Narrator: Presentation of Idaho Reports on Idaho Public Television is made possible through the generous support of the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation, committed to fulfilling the Moore and Bettis family legacy of building the great state of Idaho.

By the Friends of Idaho Public Television and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Logan Finney: Things are finally wrapping up for the 2025 session, with debates over medical treatments and how Idaho's universities are handling diversity, equity, and inclusion.

We look at what it takes for lawmakers to head home.

Filling in for Melissa Davlin, I'm Logan Finney.

Idaho Reports starts now.

Hello and welcome to Idaho Reports.

This week, producer Ruth Brown interviewed Senate Health and Welfare Committee Chair Julie VanOrden about changes to Idaho's Medicaid program.

Then Senate Majority Caucus Chair Ben Toews talks about competing bills on medical freedom and what it takes to finally adjourn the session.

But first, let's get you caught up on the week.

The Senate on Monday passed a bill to amend Idaho's Parental Rights Act, a law passed last year requiring parental consent for children to receive medical care.

This year's bill would allow juvenile crime victims to consent to evidence gathering medical exams and address other circumstance, like allowing minors pregnant with their own child to consent to prenatal care.

Kelly Anthon: Senators, you may remember the Idaho Parental Rights Act.

We passed it last year.

We passed it last year on this floor.

Some of you may not because you weren't here, but we passed it last year on this floor.

And it stood for the premise and the principle that a parent has supreme and inherent decision making power over health care decisions for their child.

It's that simple.

And the bill was quite simple.

And, the law was quite simple.

And it was approved and signed by the gentleman on the second floor and became law.

What became not so simple was the way it was received throughout the state, the way it was interpreted, the way it was applied, and, the way it, I think became very concerning, very disturbing at how, it was misconstrued across the state There was a medical care provider out of North Idaho who had a child come in with a broken femur.

Broken femur.

And the parents were nowhere to be found, and they refused to treat the child because of this law.

Because supposedly this law prevented them from treating a child with a broken femur.

Are you kidding me?

Well, we're going to take a stab at this senators with 1199 as amended in the Senate.

So that kind of ridiculous result will not happen to a child in the state of Idaho again.

Finney: That bill was routed to the House Judiciary Rules and Administration Committee.

Its chairman, Representative Bruce Skaug told Idaho Reports the committee will not be meeting again this year.

Lawmakers approved the final budget Thursday evening.

Among the funding cuts are a $2 million, one time reduction for both Boise State University and the University of Idaho.

Treg Bernt: We continue to kick these universities in the teeth.

We continue to the beat them on the head.

You know.

You know, taking millions of dollars away from them when they, I think, are doing a pretty darn good job.

I think that that is not right.

I don't like it.

And, I think it's politics.

And unfortunately I think politics have has its place.

But sometimes, in these situations, I think that we need to give kudos when kudos are deserved.

Cindy Carlson: This decision was not made lightly by your fellow members of JFAC, It was this this, decision was made in order to get this budget across both houses, in both chambers.

And, there there is.

We are very proud of our universities as well.

I believe every, I could speak for every JFAC member.

With that debate is close.

Finney: Those funding decisions happened amid debates about diversity, equity and inclusion., or, DEI.

The Senate gave final approval on Friday to a bill that would prohibit DEI classes and programs at Idaho's higher education institutions after the closure of related campus centers earlier this year.

James Ruchti: They are perfectly capable of fixing any excesses.

And frankly, I think they have.

But now we're going to create this bill that's going to have private cause of action.

It's going to redefine diversity, equity, inclusion.

It's going to confuse, our, our university staff and faculty.

They're not going to know what they can and can't do.

And perhaps that's, part of what is intended here.

Todd Lakey: Diversity, equity and inclusion seem to be reasonable words when taken with their traditional common definitions.

But the problem is we have to define them.

As those terms have devolved into something else.

They've taken those terms and tw We're going to force diversity.

We're going to force equity.

We're going to force inclusion and give advantage to someone in the name of those terms.

You know, we made great progress in the civil rights era, but there are those that have taken that too far.

They say other people have been discriminated against.

Therefore it's my turn.

Decisions for admissions, hiring, entrance into a program should not be discriminatory in nature and put in place to defer to force, diversity, equity or inclusion.

Finney: That bill heads to the governor's desk.

We'll have more on DEI with Senator Toews later in the show.

Producer Ruth Brown sat down with Senator Julie VanOrden on Thursday to discuss a bill the governor signed with changes to Idaho's Medicaid program aimed at cost containment.

Ruth Brown: Thank you so much for joining me, Senator.

The Medicaid Cost Containment Act, signed by Governor Little, was a initially it was it was a bill that, was a compromise from a bill that passed the House that would have repealed Medicaid expansion in its entirety.

Walk me through some of the changes that came from this bill.

