Budget director says governor still plans 'pay on enrollment' for childcare; committee language would block it

The House appropriations subcommittee spent a marked portion of its meeting on changes to the childcare subsidy program, focusing on whether the committee’s operating‑budget language would prevent the governor’s planned move to payment‑on‑enrollment.

Representative Fogel pressed to allow a witness from the governor's office to answer technical questions. Dan Hogg, the state budget director, told the committee, "We have not changed our position on that. That has been our stated position, that we want to try to pay on those," meaning a shift to payment‑on‑enrollment. He cautioned, however, that prospective (prospective) payment and the federal requirements tied to federal matching could complicate or delay that work: "Perspective pay, I think with some of the...things that are coming down from the federal government, we need to take a look at that," Hogg said, adding that federal documentation requests in recent months had caused payment delays to providers.

Committee language inserted by the chair would remove proposed enhancements (about $50,000,000) and require payment on attendance rather than enrollment, a change several members warned could stall promised provider payments. Representative Fogel said those promised changes were important to the childcare industry and that the committee language "is going to prevent us from moving forward with a change that was promised over a year ago." Chair Deaton and Mr. Hogg both said that if the budget contains language requiring payment on attendance, it would be difficult for the administration to implement an interim enrollment change and could create disruptive, short‑term switches for providers.

What’s next: Members asked for further technical follow‑up from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the governor’s budget office. The committee left open the possibility of allowing testimony on this single item and requested departmental clarification on implementation timelines and federal match risks.

Ending: The committee resumed broader budget discussion after the exchange, but members said they would return to childcare details at follow-up briefings with agency staff.