Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee, March 17, 2026

Transcript

540 turns. Select a time to play that moment of the video.

1. 0:23:37

   Matt Reeves. This is a big old fat thick bill that we're hoping is not as complicated as it looks. House Bill 1254. We've got the committee substitute in our file. It's LC 56-0646S. If you would just walk us through it, really take all the time you need to just let us know what we're dealing with. We already had one bill that Senator Hatchett had over here that dealt with the construction trades, and I think we're going to see a redux a bit today too.

2. 0:24:09

   But these are kind of in tandem. It's the governor's plan to sort of revamp some of the licensing. If you would just kind of walk us through what you got.

3. 0:24:17

   Thank you, Chair McCowser. I think his mic is off. I've come to this one.

4. 0:24:20

   I got you. Okay. Thank you.

5. 0:24:21

   You're on now. Chair McCowser, members of Regulated Industries. I'm here to present House Bill 1254. This is a follow-up from last year's House Bill 579, which was a product of the joint Senate-House Professional Licensing Study Committee, Blue Ribbon Committee that President Pro Tem Walker and other senators heard from people all over Georgia. I believe about 300 citizens and licensees and small business people testified. We had a big bill last year that you passed, and the Secretary of State Professional Licensing Division has said that it has sped up licensing and renewal time demonstrably in the first year.

6. 0:25:00

   There were three licensees last year who were on the list for the Blue Ribbon Committee, auctioneers, hearing aid dispensers, and geologists who raised issues a year ago. And so the governor's office appointments and Deputy COO Amy Dorman, as well as J.C. Martin with the legislative liaison have worked with those three licensees over the past year. And an additional licensee, cemeterians, they were added to the list because of some liabilities to the state and some other issues. They presently work with the Securities Division, the Secretary of State's office.

7. 0:25:33

   So what this bill does is it moves freestanding boards for three of these licensees to the Professional Licensing Division. The geologists, the auctioneers, and the cemeterians are going to the Professional Licensing Division. On the hearing aid dispensers, what this bill does is it does the model of several other states of having a combined board with audiologists. There's a lot of overlap between hearing aid dispensers and audiologists. And so this bill adds two seats on the audiology board, and it moves the regulations for hearing aid dispensers to that audiology board.

8. 0:26:11

   Chair McCowser, you mentioned the bill is long. However, this bill is not new. Many of these or most of these provisions in the bill before you currently exist in regulations, and it codifies existing regulations because of the move to the Professional Licensing Division. So it retains the consumer protections. It retains the regulations that have evolved over time, and it retains the ability to make complaints against licensees or wrongdoers that are in these areas. So this is a result of further study and a lot of input.

9. 0:26:46

   Most of the people who you're going to hear from testified in the House. There was an idea since the House passage of using the auctioneer funds by private parties, but those are state funds. So that idea was not agreeable. So I think all the issues that are going to be presented to you today have already been aired out in the House, and it passed overwhelmingly. This is a professional licensing reform and an effort to cut red tape, but it is not a deregulation.

10. 0:27:16

    All the regulations and consumer protections stay in place. I know you have three bills and a lot of things to do on committee day. I can go into as much depth as you'd like, but that is an overview of the bill, and I respectfully request your approval.

11. 0:27:33

    I get the auctioneers are in it, geologists are in it, the hearing aid dealers and the dispensers. Are there other professions also covered?

12. 0:27:43

    Just four.

13. 0:27:44

    Just those four. Okay.

14. 0:27:45

    And three of the four raised issues last year, and so an extra year was given after that Blue Ribbon Committee and after House Bill 579, and that's what this bill presents. And this bill conforms to many other states. The governor's office reviewed the landscape around the country, and this has efficiency and benefits. These are all boards with a low number of licensees, a low level of regulatory activity, a low number of complaints.

15. 0:28:17

    Nursing, for instance, has thousands of complaints a year. These boards each have single digits or a few dozen complaints a year. One of the licensees has about 250 licensees. So due to the volume and the particular nature of it, moving it from a board to the Professional Licensing Division will serve the people of Georgia better and fits in with the national landscape. And also, recent court decisions, the Eternal Vigilance Action case, the Raffensperger versus Jackson case, this makes these professional licensing regulations more enforceable by having them codified and put under the Professional Licensing Division.

16. 0:28:59

    Since you're an attorney, how about brief my committee on that eternal vigilance, make sure they comprehend what's sort of behind a good bit of these bills where we're now being more detailed on the legislative end.

17. 0:29:10

    Absolutely. Uh, the Eternal Vigilance action case was a case, uh, relating to the state election board, and what the Georgia Supreme Court said is that, uh, regulations must be clear, they must be objective, they must be a result of specific rule-making process. You've got the legislature, you've got the courts, you've got the executive branch, and regulations must be, um, you know, a result of, um, uh, the, uh, either the legislative process or the formal rule-making process within the separation of powers.

18. 0:29:42

    You can't have an administrative agency or a board out, uh, you know, making things up on their own. Um, and so that was... Uh, and the non-delegation doctrine. Uh, the legislature, uh, must make the law and, uh, must be specific in making the law. Uh, that was the Eternal Vigilance action case. The Raffensperger versus Jackson case, uh, five years ago or so, that was a professional licensing division case. That certainly is something, uh, for, uh, this committee to know about. And in that case, there was, uh, a nonprofit in Atlanta that helped, uh, mothers with young children with nutrition and, uh, there was a, uh, model bill, national bill that came in and gave kind of a broad-based, open-ended regulatory, uh, restriction on that kind of activity, and it was gonna put that nonprofit out of business.

19. 0:30:33

    Uh, those ladies came to court, and, uh, the court struck that open-ended, vague regulation. And so, uh, that, this thick bill in front of you codifies all these regulations. It keeps the consumer protections in place. It puts, uh, the regulations under the professional licensing board, uh, but it allows, uh, the citizens of Georgia to be able to, uh, get the products and services they need, uh, just like, uh, people in many other states, um, that this bill codifies.

20. 0:31:03

    Are there any questions from committee members? Uh, Chairman Dolezal, you're recognized for a question.