Julie VanOrden: Compared to House Bill 138.

This bill does not have a trigger to repeal Medicaid expansion.

That was one of the big pieces in it.

What we did end up putting in this bill that was also in House Bill 138 was a work requirement for able bodied adults, which is the waiver that is in place with the federal government right now that we have applied for.

It has not been approved yet, but it has not been denied.

So it's still waiting there.

So that we felt like we could put in and be safe with what we're doing there.

I know there was a lot of controversy around it, but there are a lot of carve outs for people with disabilities, people who are taking care of their loved ones at home.

People that are going to college or to into a trade school.

So there are a lot of carve outs there.

Another difference was, in the House bill 138 there was a limit on how many years somebody could be on Medicaid.

And also there was a cap on how many people that we would take, which would be 50,000.

Those were taken out.

But there were a lot of things that were put into 345 that I feel were good pieces that protect citizens from the some of the rising costs, hopefully, of health care in our state.

And also we put in some pieces that, helped our federally qualified health care clinics, be able to sustain them.

Because they are our safety net for catching a lot of people out in our rural areas.

So, that was one of the pieces that I felt like were helpful for Idahoans.

Brown: So there's also, for those eligible for the expansion program, tax credits to buy insurance on either Idaho's health care exchange.

VanOrden: Yes.

Brown: But some in the disability community are concerned that that tax credit would not be enough to pay for health, excuse me, health insurance.

What is what are your concerns around that?

VanOrden: I know the disability community has, raised some concerns.

And if you heard testimony in each of the committees, that there was a lot of testimony and concern about that population.

I've had conversations in the last little while with members of organizations that represent those individuals, and they have asked to be a, continuing agenda item on our Medicaid review panel that will be meeting.

And I asked them to I said I would grant that to them if they would come to me with solutions.

And, so they have said that they would be willing to do that.

So hopefully they will come with some of those solutions.

That's what we want.

We want a lot of input from, from the communities that are being affected by this.

And I think we will get that.

When we're making decisions about what our managed care system will look like.

Brown: I'm going to go back.

We'll get to the managed care, it's a beast of a beast of a topic.

But I want to go back to the waivers for one minute.

So a waiver requires the federal government's approval.

As you well know, the waiver for a work requirement would require the federal government's approval.

We have not gotten that yet.

Idaho, I believe, applied for one even under the last Trump administration and was not granted it.

What are your concerns around that?

Are you hopeful that we will be granted a waiver?

VanOrden: Our waiver is still there.

It's still in the queue.

That's the one waiver from Idaho that is still in the queue at this point.

So conversations that I've had with, individuals that are probably close to this administration, lead me to believe that there is coming maybe from a federal level, a work requirement for able bodied adults that are on, Medicaid expansion programs within the states.

I think that's coming.

With the new administration and, because so many states have tried for it and failed that I think, I think it's a popular, not a popular, but I think it's something that, conservative states have looked at and wanted.

And so with this administration, hopefully they'll be able to bring that from a federal level as a requirement.

So, that's what I'm that's what my gut is telling me.

It's going to happen.

Brown: The, the biggest change I think is the shift to managed care.

Not everyone is on Medicaid.

Can you walk me through a little bit about, what does the shift to managed care mean for Idaho?

VanOrden: Okay.

A lot of, our services right now are what are called, fee for service.

So the service is given and then we pay for that service.

Through a managed care system, we have entities that will manage the care of individuals and help them make those decisions in consultation with them and what they think that they, in consultation with their doctors and with the individuals, what they feel that they need to help manage their care better for better outcome on the other side.

So, it's a little bit different than just coming in and saying, you need this, we’ll pay for this.

It's it says, let's consult, see where your health is.

It's more involved, for the individuals and their providers and the managed care system to be able to look at how to address specific concerns of that individual and, moving us towards, I think, a healthier population because you manage their care as you go along.

We all kind of manage our care, but there are individuals that are unable to do that for themselves.

So, bringing in an entity that helps manage the care of those individuals, I think will hopefully put us towards, on a trajectory towards more of a predictable amount that we're going to have to pay.

And that's the biggest thing, I think, is we'll be able to predict better how much we're going to have to pay in those, supplementals that come up in the JFAC process to address the needs of that population.

Brown: I want to touch on one more thing.

Medicaid, for those that don't know, has a match.

Part of the bill is paid by the federal government, and part of the bill is paid by the state.

There is, concern that that match rate could change.

If so, what are, can you walk me through what have you heard and what are your concerns around that?

VanOrden: So our it's called an F-Map.

Brown: Yeah, yeah, it’s confusing.

VanOrden: For regular Medicaid, it's, the federal government pays 70% and we pay 30%.

And for the expansion population, it's the federal government pays 90%, and we pay 10%.

