilot; insurers and the business community warned a statewide mandate on the commercial market would shift costs to employers and not affect self‑funded plans.","taxTitle","Government and Veterans Affairs, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28892,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6393294,"Committee hears testimony on expanding public‑safety retirement eligibility to state firefighters",1794,4366000,6160000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2107620-8358e445857828b70fb1ea270e692689&start=4366&end=6160","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2107620-8358e445857828b70fb1ea270e692689/thumbnail_4366000.jpg","/articles/6393294/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-testimony-on-expanding-publicsafety-retirement-eligibility-to-state-firefighters","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6393294-f4b174516ee01f5456d3163513cedd70/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151194&Signature=WGuW1fSi-d-1tUoAraa5V7R~ifSPr7DBxWbaNf-9pMDr-qYTibnxRKIlX62CERFaug4Kx6VgCW2BBy~wxj2yn2i0HeGMpzIUr6kBO9Rg3iJwIUHC89hga03v8UvGdMRJ9HJWCZguBVSt8d8TD6pwfZi8-LyDnhB6wL~pH413PjHhhGViwPxJPfouCdDgqTo7yLXDmraFjkwX1gndKExQhV5Ip7YrGyIB3sDhGmy7aZECmbi8D2h0I-DZ2DjP42rhdOpcnMixeCibYexkZKgAEW4~LMTeRm-DBY0DsYHBoktY0IXqx6Qv7nO~XWFwJHJJDDbICxBWQTZKLipKZrch5g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 1112, which would expand the definition of \"firefighter\" so certain state‑employed firefighters can join the public safety defined‑benefit retirement plan, was heard by the House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee with neutral and supportive testimony from retirement system staff and firefighting agencies.

Derek Holbein, chief operating and financial officer for the North Dakota Public Employees Retirement System (NDPERS), testified in a neutral capacity on actuarial implications. Holbein said the bill would make state firefighters eligible for the state public safety plan and allow normal retirement at age 55 with three years of service or via the \"rule of 85.\" He said the actuary initially estimated four individuals would be affected (based on July 1, 2023, data) and that the number has since risen to seven, but that the change produces an immaterial fiscal impact: an actuarial gain to the main plan of roughly $39,000 and an actuarial loss to the public safety plan of about $71,000, with no material change to employer contribution rates and thus no fiscal note attached.

Tom Clays, state forester for the North Dakota Forest Service, and Ryan Meline, the forest service's fire management officer, described the training, fitness testing, long assignments and hazardous exposures faced by state wildland firefighters. Meline said wildland firefighters commonly work extended national assignments of 21 days plus travel and cited research the witnesses said links multi‑year exposure to an increased risk of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. The Forest Service argued that the bill covers a limited, fitness‑qualified group of employees and helps recruitment and retention.

Rebecca Fricke, executive director of NDPERS, answered committee questions about the difference in disability benefits between a defined‑benefit and defined‑contribution plan: in the DB public safety plan, a disability benefit generally pays 25% of an individual's final average salary for life while the DC plan offers account distributions that stop when the account is exhausted.

Testimony from the North Dakota Firefighters Association and local chiefs supported the bill as recognition of firefighters' risks and a retention tool. The committee did not vote on HB1112 during this hearing.

If enacted, the bill would move a small group of state employees from the main NDPERS defined‑benefit plan into the state public safety plan; sponsors and witnesses urged attention to overlapping bills that amend the same sections of code so final enacted language reflects legislative intent.","House Bill 1112 would add state firefighters to the state public safety defined‑benefit retirement plan; PERS staff and the North Dakota Forest Service described a small affected population and an immaterial actuarial cost.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6393299,"Committee backs repeal of state fixed-asset reporting and lease‑analysis requirements",723,2651000,3374000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2107620-8358e445857828b70fb1ea270e692689&start=2651&end=3374","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2107620-8358e445857828b70fb1ea270e692689/thumbnail_2651000.jpg","/articles/6393299/North-Dakota/Committee-backs-repeal-of-state-fixed-asset-reporting-and-leaseanalysis-requirements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6393299-d8c0b53c43402dfdc43dc282f242a0f2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151194&Signature=IWS~1KBwfo5xcE7JZDMzFT~slA2IfmbgpDn-8ZR50hrDuHVp3PEkLSX-CgyNPhqM~-cDuy6OTcpbGx83VJ0G71P~GnGg1jU2flI6CLhnlF4b2UfU6xgG8dWyS-Z6Kl9w~updAqQo-dQ~X12zMLIaxbGYimtWySIPjjtLq7G3mpIi7Rj7CxYIGt0l9mPvZSojpWJr01gc6P9TQVVMSL2nCEjipAPZP72rE9Cl9H3XsQQCt3SxNI3TszOOj~r-jth801cuFSqJQoknxN54tq20oh6WhMO4rj4le32aTCXKBEXTwshcqT2oOz-B6qba5~2wpTcBTLUlv2m-QWcpExzhpg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee recommended passage, as amended with an emergency clause, of House Bill 1081 on a 14-0 roll call after hearing testimony from Office of Management and Budget officials.

Joe Goplin, director of OMB's Fiscal Management Division, told the committee HB1081 would repeal statutory sections that currently require state agencies to capitalize fixed assets valued at $5,000 or greater and to complete a lease‑versus‑purchase analysis before leasing an asset. He said the federal capitalization threshold changed to $10,000 on Oct. 1, 2024, and \"having different state and federal capitalization thresholds will require entities to prepare separate state and federal asset reporting.\" Goplin said OMB intends to reference the federal threshold in its fixed‑asset policy if the statutes are repealed.