21. 0:31:08

    Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Representative Reyes. I didn't hear you mention cemeteries-

22. 0:31:12

    Yes

23. 0:31:12

    ... um, in the four. Did I just miss that? Is that-

24. 0:31:14

    Um, the three from last year are hearing aid dispensers, geologists, auctioneers. The fourth one that was added to this bill, uh, newly this year was cemeteries.

25. 0:31:24

    I gotcha.

26. 0:31:25

    Uh, cemeteries, uh, those are specific, uh, cemetery operators that deal with the Secretary of State's Securities Division, and this bill, um, uh, sort of updates and modernizes some of their, uh, regulations to prevent liabilities coming to the state. There have been some receiverships and some state liabilities that have occurred, um, with cemeteries, so this bill moves them into the Professional Licensing Division so that, uh, we don't have as many receiverships and, um, liabilities.

27. 0:31:56

    I found it curious that we're requiring, um, them to essentially maintain written procedures constituting a business cont- continuity and succession plan. That seems like an interesting thing for a state to require. Can you help me understand that?

28. 0:32:12

    Yes. The succession plan, if a cemetery gets to the end of their officers and they don't have a succession plan, that's where those liabilities come to the state. So what this is requiring these nonprofit, uh, cemeteries operated by cemeteries to be able to say, "Here is where the cemetery is gonna go if this entity, um, goes out of business or is dissolved." Uh, right now they're headed, uh, to being a state liability, which has occurred several times.

29. 0:32:42

    So this is something that protects the state from, uh, having to operate cemeteries because of a lack of a succession plan. And, and also, uh, uh, just knowing that from practicing law, that is a, a nonprofit, uh, initiative that, uh, CPAs and nonprofit attorneys are encouraging nonprofits to do because that's a bad position to be in if nonprofit assets are going either to an individual or to the state. It's, it's kind of a dangerous position, and this prevents that.

30. 0:33:11

    Thank you.

31. 0:33:14

    Chairman Williams, you probably have a question or two on the cemeteries, or at least might wanna-

32. 0:33:20

    No, I just want-

33. 0:33:20

    ... enlighten us.

34. 0:33:21

    I want a clap for him.

35. 0:33:23

    Good, good.

36. 0:33:25

    Um-

37. 0:33:25

    Other questions?

38. 0:33:26

    No, you can ask me one if you want.

39. 0:33:27

    And, and-

40. 0:33:28

    Okay

41. 0:33:28

    ... let me, let me clarify the, um... It, it, it actually does stay with the Securities Division, uh, with cemeteries. It does not go to the Professional Licensing Division. Uh, there will be an advisory group, um, to help the, uh, Securities Division and, um, it does repeal the state board of cemeteries, and it rolls into the, um, Securities Division.

42. 0:33:51

    That's, um, that, that's a very good move. Prior to, uh, well I know in 1983, when I first went in the cemetery business, I had to come meet with Wayne Howell in the Secretary of State's office to get permission to buy a cemetery and go into the cemetery business. So, um, I, I applaud this. But what we need to go is a step further to stop some of these state boards from self-legislating by rule-making process.

43. 0:34:22

    Right now, they don't come to the legislators. They adopt rules, and they self-legislate by rule-making. So, uh, but no, I'm, I'm very familiar with what you're doing, and I thank you for it. Thank you.

44. 0:34:37

    Thank you. And I might add, the FTC at the federal level put a lot of hearing aids over the counter, so that industry has changed a lot, and, uh, other states have caught up with that, and this bill catches up with the landscape with hearing aids by putting two seats on the audiology board.

45. 0:34:54

    Representative, what was that United States Supreme Court on the non-delegation on the-

46. 0:35:00

    That act-

47. 0:35:00

    Chevron

48. 0:35:01

    ... Chevron, right. Chevron, and then, uh, there was a more recent case, uh, about that, uh, uh which the name escapes me. But, uh-

49. 0:35:08

    So our Eternal Vigilance case was now sort of adopting the United States Supreme Court's Chevron decision, which spoke to what you're saying, Senator Williams, that we used to presume that a rule or regulation of an agency was valid, enforceable or whatever. Now we've kind of flipped that burden, that it's presumed unless it's specifically delegated by the legislature, then these agencies don't have the rule-making authority.

50. 0:35:35

    That's right. And, and, uh, Eternal Vigilance action, the US Supreme, or the Georgia Supreme Court not only said, uh, no deference, but non-delegation. You gotta have specific authority from the legislature, and that's what this bill does. And Senator Williams-

51. 0:35:49

    Mm-hmm

52. 0:35:50

    ... um, uh, you mentioned, uh, uh, having the, uh, uh, you know, the clear and objective standards and things like that. One danger you have if you have a low number of licensees and all that is protectionism and things that hurt consumers. Uh, this, uh, makes it, uh, more in line with, uh, states that have prevented protectionism in these areas. You, you... We keep the consumer protection, but we don't have, you know, a barrier to, uh, customers being able to get products-

53. 0:36:18

    Okay

54. 0:36:18

    ... and services.

55. 0:36:19

    All right.

56. 0:36:19

    I'll make a motion, Mr. Chairman.

57. 0:36:20

    Well, we got some witnesses. Uh, got questions? Senator Summers.

58. 0:36:26

    Thank you, Chairman. Um, thank you, Mr. Reeves, and Representative Reeves. Um, could you tell me, could you go over how many members are on from, from... All the boards you're combining, could you tell me how many members are from each, are on each board?

59. 0:36:39

    Um-

60. 0:36:40

    Like audiology, sh- uh, auctioneering, whatever.

61. 0:36:42

    If I can, uh... May I draw from the governor's office, uh, on that one?

62. 0:36:47

    Sure.

63. 0:36:47

    All right.

64. 0:36:50

    Okay.

65. 0:36:51

    Amy Dorman from the governor's office.

66. 0:36:56

    So for the geology board, there are, um, five board members. I believe for the hearing aid dealers and dispensers there are seven. I have board members in here. Seven, would that be correct?