On the regular Medicaid right now, our 70% has gone down a few percentage points, I believe.

Because as you do better as a state and you're, you know, you’re, you have better growth in your state so that you're doing better financially, that the federal government drops that.

So the better you do, the less you get, which in a way makes sense.

A concern is that maybe we will be doing better, Finney: You can find that full discussion with Senator VanOrden online on the Idaho Reports YouTube channel.

Last Saturday, Governor Brad Little vetoed the Legislature's Medical Freedom Act, citing concerns with how the bill could have affected public schools.

Multiple new versions were introduced and debated after the governor's veto.

The legislation would forbid private and governmental entities from requiring any medical intervention as a condition to access goods and services.

Stephanie Mickelsen: Put yourself in this situation.

You're an employer.

You have an employee that maybe gets hurt on the job, say it's steps on a rusty nail and he gets tetanus.

He has a right under this bill, even though you're the employer and you will be held responsible, and it's your liability insurance that will get to pay out on this.

That employee has every right to say, I'm exercising my medical freedom.

Therefore, you can't push me to get a tetanus shot, which might be a simple intervention to a small problem that then becomes a massive problem.

And if you've ever been an employer that's had to pay out on a massive injury or on a death benefit, this becomes a huge problem for Main Street businesses across this state.

I have no problem having people have medical freedom, but this isn't medical freedom.

This is medical terrorism.

It's terrorism by those that don't want to have any kind of medical intervention against everybody else in this state.

David Leavitt: When it comes to us and our own health care, we should take the responsibility to understand that it's like if we are sick, we should not be going out.

We should not be going to businesses.

If parents see that their children are sick, they should be keeping their children home and not sending them out to businesses.

The reality is it's the individual who has rights.

When it comes to businesses, businesses have privileges.

Josh Tanner: If a business wants to have somebody, then great.

If the person's actually sick, they can excuse themselves without a problem.

To come in and say, we're going to come in and test you if you if you've got a fever to push them through like a, like a cattle line.

So we're going to take your temperature and they're going to shove something up your nose then we're going to test it.

That is again not right.

We saw what happened under Covid.

It went way too far.

Clay Handy: What happened during Covid, I can't imagine would ever happen again for at least 50 years, because everyone would have to die that lived through it to go through that again.

But I think we've swung too far in our effort to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

Finney: Senate Majority Caucus Chair Senator Ben Toews joined us on Friday afternoon to talk about the negotiations, the DEI bill, and what it takes for them to head home.

Ruth Brown: Senator, thank you for joining me today.

Ben Toews: Thank you for having me.

Brown: The Medical Freedom Act, after the governor vetoed the initial bill.

Why bring back two separate bills?

There's now competing bills.

I think we're down to one.

But why was it so important to the Senate to bring back a medical freedom bill?

Toews: Yeah, I think that's a good question.

We have what we've seen is over the years there, there's been kind of a pent up desire for some legislation in this space, and there's been some small improvements here and there where we would, pass legislation.

But I think that there was, an appetite for something, more comprehensive.

And so I think we all saw this as us finally getting that what our constituents, our constituents have been asking for for so long.

And now we're finally we finally got it across the finish line.

And then, the disappointment, obviously with the veto.

So there was, desire to see something, come about this year and not push it, push it another year again.

Brown: What would the bill do?

Toews: So the bill just would give people the ability to, not be forced to have medical interventions.

So and it's I think it's one of the most basic values.

The most basic rights we have is control of our own bodies and what goes into them.

And so this bill would say that people get to choose.

They don't have to, they can't be forced to have, any medical interventions.

And that could cover a lot of different areas.

Obviously, vaccines are the hot topic or have been for a long time, but, it would cover a lot of different medical interventions and make sure that people have that freedom that that, we have as Idahoans.

Brown: Do you have any concerns that businesses could be held liable should there be a an outbreak of, say, tuberculosis or measles, in a private business place?

toews: I haven't studied a lot into it, and we haven't seen anything like that for a long time.

I think, to a large extent, I trust personal responsibility.

So, I do understand that people could be sent home from their job if they have symptoms.

Brown: And the bill allows for that?

Toews: Yeah.

Right.

Brown: Okay.

Toews: And it just couldn't be a condition of employment.

That's like.

That's your privacy.

What, whether or not you have certain vaccines, things like that.

But I don't think the employer would be liable.

I think that it's personal responsibility for the individua make good decisions.

And then, I mean, the employee has to make a good decision.

Do I go into work today if I'm feeling sick or if, there's an outbreak?

They have to make that decision.

And the employer also has to make the decision, hey, you know, you're sick, we're going to send you home.

And that's understandable as well.

Brown: So in the state of Idaho, you already do not have to vaccinate your children to, send them to a public school.

Nor do you need to be vaccinated to be in any public building.