The bill's second repeal would remove a statutory requirement that agencies prepare a lease‑versus‑purchase analysis when contemplating a lease. Sherry Nies, director of OMB Shared Services, said the statutorily required analysis \"does not generally drive lease versus purchase decisions,\" calling the repeal a red‑tape reduction measure. She described how agencies weigh purchase price, monthly lease costs, end‑of‑lease ownership and appropriations constraints when deciding whether to lease equipment such as copiers.

Committee members asked whether the panel should instead amend the statute to tie the state threshold to the federal figure. Goplin said telling agencies to defer to OMB policy avoids repeated statutory changes if the federal threshold changes again. The committee also discussed whether to add an emergency clause so state reporting for the upcoming fiscal year conforms immediately with federal practice.

Representative Christie moved a do‑pass recommendation; Representative McLeod seconded. After discussion and procedural votes to reconsider and to add the emergency clause, the committee took a roll call and approved the motion as amended. Jackson took the role; the clerk recorded \"motion carried. 14 0.\" The committee then recessed.

Outgoing testimony and committee exchanges made clear agencies remain obliged under statute to keep complete and current inventories of property regardless of capitalization threshold. As Goplin noted, \"this requirement is independent of the capitalization threshold.\" The committee did not receive opposition testimony.

HB1081 now proceeds from committee with a do‑pass recommendation and an emergency clause added.

Votes at a glance: Moved by Representative Christie; seconded by Representative McLeod. Recorded yes votes included Chairman Schauer; Vice Chairman Satrim; Representatives Bail; Brown; Christie; Carls; Grinberg; McLeod; Rohrer; Schneider; Steiner; Van Winkle; Vetter; Wolfe. Tally: 14 yes, 0 no. Outcome: motion carried, do pass as amended (emergency clause).","The House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee voted 14-0 to recommend passage, with an emergency clause, of House Bill 1081 to repeal state statutes requiring a $5,000 capitalization threshold and mandatory lease‑versus‑purchase analyses; OMB said the change aligns state practice with recent federal threshold changes and reduces red tape.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6393284,"PERS proposes participant fee to fund deferred‑comp administration; bill would stop current FICA redirect and reserve transfers",228,7552000,7780000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2107620-8358e445857828b70fb1ea270e692689&start=7552&end=7780","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2107620-8358e445857828b70fb1ea270e692689/thumbnail_7552000.jpg","/articles/6393284/North-Dakota/PERS-proposes-participant-fee-to-fund-deferredcomp-administration-bill-would-stop-current-FICA-redirect-and-reserve-transfers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6393284-f55beff6eee86aa14c0bfa9e55313e8a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151194&Signature=eChsUsbwBVq-VtTaqQa4-scBAXT-5OJYL5P0IMu3GAI97QGLleOEw6saRiwAsbYxwCZVWeUOIfQGD2EqGyUEx56Gz0srjx4uW2Jey5pxotwSVDbcLxCwunwDSPfmz~CDtrjuMTF1PeSxTrojZHj04xrRdJr7oYLTe8X5OVW8vnm-O61Wk9Fg8caqsqOnWfn3kpp29akLOlwSHV9Tkr3LNvCbxinNI-0Db9yV56P4z9Dd49bU9rxNWQpDz0zzPZWlsiLv4Lb2uFBjZWeJu9M2DxK0hQApFO0u7vGEeQ-tlhnCtuTSH2tfo-h2lXn8HZIl6pursrvkr2ytKFpoCev88g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 1113 would change how administrative expenses for the NDPERS 457 deferred compensation plan are funded. Derek O'Brien (Derek Hobine in testimony), Chief Operating and Financial Officer for NDPERS, told the House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee the current funding mechanism is convoluted and relies on employer FICA savings from a separate FlexComp program plus transfers from health insurance reserves and occasional draws from the main defined‑benefit plan. That mechanism was established when the plan began in 1989, O'Brien said, and will not be sustainable now that the main defined‑benefit plan is closed to new hires.

O'Brien said the plan serves roughly 11,000 participants and requires about 4.85 full‑time equivalents to administer operations. He provided a breakdown of administrative costs (approximately 53% personnel, 19% consulting/legal, 18% technology, 6% equipment/rent) and noted expected spikes in fiscal 2024–25 tied to programming changes required after the DB closure to implement matching provisions for the DC plans.

HB1113 would allow PERS to charge plan participants a quarterly administrative fee instead of relying on redirected employer FICA savings and ad hoc transfers. The draft estimates a per‑participant fee of about $10 per quarter. O'Brien said the change would shift costs directly to the participants of the program and remove the practice of pulling several million dollars over time from the main retirement plan — money that otherwise could be applied to unfunded liabilities. Employee Benefits gave the bill a favorable interim recommendation; PERS staff said the change would not increase state general fund costs and could lay the groundwork for consolidating certain FlexComp administration and saving money for employers in the long term.

The committee heard no opposition testimony at the hearing and closed the bill with no immediate vote recorded.

If enacted, HB1113 would standardize funding for deferred compensation administration and reduce transfers from other PERS accounts by charging the beneficiaries of the service a modest, transparent fee.","House Bill 1113 would authorize the Public Employees Retirement System to charge participants a quarterly administrative fee to fund the 457 deferred compensation plan, replacing the current mix of redirected FICA savings and transfers from other reserves; PERS projects about $10 per participant per quarter.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Heated hearing on insulin cap: advocates press for statewide coverage; insurers and business groups warn of mandate costs

Committee hears testimony on expanding public‑safety retirement eligibility to state firefighters

Committee backs repeal of state fixed-asset reporting and lease‑analysis requirements

PERS proposes participant fee to fund deferred‑comp administration; bill would stop current FICA redirect and reserve transfers