67. 0:37:12

    There's seven total.

68. 0:37:13

    Seven total. Um, and then one of them being an audiologist, one being an ENT, and then one being a consumer. For the state board of ceme- for the State Licensing Board of Cemeterians, I believe there are also seven on that board, but we moved to five. Um, and then for, what am I leaving off? Auctioneers, I think I have six members. Um, so that is-

69. 0:37:39

    All those are board members that'll kinda oversee everything?

70. 0:37:43

    Well, no. These boards will be going away.

71. 0:37:46

    These boards will be going away in regard... Well, I, I-

72. 0:37:49

    Mm-hmm

73. 0:37:49

    ... what I'm saying is, like I was trying to figure out how many board, how many people of each profession will sit on this board now. You-

74. 0:37:59

    Do you have a line that you're looking at? I'm sorry.

75. 0:38:02

    Uh, 110. Let... One, one, one, one, one, zero. 1110, two members shall be licensed. Hearing, I'm just trying to understand on the hearing-

76. 0:38:11

    Oh, the hearing aid dealers and dispensers. Okay, I'm sorry. Um, so there will be, currently there are three audiologists, three speech language pathologists, one ear, nose and throat doctor, um, one consumer, and then there will be two, um, hearing aid dispensers. I'm sorry.

77. 0:38:30

    Okay.

78. 0:38:33

    What was the one who was just a-

79. 0:38:35

    A consumer, and then an ear, nose and throat doctor, an otolin- I can't say the name right , but an ear, nose and throat doctor.

80. 0:38:41

    Okay.

81. 0:38:44

    I believe. I might be missing one, but yeah.

82. 0:38:47

    Thank you. Thank you.

83. 0:38:49

    Yeah.

84. 0:38:49

    All right. I don't see any other questions from committee members, uh, for the author, but we have a few people signed up to speak. I'll start with, I'm just gonna go in order, Ralph Jackson. If you would come to the podium and introduce yourself, and then let us know your thoughts on the bill.

85. 0:39:12

    Good morning, Ch- Chairman, members of the committee. My name's Ralph Jackson. Um, I'm down around, my office is in Albany, Georgia. Uh, I've been a licensed hearing dispenser in Georgia. I've been f- fitting my fellow Georgians with hearing aids for over 43 years. I also serve as the Government Affairs board member for the Georgia Society of Hearing Professionals, uh, the membership organization representing hearing aids across the state. I'm here today on behalf of the hearing aid dispensing profession in the state of Georgia to ask this committee to vote no on substitute House Bill 1254, and to tell you exactly why and who we are and how we help our patients.

86. 0:39:53

    Licensed hearing dispensers are trained professionals who test patients' hearing. We determine what people need in order to hear better, to stay connected to their families, to participate in work and life, and to avoid the isolation that hearing loss can cause, which could lead to additional health issues. We select the right hearing aid device, fit it, customize it to each patient, provide ongoing care. This is not a one-and-done healthcare service. It is a long, continuous process for the rest of the patient's life.

87. 0:40:24

    We are not salespeople. We provide hearing healthcare across Georgia, especially in areas where limited access to services. In many rural parts of the state, we are the only healthcare pr- providers available. How many Georgians need hear- need this care? According to a Lancet Regional Health study, roughly 682,000 Georgians, about 6% of the state population, have some degree of hearing difficulty. In rural north Georgia, including places like Fannin County, the number rises to one in four residents, and this issue is only growing.

88. 0:40:57

    National projections show that more than 73 million Americans will have some form of hearing loss by 2060. Hearing difficulties affect Georgians of all ages, from newborns to seniors, and they're linked to serious health conditions such as dementia, and there's, there's been, that's been well, well documented about hearing loss and dementia. Hearing aid dispensing is also a growing profession. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects 18% job growth for hearing aid dispensers, also known as hearing specialists, over the next deca- decade, much faster than average.

89. 0:41:32

    We are not a profession in decline. We are a profession that Georgians will need more of, not fewer. Currently, the G- Georgia Board of Hearing Aid Dealers and Dispensers has seven members: four licensed dispensers like myself, one ENT, one audiologist, and one public member. I want to be transparent. I am currently the chair of this board, but I'm not speaking to you today in that role. I'm speak- speaking to you as a licensed hearing aid professional. This substitute bill eliminates our board entirely.

90. 0:42:04

    It falls just under an existing board dominated by audiologists and speech pathologists who usually vote as a bloc, and that's a national trend. That's easily documented. The new joint board would include three audiologists, three speech language pathologists, one ENT, one public, and two hearing aid dispensers. We go from four seats to two. Other profess- Our profession lose... Other professions lose zero seats. And here's what we ask the committee to understand. Audiologists compete with us.

91. 0:42:34

    We serve the same population. We provide the overlapping services. We have... They have every financial incentive to limit what hearing aid dispensers are allowed to do. Under this bill, they would be empowered to write the rules governing our profession, our license, and the entry requirements for our field. This is not a balanced representation. It is a conflict of interest, and we've seen similar attempts in other states. And it get- gets worse. What if ha- what happens if even one of the two seats becomes vacant?

92. 0:43:05

    We would go being from outnumbered to be effectually silenced. One vote to their six with no safeguards against a voting bloc that includes our direct competitors. I also want to raise a significant legal concern. The US Supreme Court has already addressed this exact scenario in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners versus FTC. The US Supreme Court held that when a board is controlled by active market participants who compete with the professionals they regulate, the board is not automatically shielded from federal antitrust liability.

93. 0:43:41

    This bill creates precisely that situation, a risk both to the state and to the individual board members who serve under this structure. There is also a statutory issue with how the bill defines our scope of practice. My colleague, Robert, will address this in detail during his testimony. Georgia hearing aid dispensers take patient safety seriously. We take our professional s- standards seriously. The board we have today works. It protects patients, it protects the public, and ensures our profession has a fair voice in its own governance.

94. 0:44:13

    All we are asking, that you preserve our profession. Please vote no on the substitute to House Bill 1254. We welcome to continue conversation to address our concerns, as they have not yet been resolved. Thank you, Chairman and members of this committee. I'll be happy to answer any questions or after my colleagues conclude their testimony.