In addition, there's labor laws and with rare exceptions, such as folks that, you know, maybe work for a hospital, that kind of thing.

What does this add that wasn't there before?

Toews: Sure.

So actually, my understanding of the current law, the status quo, is that students are required to be vaccinated, to go to the schools, to go to our public schools.

And the only way you cannot be vaccinated is if you fill out an exemption form.

So the status quo, that's the status quo.

I don't actually think that that would change based on this legislation.

I think that there's still exemption forms would be required.

But, so I don't think it would change a lot in that area.

In fact, that's what the veto was partially pointing to is what's going on in public schools.

Can you send a student home if they look sick?

And, so I think there's, a desire to make that fix if that was an issue.

And so that's what the House bill did, was it kind of took the publicly stated desire of the governor and said, you know, we'll make sure that kids can get sent home if they're sick, and that's not a problem.

And the Senate bill went into a little bit more detail, and I think there was more discussion, actually, I know there was more discussions between the sponsor and the governor's office and addressing maybe even more areas, like daycares and things like that.

And so, that's kind of why you had two bills, I think, which was part of your question as far as, needing a bill, I think it's more in the, private sector than it is in the schools, because I don't I think those are kind of addressed to a large extent already.

Brown: And for our listeners, we're having this conversation around noon on Friday.

And so we'll see, if Idaho Reports can update this later.

But, right now, that bill hasn't quite passed, but it seems promising.

Toews: Yeah.

Brown: On the topic of education, the bill you co-sponsored on diversity, equity and, inclusion and higher ed is on its way to the governor's desk.

Can you tell me about what that bill does?

Toews: Yeah, certainly.

So first of all, it defines what diversity, equity and inclusion is.

And, makes sure that it's, it's, clear for universities what we're asking them to, not require or force upon students.

Then it goes and it defines it has a lot of definitions, almost four pages of definitions, defining diversity officer, bias reporting system.

These are things that have been in our universities.

And then it goes and it, it goes into what's restricted.

So we don't we're not going to allow any discrimination in the admissions that's actually codifying a Supreme Court decision.

So not a big, controversial thing there.

Then it goes into no discrimination in hiring.

There's actually been lawsuits that there's discrimination in hiring in our institutions of higher education.

So we just want to make it really clear that we're not going to, that affirmative action isn't, acceptable.

It goes on to say that students can't be required or otherwise compelled to take DEI courses.

So it doesn't mean that there's no DEI courses.

That's something that's often misunderstood.

People will say, you know, you're banning DEI.

You're not allowing this.

People should be able to learn, different points of view.

It doesn't actually ban or say that they can't learn different points of view at all.

What it does is it says that you can't force someone to take a class that's teaching them critical theory.

So, I think that's important.

That's so that's another element to the bill.

So admissions hiring, you can't force classes.

No more DEI offices and the, our universities, to a large extent, they've moved the right direction in that in that area already.

And I applaud them for that.

They've turned the, all these different centers that were for specific groups.

They've turned it into a student center that allows everyone to come in there and get those services.

And, the concept behind that, having one place that everybody goes is, the reality that socioeconomic factors are, a better indicator of people's success in college, whether they'll be able to make it all the way through and get their degree has more to do with socioeconomic factors than it has to do with the color of your skin, or any other male or female.

So making it so that everyone has access to those services is really important.

And I think that that's, part of the core of what we're trying to accomplish with this legislation.

Brown: Your opponents would argue, that nearly everyone at universities is an adult, as well as they're there voluntarily, unlike, you know, k through 12.

So why should the state be, I guess, involved in, in something that an adult is voluntarily participating in?

Toews: Yeah, that's a great question.

So it's first of all, is taxpayer funded dollars that are going to the institutions and they we’re saying that they need an option.

So that question almost says that they have an option.

When you when somebody, when my opponents would say, well, they're adults, they should be able to choose for themselves.

I agree, and that's what I'm actually trying to accomplish.

So the legislation says that you have to have you could have five DEI courses to satisfy one degree requirement.

You just have to have at least one option that's not DEI related.

And I'd hope that it I mean, that's not the case that people would just have a variety of options.

But, the concern is, is that we're forcing these things on adults with taxpayer money.

And so this bill simply says you can't force it on, on the adults.

Brown: Okay.

Toews: Yeah.

Brown: Senator Ben Toews, I really appreciate your time.

Toews: Yeah.

Thank you.

Finney: Barring any final vetoes from the governor, most legislative work is done for the year.

We have the latest online at IdahoReports.org Thanks for watching, we'll see you here next week.

Narrator: Presentation of Idaho Reports on Idaho Public Television is made possible through the generous support of the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation, committed to fulfilling the Moore and Bettis family legacy of building the great state of Idaho.

By the Friends of Idaho Public Television and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.