Wrap Up of the Massachusetts Legislative Session – Or Is It??

The Massachusetts Legislature meets for two years beginning in January after an election year and continuing until the last day of July of the following year. The 193rd session of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as this legislative session is more formally known, ended its formal sessions for the year last week, but the 40 Senators and 160 Representatives hitting the campaign trail this summer will not have a lot of legislative accomplishments to highlight for their constituents. That is because several pending legislative initiatives, touching on everything from the state’s economic development plan to the phase out of natural gas and the scrutiny of drug prices, are in limbo.

Governor Healey has urged the legislature to come back in a special session to pass some version of her economic development plan and legislative leaders were open to the idea.  Thus, the final outcome on the pending bills is unpredictable.  It will require a suspension of the rules, a meeting of the minds and a willingness by the legislature to meet beyond their self-imposed deadline. Thus, we will not know the fate of pending legislation for certain until the end of the year.

As of this writing, here is the status of  noteworthy bills.

Bills that Made It Over the Finish Line by July 31st:

• Housing Bond bill. As Governor Healey’s top priority and with housing costs being the biggest reason why young people are leaving Massachusetts, this legislation was sent to the governor’s desk on August 1st, months after being introduced.  The final version authorizes $5.16 billion in borrowing to address the state’s housing affordability and access crisis, about $400 million of which will be available for capital spending in FY2025.  Policy measures in the final version include allowing accessory dwelling units by right in single-family zones, sealing of previous no-fault eviction records, and the prohibition of purchase offers requiring the waiver of a home inspection. 
• Veterans Reform. This bill included several updates to the services and benefits provided to veterans, with expansion of mental health services key among them.  Other reforms include closer alignment between Massachusetts and federal  laws pertaining to veterans, more access to behavioral health services and a new local-option property tax exemptions for service members.
• Parentage Equality.  This legislation updates the state’s parentage law, by changing how the state defines parentage and expanding protections for non-biological parents of children born through surrogacy or assisted reproduction, like in vitro fertilization. Under the current law, non-biological parents must legally adopt their children to secure full parental rights.

Major Bills Not Enacted:

• Economic Development. The legislature did not enact an economic development plan before recessing. In addition to varying bond authorization amounts, the House bill included $1 billion to expand access to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority water supply to communities in need of better water infrastructure that was not part of the Senate’s plan.  Other differences include a House provision granting  $500 million more in various incentives to the life sciences sector than the Senate,Senate language that would facilitate building a new soccer-specific stadium on the banks of the Mystic River in Everett for Major League Soccer’s New England Revolution franchise and the Senate’s allowance of municipalities to authorize happy hours again after four decades of a state law prohibiting them.
• Prescription Drug Pricing.  While both branches advanced versions of a prescription drug bill aimed at reducing the cost of drugs for consumers while subjecting the key players to more regulatory scrutiny, there were differences in their approaches.  The Senate limited the amount of co-pays for both generic and brand name drugs, and created a trust fund to subsidize the cost of chronic condition medications for people of color.  The House ensures continued use of drug manufacturer coupons while prohibiting pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from spread pricing.  The House also required that at least 80 percent of rebates received by health insurers and PBMs go to consumers at the point of sale, thereby disallowing health insurers’ practice of spreading the savings among all premium payers.
• Health Care Market Reforms. Originally a response to the Steward Health Care crisis, this legislation was broadened to include numerous reforms to the health care sector.  Both branches wanted to strengthen regulations pertaining to private equity in healthcare, revamp the determination of need process and more clearly delineate the oversight roles of numerous regulators.  The House took a much more hospital-centric approach, proposing a floor on hospital reimbursement rates and changes to the composition of the Health Policy Commission to include hospitals while providing compensation to HPC board members.  The Senate was more measured in its approach to reforms and more focused on health care affordability.  The bill remains in conference.  The Steward bankruptcy proceedings could prompt action on a slimmed down version of the bill; a broader bill could still emerge if the branches are able to negotiate a compromise.
• Long-Term Care Reforms. The House passed its version of long-term care reform eight months ago.  Building off of key investments in the industry in recent budgets, the House introduced measures to bolster the long-term care workforce, enhance oversight of facilities, and ensure greater access, all while prioritizing quality of care. Introduced in the waning days of the formal sessions, the Senate attempted to reform long-term care by addressing subpar infection controls, staffing shortages and other shortcomings of the system. In addition to requiring basic health services at assisted living facilities, the bill proposes a licensure process and regular inspections of the facilities.  While the goal of improving care at long-term facilities is common to both bills, differences were not ironed out before the end of the session. 
• Substance Use Disorder. Both branches passed legislation related to the growing substance use disorder crisis.  The Senate added a controversial provision allowing safe injection sites in its version of the legislation, slowing down the bill’s advancement. 
• Maternal Health. A package of reforms expanding physical and mental health care options for pregnant individuals and new mothers passed both branches in the last week of formal sessions but has not made it over the finish line.  The reforms are aimed at improving maternal health outcomes, particularly among people of color, by creating a pathway for certified professional midwives (CPMs) and lactation consultants to be licensed in Massachusetts and removing regulatory barriers to open birth centers that offer home-like environments during labor.
• Clean Energy Siting.  While there was agreement on key siting and permitting provisions for clean energy projects, other policy provisions in the bill not agreed upon by all parties weighed down the legislation. The House pushed for the generation of more clean energy while the Senate tried to wean the state off of natural gas due to the increased costs to energy consumers resulting from the bill’s other change.
• Rainy Day Interest Investment.  This bill, first proposed by Governor Healey, would use interest earned from the state’s Stabilization Fund to leverage federal funds available for capital investments.  Often, in order to qualify for federal monies, a state must provide matching funds.  By having a dedicated revenue source readily available, Massachusetts would be better able to compete for federal funds and be better positioned to provide for the Commonwealth’s infrastructure needs.  Despite attaching an emergency preamble and unanimous approval of this proposal by both branches, the bill lingers in a conference committee.
• Boston Liquor Licenses.  For the first time in a decade, lawmakers are willing to expand the number of liquor licenses available in the City of Boston.  The Senate allowed for 264 additional liquor licenses to help restaurants and other establishments serving alcohol, while the House approved 205 new licenses. 
• Boston Home Rule Petition to Shift More of the Property Tax Burden onto the Commercial Class.  After extracting concessions from Boston Mayor Wu to make changes to the original proposal, the House advanced Mayor Wu’s home rule petition that would allow her to shift more the property tax burden onto the commercial class to prevent residential owners from paying more.  The changes will allow a 190 percent shift for three years rather than a 200 percent shift for five years.  It is unclear whether the Senate will vote on this legislation.

I have not made up my mind as to whether the legislature’s failure to pass some of these proposals is a good thing. On one hand, the list of bills above address important issues such as health care affordability, energy sources and siting of energy infrastructure, how to address the substance use disorder epidemic, and leveraging federal money for key capital investments. These are issues with significant societal impact that warrant resolution.  On the other hand, many of the proposals may need to be vetted for longer than they have been. Many of the proposed  reforms are costly, make sweeping changes that may or not be necessary, and may have unintended consequences if not drafted properly.  Taking the time to finetune these proposals or step back and evaluate their effectiveness in the next legislative session may lead to better results.

While the fall months of the second year of session are usually pretty uneventful, this fall is shaping up to be a memorable one.  The end of the current legislative session on Beacon Hill is worth paying attention to both for what happens and what doesn’t. Stay tuned.