95. 0:44:33

    Any questions by committee members at this time? Senator Harbison.

96. 0:44:37

    Thank you very much, uh, Mr. Jackson. I... Could you clarify me one more time, uh, uh, the conflict of interest comment you made? G- just briefly what, uh-

97. 0:44:48

    Well, the conflict of interest is that there would be... You have si- three s- speech pathologists. You'd have, um, three audiologists and only two board members on the seat, and the conflict i- is that we're direct competitors, and they would have total control over what we can do and what we cannot do.

98. 0:45:11

    Thank you.

99. 0:45:12

    Thank you, sir.

100. 0:45:12

     Senator Sims, you're recognized for questions.

101. 0:45:15

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that was... That's, that was, um... And thank you so much for bringing this to, um, our attention and to the committee as well. I'm... Really, this is kind of out of my league totally. But looking at, um, rural Georgia and the needs that we have and the representation that we expect from board members, how would this impact us? Do you think that it, it-

102. 0:45:46

     Do-

103. 0:45:46

     Just go ahead and tell me being-

104. 0:45:48

     Well-

105. 0:45:48

     ... the, the rural part, because most of the times-

106. 0:45:50

     Well-

107. 0:45:50

     ... we're left out.

108. 0:45:51

     Okay. There, there are far more, um, hearing dispensers than audiologists in r- in rural Georgia.

109. 0:45:56

     Mm-hmm.

110. 0:45:56

     Um, and, and that, and that's... Rural Georgia healthcare is lacking compared to c- you know, the center of the state in north G- in north Georgia up in Atlanta area. It would have a direct impact-

111. 0:46:08

     Mm

112. 0:46:08

     ... on, on healthcare. Because if what happens in this, if they're able to dictate, in the current law, I'm getting ahead of us, of Robert, in the current law, it says that we can evaluate, test, and counsel. In this bill, we do not have that. We do not have that. It does not... It, it... What's in the current-

113. 0:46:28

     At all

114. 0:46:29

     ... statute is gone.

115. 0:46:29

     You don't have it at all. It's, it's not there anymore.

116. 0:46:31

     It's not in this one at all. So effectively, the audiologists, by rulemaking, would be able to tell us what we can do and cannot do, which would keep us-

117. 0:46:41

     Okay

118. 0:46:41

     ... potentially from testing, fitting, and counseling, uh, the patients.

119. 0:46:46

     Yes. May, may I follow up on-

120. 0:46:48

     You, feel free.

121. 0:46:49

     Thank you. Thank you so much. Right now in District 12, rural southwest Georgia, 13 counties, how would this impact, um, my consumers there, my constituents? How would it cons- With, with the elimination of the board, tell me how, what the impact-

122. 0:47:10

     Well-

123. 0:47:10

     ... would be.

124. 0:47:10

     The board, w- it, you know, we... It's been pointed out that we ha- had a low number of, uh, complaints, but, but we, the board, is very, very, uh, has been very, very effective in, in communicating with the licensed hearing professionals on what they can do and can't do, and that's the reason we have low number of, of complaints. The society is very active with that, which, which I'm a part of. Um- I, I just, I think that if we're not, if we're don't have a seat at the table, I just see, um, this going south for the rural areas.

125. 0:47:48

     Thank you. I also know, having worked in schools, speech pathologists in rural Georgia and audiologists are very difficult to find.

126. 0:47:59

     Yes, ma'am.

127. 0:47:59

     They, they almost non-existent. And, um, that would be a big concern to me, what, who will intervene? Who will fill that slot if they are not there? We don't have them.

128. 0:48:11

     Well, you know, s- speech pathology is o- is out of our wheelhouse.

129. 0:48:14

     Mm-hmm.

130. 0:48:14

     But as far as audiology, uh, the hearing dispensers are the one that fi- that fill that.

131. 0:48:19

     Well, but they seem to have... They have three seats on the board, right?

132. 0:48:24

     Yes, ma'am.

133. 0:48:26

     And as well as the speech pa- pathologist and the... Who else has three seats there?

134. 0:48:31

     Just speech pathologists-

135. 0:48:32

     Okay

136. 0:48:32

     ... and audiologists.

137. 0:48:33

     Okay. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

138. 0:48:36

     Thank you.

139. 0:48:37

     Senator Summers, you're recognized, then Senator Walker.

140. 0:48:42

     Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Um, make me understand this. Why would you want us to vote no on the entire bill when I'm hearing what you're saying, I think I hear what you're saying is, if you had three seats like everybody else, then the bill would be, uh, where you could accept it. Am I, am I getting that wrong?

141. 0:49:00

     Uh, partially. I mean, we, we have, we have concerns with the language in it where it, where we're not, uh, given statutory authority actually to test, hearing counsel and fit hearing aids. That's left out completely. Um, we really and truly don't think it's a good idea to go to the audiology board anyway because they're our direct competitor. Um, we, we would need three or more seats to, for it to be a fair board. Four seats would make it even more fair.

142. 0:49:31

     Uh, but it's, at the end of the day, we just don't feel it's the right thing to do.

143. 0:49:37

     Excuse me. Nobody has four seats. They have three seats. Is that correct?

144. 0:49:41

     Well, we were, we were talking about three, but if you look in your packet, it should say four.

145. 0:49:45

     Yeah. Well, before. That's right. Okay, thank you.

146. 0:49:51

     Senator Walker, you're recognized, then Senator Dolezal.

147. 0:49:53

     Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jackson, good to see you again. Um, what, how would you respond to the, I guess, the argument that the current structure actually where you have your own board, uh, d- actually restricts access for the consumer and potentially creates almost a monopoly-type situation where the, it's so many limited license ease to be able to provide the product that almost like collusion where the price is in- inflated, uh, and not, it's not market competition there.

148. 0:50:39

     I mean, that, that's the argument I hear against the existing structure.

149. 0:50:44

     Yes. Yes. Yes.

