Committee advances S.64 after rejecting Medicaid and medical-practice amendments

The Government Operations & Military Affairs committee voted to advance S.64 after rejecting two proposed amendments, including a Medicaid-related amendment that lawmakers said raised equity and appropriation issues. On separate roll calls, the committee found both the Medicaid amendment (identified in committee as the S.64 Stone amendment, Medicaid amendment 521 1.1) and a medical-practice amendment unfavorable, then voted to report S.64 as favorable to the floor.

Committee members opened the session by returning to discussion of amendment proposals. One lawmaker raised concerns that the Medicaid amendment could widen disparities for rural Vermonters and noted that the proposal appeared to create differing coverage outcomes depending on whether an ophthalmologist or an optometrist performed certain procedures. Members also warned the Medicaid-related change could require appropriations and recommended that health-care and appropriations committees, which have jurisdiction over Medicaid spending, consider those fiscal implications.

A motion was made to end debate and find the Medicaid amendment unfavorable to preserve momentum for the parent bill. The clerk called a roll; multiple representatives recorded yes/no votes and the committee announced the unfavorable finding with an announced tally of 65 on that question. The committee repeated the process on a second amendment described as a medical-practice amendment; that unfavorable finding was also announced as 65.

Members then debated whether to advance the underlying bill, S.64. Several lawmakers said they were uncomfortable voting without more time for input from the Secretary of State’s office and OPR, and one lawmaker described feeling pressured to vote before adequate deliberation. A committee member praised Mary Catherine Stone for pressing process questions during the discussion. "I was told that it didn't matter if I voted yes or no. Didn't matter if I was in the room because the bill would stand on its own," a lawmaker said, adding they had voted with the intent of forcing further dialogue.

After final remarks the clerk called the roll on a motion to find S.64 favorable; the clerk announced a final tally of 74 and the committee reported the bill as favorable to advance. The committee's procedural votes do not itself change the bill's substantive text; S.64 will move to subsequent floor consideration and to additional committees noted during debate for matters of jurisdiction and appropriations.

Votes at a glance: the committee announced an unfavorable finding on the Medicaid amendment (announced tally: 65), an unfavorable finding on the medical-practice amendment (announced tally: 65), and a favorable report of S.64 to the floor (announced tally: 74).

The committee discussion repeatedly emphasized procedural limits: members urged that fiscal or Medicaid-specific impacts be addressed in the health-care and appropriations committees and noted the bill's effective date cited in debate as 2028. No formal appropriation language was adopted during the committee session; implementation details and cross-committee clarifications were described by members as outstanding.