Senate committee approves bill to void deficient administrative regulations, citing vaping rollout and GLP‑1 rule

The Senate Standing Committee on Licensing and Occupations on March 3 voted to pass Senate Bill 65, an annual bill that declares regulations the Administrative Regulations Committee finds deficient to be null and void. Chair Rocky Adams presided as the committee approved the measure by voice vote; the chair announced the bill “passes with favorable expression, 8 2.”

The bill’s presenter told the committee the panel had found three deficient regulations this year in two subject areas. “This is the bill we pass every year … [that] makes sure that any regulation … that’s found deficient is hereby made null and void,” the presenter said, describing the bill as a procedural vehicle the committee uses to remove defective administrative rules.

The presenter identified two subject areas targeted by the nullifications: vaping regulations tied to the ABC (alcoholic beverage control) rollout, and an attempted expansion of coverage for GLP‑1 drugs to include weight‑loss indications under Medicaid. On the vaping rules, the presenter said agency delays meant retailers faced compressed licensing timelines: about “10,000 retail operations that had to get their license in 30 days,” creating “a lot of consternation.”

On the GLP‑1 issue, a committee member worried voiding the regulation could hinder Kentucky’s ability to participate in a federal program that would supply GLP‑1 drugs at reduced rates for Medicaid recipients. The questioner said the drugs were “starting to be a game changer” and argued against any regulatory move that might limit short‑term access. The presenter replied that the challenged rule represented a new expansion into weight‑loss coverage (not routine prescribing) and said the fiscal note attached to that expansion—presented as $1,000,000—was likely far too low and could have been in the “tens of millions.” The presenter added that doctors can currently prescribe GLP‑1s under Medicaid for certain conditions and that the committee viewed the expansion as a policy decision for the Legislature, not an administrative cabinet action.

After brief discussion, a motion and second were recorded and the committee advanced SB 65. The chair announced the committee’s favorable report. The committee did not record floor amendments or additional conditions in the transcript.

The committee’s action removes the challenged agency regulations from effect pending any subsequent legislative or administrative action to replace or revise the rules. The transcript does not record whether the cabinet intends to refile rules or whether legislation will be introduced to clarify the policy questions the committee identified.