150. 0:50:44

     So I'd like you to respond to that. And then secondly, I just don't see audiologists competing with hearing aid dispensers in my district, so I don't, I don't know if that's a valid, uh, point that you're making. I'd like you to expand on that. But first-

151. 0:51:02

     Well-

152. 0:51:02

     ... the current structure seems to restrict consumer access instead of opening it up.

153. 0:51:09

     You're, you're saying the current, the way the, we have the current board restricts consumer access?

154. 0:51:14

     Yes.

155. 0:51:15

     I to- totally disagree with you. Um, actually, I, we believe it increases consumer access. Um, hearing dispensers is a very, very fast-growing profession nationwide. Uh, there was a article I read on one of my newsfeeds a few months ago that it is actually almost one of the number one professions that's recommended for people to go into. Um-

156. 0:51:39

     So how m- how many licensees do you have under the current structure?

157. 0:51:43

     I believe currently there's 287 or 89.

158. 0:51:47

     In the whole state.

159. 0:51:47

     A year, a year ago there was 261.

160. 0:51:51

     And we have 11 million people, 159 counties.

161. 0:51:54

     Right.

162. 0:51:54

     That seems restrictive to me, excuse me for ar- being argumentative, Mr. Chairman.

163. 0:51:58

     Well, that's why we need, we need more hearing professionals in it. And, and to your comment about audiologists, a good portion of audiologists do not fit hearing aids. A good portion of, so there's a lot of them are in research. There's s- a lot of them that work for hearing aid manufacturers. So if you take all those out, there's not a pro- probably not a huge difference in the number of actual audiologists that fit hearing aids versus hearing dispensers. I mean, there, I'm sure there's more than what we are, but it's not a huge difference if you get the pro- I mean, the profession if you break it down.

164. 0:52:33

     But your argu- excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

165. 0:52:35

     Go ahead.

166. 0:52:35

     Your argument is that you are direct competitors with au- audiologists, but yet you just said audiologists don't fit hearing aids and don't do what you all do, so.

167. 0:52:44

     No, sir. You, you misunderstood me. Audiologists do fit hearing aids, but not all audiologists. So when we put down the numbers who don't, then there's not a huge difference in the two professions. Uh, they would still outnumbers, but not by a tremendous amount.

168. 0:52:58

     Okay. Thank you.

169. 0:52:59

     Senator Dolezal, you're recognized for question.

170. 0:53:02

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir, for being here. So what Representative Reeves was saying is essentially the regulatory framework around hearing aids changed a couple years ago when some percentage of these were made over the counter. Is that accurate?

171. 0:53:15

     Uh, yes, sir. You can get-

172. 0:53:16

     So given that-

173. 0:53:17

     ... absolutely

174. 0:53:17

     ... what percentage currently of hearing aids sold in the state are over-the-counter hearing aids versus hearing aids that are provided, that must be provided via prescription?

175. 0:53:27

     I honestly don't know if anybody has those numbers.

176. 0:53:30

     Roughly.

177. 0:53:32

     Sir, I, I, I wouldn't even dare to guess, but, but hearing aids are-

178. 0:53:36

     You're a practitioner, right?

179. 0:53:37

     Yes, sir. Hearing aids are prescriptive-

180. 0:53:39

     So of, of your patients-

181. 0:53:39

     Sir?

182. 0:53:40

     Of your patients that you see-

183. 0:53:42

     All of my patients-

184. 0:53:42

     You would know if, is it more than half or less than half? Is it a quarter? Is it-

185. 0:53:46

     Oh, oh, it's, it'd be ni- nine- 99%. I have people come in who've tried the over-the-counter, but it was simply more or less an amplifier. It wasn't, it wasn't professionally fit, no adjustments to it. They tried it, and then they come get prescriptive hearing aids. What we do is prescriptive hearing aids. OTC is a completely different category other than what we do. That's for somebody with a mild hearing loss, a- an OTC.

186. 0:54:10

     Okay. Is it safe to say that, that you are seeing then, given that, some of the more severe cases? Or is it, or would you say that most, most Georgians with a hearing aid are, are, are using a prescription hearing aid versus an OTC hearing aid?

187. 0:54:26

     Everybody will do better with a prescriptive product versus a product of a one size fits all. Um, now, i- i- what, like I said, what we do is prescriptive. Um, we customize it, we test, and it's made to fit their hearing loss precisely, and it's not some wild guess like a OTC product is.

188. 0:54:50

     I, I get that. I'm not, I'm not asking for which is better. I'm trying to get to essentially how many Georgians are using OTC. 'Cause ultimately what I'm getting to, sir, i- is these regulatory boards and bodies t- to me are just, we have far too many of them. And I'm trying to figure out if, for example, and I'm m- making the number up, but if 80% of Georgians were using an over-the-counter product, which it sounds like they're not-

189. 0:55:13

     I, I would s-

190. 0:55:14

     Um, it would sound to me like the, the use of these boards maybe is an outdated mechanism of, of regulation that we should get rid of altogether.

191. 0:55:22

     Well, I respectfully disagree with you. I mean, the, the Hearing Aid Board, uh, deals with prescriptive. OTC is a separate, is a separate entity from what we do. I mean, it's just a, a, a, uh, entry-level product for somebody to try to see if they get any benefit. And w- and, and a lot of people will try it, but I'd say 9 out of 10 send it back and come to us and get professionally fit.

192. 0:55:47

     Okay. That's what I was trying to get to-

193. 0:55:48

     Yeah. Yes

194. 0:55:48

     ... my first question that you said you-

195. 0:55:49

     Okay. I'm sorry

196. 0:55:50

     ... you weren't sure of the answer to. So you would-

197. 0:55:51

     I have hearing difficulty, and I didn't really understand you.

198. 0:55:53

     You would say that it would be safe to say that the majority of Georgians that have a hearing aid device have a prescription hearing aid device and not an OTC device?

199. 0:56:01

     In the end result, yes, sir.

200. 0:56:03

     Okay. Thank you.

201. 0:56:05

     All right. Thank you. That's all the questions for you. Appreciate you being with us.

202. 0:56:08

     Thank you, sir.

203. 0:56:08

     Uh, Anita Shumaker.

204. 0:56:13

     Is it Robert?

205. 0:56:17

     Good morning, Cha- Chairman Cowsert, members of the committee. Thank you for having me today. My name is Robert Shumaker. I'm president of the Georgia Society of Hearing Professionals. I'm a Miracle-Ear franchisee with offices in Tucker, Snellville, and Buford, and a licensed hearing aid dispenser for the last 20 years. Ralph just walked you through the board composition problem and what it means to place our competitors in charge of our profession. I want to build on that base and draw your attention to a specific problem with the bill's language.

206. 0:56:50

     It makes that situation even more dangerous. It comes down to a definition. I know that might sound like a small thing, but in the licensing statute, a definition tells us exactly what the General Assembly has authorized our profession to do. It is the foundation of our scope of practice. As my colleague mentioned, there is a glaring issue with the definition of practicing dispensing prescription hearing aids.

207. 0:57:24

     Current law explicitly states that hearing aid dispensers are allowed to do. It lists testing, evaluation, selection, fitting, and counseling. This substitute removes all of that language. It replaces it with a single sentence that only describes a sales transaction. We are not retailers. We are licensed hear- healthcare providers who conduct clinical testing, evaluate hearing loss, and counsel patients.

208. 0:57:55

     Here's why the definition in House Bill 1254 is dangerous. A board cannot adopt rules that contradict state law, but when the statute is silent and when the authorizing language is removed, a competitor-controlled board does not need to change anything at all. They can simply point to the definition and say, "Testing is not in your definition. Fitting is not in your definition. Counseling is not in your definition." That board can conclude that we are not authorized to perform those services.

209. 0:58:33

     Opponents of hearing aid dispensers would not need to introduce new bills every session. They would not need to vote, need votes in the House or the Senate. They would only need a board with the right composition, with the same mindset as themselves, and a definition written to say as little as possible. Ambiguity does the work for them. This is not theoretical. In another state, specifically in New Mexico, a board dominated by our competitors issued proposed rules that would have prevented hearing aid dispensers providing care not addressed or prohibited in statute.

210. 0:59:12

     Our national organization and colleagues caught it, pushed back, and the rule was never adopted. But that situation is exactly what the definition gap would invite here in Georgia. The fix is simple. The full definition needs to be restored and updated. The statute must clearly state that licensed hearing aid dispensers are authorized to order the use of To evaluate, test, select, fit, and counsel.

211. 0:59:44

     These words need to be written directly into the law and not left for a board to interpret. I included a side-by-side comparison in your packet, along with the proposed language. The phrase, "Order the use of," is a technical clarification that reflects the FDA regulatory changes that took e- effect in 2022. It aligns with what our profession has done for decades. It does not expand our scope of practice, and 20 states have already updated their laws or regulations to make the same technical correction that we are suggesting.

212. 1:00:21

     This definition must be included in the statute regardless of what happens to the board structure. Even if this definition was restored, the board's composition problem that Ralph described would still remain. A board controlled by competitors could still control our scope of practice through rule making and interpretation, as Mr. Williams said earlier. The only real solution is to vote no on this substitute. The Georgia Society of Hearing Professionals welcome conversations, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

213. 1:00:58

     I got a question for you. This is the last step in the process. Amy and JC with the governor's office worked on this licensing issue solid for the last year, and they've come up with a couple of bills and pretty comprehensive review and consideration and evaluation of how other states are dealing. Did you ever weigh in with the governor's office before the bill was presented, and did you guys weigh in in the House as it was debated over there?

214. 1:01:31

     'Cause it flew out of the House pretty overwhelming vote, you know. I'm, I'm receiving this assuming it's relatively non-controversial. Boring as all get out, if you wanna know the truth. I, uh, concur with Senator Dolezal. If I was the governor, we probably wouldn't license half the people we even license now. I d- it's, uh, the definition of red tape, and I, I don't, I, I'll, I'm troubled sometimes whether it really protects consumers versus, uh, you know, protects monopolies or specialists that have the, the magic license to be able to, to make money off of them.

215. 1:02:13

     So w- where, where have y'all been for the last year? Have you been being heard or weighing in on this and just been rejected at every step along the way?

216. 1:02:22

     Yes, sir. We have been.

217. 1:02:23

     Okay.

218. 1:02:23

     Um, I did... We met with the governor's office. We went over, uh, our concerns. Uh, they were not a- addressed in, in the final bill that came out of the House. Um, prescription hearing aids are, are just that. They're prescriptions, and you have to have a license to fit prescription hearing aids. Um, over the counter, you, you can go to Walmart and buy them over the counter. It's a whole different... They w- they were actually called amplifiers until 2022.

219. 1:02:53

     So they were personal sound amplifiers. Um, I think the govern- the government wanted to show that we reduced the prices of hearing aids nationwide. So instead of reducing the prices, they just renamed or reclassified amplifiers as hearing aids, which of course now hearing aids are a lower, uh, price because they added this whole category. But no, we, we... They're still, uh, required a license to fit.

220. 1:03:23

     Okay.

221. 1:03:23

     And, and I guess the biggest thing, I, I did a handout, um, the second page of my handout, that it reads the current Georgia law, the proposed 1254 law, and then what we, we recommend. We did need to open our law up because since 2022, it has not delegated us as fitting prescription hearing aids in the law, and so we did need that changed. Um, and if you'll see my-

222. 1:03:53

     Is that in this bill?

223. 1:03:53

     ... suggested corrected definition, that's, uh-

224. 1:03:56

     Okay

225. 1:03:56

     ... that's what we need to have it say.

226. 1:03:59

     All right. Senator Walker, you got a question, then we're gonna try to move along.

227. 1:04:02

     Well, I just wanna respond to your question-

228. 1:04:03

     Go right ahead

229. 1:04:03

     ... if you don't mind.

230. 1:04:04

     Love to hear.

231. 1:04:05

     So I served on the, the joint House Senate Blue Ribbon Commission on licensure. We were all legislators. All y'all were getting bombarded with complaints about the licensure process and the difficulty of renewing licenses and getting licensed. And so we took a very comprehensive look at it. I think we had four meetings or five. We heard from the, the, uh, hearing aid dispensers at two of our m- we let them speak at two of our meetings.

232. 1:04:36

     Um, we did... We then were gonna address it in the first bill we did in the '25 session. They had concerns, so we pulled them out of it. Th- this, to me, at this point... So I'm told that there are about 250 licensed hearing aid dispensers statewide, and they have their own board now. Um, there's 750 audiologists licensed statewide roughly, and 7,000 speech language pathologists statewide.

233. 1:05:10

     This, in my view, is a accommodation, rather than eliminating the license altogether, is to roll them in with the, uh, audiologists and speech pathologists to make it a enough of a body of folks to even have a board. I mean, 250 people statewide and you have a licensure board with seven people or whatever? Just... So to me, this, we've accommodated them by waiting another year, hearing for them, for, from them further, and- Not making a move to eliminate the license altogether.

234. 1:05:52

     All right. That makes sense.

235. 1:05:53

     That's my view. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.

236. 1:05:55

     Senator, no, that's, that's good in- insight for us. We- I've got four or five other people. We're gonna try to give them all about five minutes each as we move through. Senator Dolezal, you're recognized.

237. 1:06:03

     Thank you, sir. I just want to ask you to follow up with, with, um, Pro Tem Walker's comment there. If, if the s- if you were explicitly allowed in statute to do the work that you're currently doing, do you care about the change of the board?

238. 1:06:18

     I mean, the board still needs to be equal representation.

239. 1:06:22

     Why?

240. 1:06:23

     Well, because-

241. 1:06:23

     If, if you, if you are, if you are explicitly allowed in code to do what you want to do, they cannot change that. Why, w- why, why does the equal representation matter?

242. 1:06:31

     I guess just be- because of rulemaking reasons that they could do. But it does definitely needs to... Th- th- the verbiage of the bill definitely needs to include what we're, our scope of work is.

243. 1:06:43

     I think that you're probably fighting an uphill battle on the board change.

244. 1:06:45

     Yes, sir.

245. 1:06:46

     Um, it would seem to me that the, the, the actual statutory language change is more significant in terms of value to you guys than, than a voice on a board that frankly half of us don't even think should exist.

246. 1:06:56

     I, I hear you.

247. 1:06:57

     Yeah.

248. 1:06:57

     Yes.

249. 1:06:57

     Okay.

250. 1:06:57

     That, that's why I said whether whatever happens with the board, the language in the bill has to be changed.

251. 1:07:02

     Okay, thank you.

252. 1:07:03

     Okay.

253. 1:07:05

     All right, thank you, uh-

254. 1:07:06

     Thank you

255. 1:07:07

     ... somebody Kruso that can't spell their first name very well.

256. 1:07:14

     Not clear enough for me to read anyway.

257. 1:07:17

     I have somebody else.

258. 1:07:19

     Sign you in.

259. 1:07:20

     Sign up.

260. 1:07:20

     All right. Introduce yourself so we'll know who we got here.

261. 1:07:24

     All right. My name is Peter Kruse, K-R-U-S-E. Chairman Cowsert, members of the committee, thank you for having me today. Like I said, my name is Peter Kruse. I'm a nationally board-certified hearing aid dispenser. I've been fitting Georgians with hearing aids for 14 years. I also want to speak as a patient because I've been wearing hearing aids for 20 years. I'm a son of a mother that has had hearing loss all my life, and most recently I found out that my 13-year-old niece is gonna need hearing aids in the next two or three years.

262. 1:08:00

     I also serve on the board of Georgia Society of Hearing Professionals. I'm the director of education. Ralph and Robert walked you through the board composition, composition problems and the statutory des- definition issues in detail. I want to close by making sure the committee understands what all of it means for Georgians seeking hearing healthcare in the state, and why there's no legitimate justification for moving forward with this statute or the substitute. Before I do that, let me briefly tie together what my colleagues have said because these concerns are connected.

263. 1:08:36

     Ralph shared with you that this substitute hands regulatory control of our profession to our direct competitors with no safeguards. Robert explained that the bill's definition strips out the statutory language that protects our authorized scope of practice, leaving a competitor-dominated board free to interpret and silence who however serves them best. And the United States Supreme Court made it clear that this kind of structure invites federal antitrust liability challenge that this bill creates for Georgia.

264. 1:09:13

     But I want to make sure that we don't lose sight of the person sitting in the waiting room in Randolph County, Pickens County, Long County, or other r- rural counties because this ultimately affects, affects these patients. Wait times for hearing healthcare in Georgia are already weeks and months long, not days. We have a shortage of healthcare professionals in the state, and hearing aid dispensers help fill that gap, particularly in rural communities where audiological services are scarce or nonexistent.

265. 1:09:47

     Consider a senior in rural Pickens County. Fewer hearing aid dispensers means longer drives, longer wait times for the care they need to stay connected with their families. We're not just, just talking about inconvenience, we're talking about isolation. We're talking about a documented link between hearing loss and cognitive decline. And think about someone in Randolph County working two jobs to support their family. They cannot afford longer drives, higher out-of-pocket costs, and unpaid time off just to access the hearing care they need.

266. 1:10:22

     When competitors control the board and set the requirements for our profession, they have every incentive to raise those barriers. Fewer healthcare, fewer hearing aid dispensers means less competition. Less competition means higher costs for their patients who can least afford them. You are not just eliminating one board and changing another's composition. You're telling Georgia seniors and working families they will have to wait longer, travel even farther, and pay even more for care.

267. 1:10:52

     Can you use a dispenser or-

268. 1:10:53

     And all that harm, access to affordability to the patients who depend on us is being asked of Georgia with no evidence of that any of it is necessary. We have seen no documented patients harm under the current board. There's no surge in com- consumer complaints, no evidence the board is failing or that there's misconduct. There's no operational inefficiency to require dismantling an independent board that has worked for decades.

269. 1:11:25

     This proposal is a solution in search of a problem, but the consequences for Georgia par- patients are very real. In summary, this substitute places hearing aid dispensers under a permanent majority control, majority controlled by our direct competitors with no protective safeguards. It strips the statutory language that authorizes our clinical scope of practice. There is no documented evidence of patient harm, board failure, or consumer complaints that jus- justifies any of this.

270. 1:12:01

     Georgia patients deserve better than a bill passed without evidence. While we are disappointed that our previous concerns have not been yet been reflected in this substitute, we remain committed to finding a workable solution. We urge, urge the committee to vote no on substitute to House Bill 1254. I want to thank you, Chairman Cowsert, and members of the committee for your time and consideration today. I'm happy to take any questions.

271. 1:12:29

     I don't see any questions. Thank you for being with us. John Turner.

272. 1:12:32

     Thank you so much.

273. 1:12:40

     Good morning.

274. 1:12:41

     Good morning.

275. 1:12:47

     Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for your time. My name is John Turner. I'm from Douglasville, Georgia, and I've been a licensed hearing aid dispenser for 16 years. And I'm here to respectfully ask that you do not merge our dedicated Hearing Aid Dispenser Board with the Audiology and Speech Pathology Board under HB 1254. I know the goal of this legislation is administrative efficiency, but for the professionals on the ground and the consumers who rely on us, uh, I feel this merger creates the exact opposite.

276. 1:13:25

     It was mentioned in a previous meeting that 13 states have combined boards. However, the International Hearing Society confirms that 18 states still maintain entirely separate boards for dispensers. Independent regulation remains a strong national standard because it properly separates retail technology dispensing from medical diagnostics. Merging us with close to 7,000 speech language pathologists doesn't really make sense to me.

277. 1:14:01

     Uh, speech pathologists do not fit or dispense hearing aids. And in states with combined boards, professionals frequently sit quietly through long meetings while entirely unrelated fields work through their own specific issues, and that does not seem to streamline state government. It seems to waste time and state resources. I also wanna address the, um, the issue of board activity.

278. 1:14:33

     It was pointed out that our board only dealt with about six complaints last year, with only one being serious, and this was framed as a lack of activity. I urge you to look at that number not as a negative, but as a tremendous positive. Um, only six complaints in an entire state is evidence of an incredible effort our society and board puts into self-policing. We have strict face-to-face continuing education requirements.

279. 1:15:04

     We show up every year to learn about ethics, rule changes, and consumer protection. A low complaint volume is the direct result of an active, effective board doing exactly what it was designed to do: protect Georgia consumers. And right now, those consumers, they need us right now more than ever. If you walk into a Costco today, you might find as many as five hearing test booths, yet patients are still being scheduled a month out just to be seen.

280. 1:15:34

     Major employers in this state, from Sam's Club to Hearing Life to independent clinics, are often hiring and looking for licensed dispensers. They cannot fill these roles from newly graduated Georgia audiologists because Georgia hasn't had a Doctor of Audiology program in 16 years. Dispensers are a major portion of the workforce keeping hearing healthcare accessible and affordable in this state.

281. 1:16:07

     Merging our dedicated board that understands our specific apprenticeship and licensing needs, which with speech pathologists and audiologists, threatens to create any number of uncertainties for this current workforce pipeline. Finally, if this committee is bound and determined to merge these boards despite these concerns, I would ask that the bill be amended to provide equal representation. Previously, it's been stated that, you know, there are over 700 audiologists to justify, you know, giving them more board seats than the two that are being considered for dispensers.

282. 1:16:45

     Yet industry professionals and manufacturers, uh, that I've spoken to confirm the number of active practicing clinical audiologists is significantly lower. And so if we're gonna be governed alongside thousands of speech pathologists and audiologists, fairness and market competition dictate a more equal number of board seats for dispensers. We are an active and ethical profession doing vital work for Georgia's hearing-impaired citizens. Please let us keep the dispensers board that allows us to do that work safely and ethically.

283. 1:17:21

     Thank you.

284. 1:17:21

     Are you a member of that board?

285. 1:17:23

     No, sir.

286. 1:17:23

     Okay. Um, you indicate that there's a shortage of dispensers, you think, in the, the state?

287. 1:17:31

     They're often looking for dispensers. At any given time, you can search for job listings, and they are, they're o- they're often needed because of the expanding businesses that, um, that dispense hearing aids.

288. 1:17:48

     Okay.

289. 1:17:48

     And so finding audiologists or dispensers, um, has been challenging, uh, as of late as, you know, companies try to train and apprentice new dispensers, uh, every year.

290. 1:18:05

     Any kind of educational requirements to be a dispenser?

291. 1:18:08

     Yes, sir.

292. 1:18:09

     Do you have to be a doctor or anything, or what do you, what are your requirements?

293. 1:18:12

     The educational requirements, um, are set up, uh, by the state, uh, through an apprenticeship program. And so we have a, a distance learning and, uh, and then ultimately you have an a- active apprenticeship inside of a local, uh, clinic where you can be, uh, trained, uh, hands-on, uh, as well as, you know, through the, uh, education process that comes through the distance learning program.

294. 1:18:41

     What is distance learning online?

295. 1:18:44

     Um-

296. 1:18:44

     What do you mean by distance learning?

297. 1:18:45

     Yeah, uh, fair question. Um, the distance learning, uh, contains a, a number of different paths. You can take classes, uh, that are provided by other dispensers, uh, to prepare for testing. Um, you can, uh, obtain, uh, the, the books and education materials necessary, uh, through the, through the s- through the-

298. 1:19:09

     IHS

299. 1:19:09

     ... yeah, through IHS, uh, the International Hearing Society, to prepare for the exams.

300. 1:19:14

     Okay. All right. Thank you. Um, George Franco.

301. 1:19:26

     Got one more speaker after Mr. Franco, and then I'm gonna let, uh, Representative Reeves close and the governor's office if they'd like to be heard. Go right ahead.

302. 1:19:34

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak today. My name is George Franco. I'm the president of the GAA, the Georgia Auctioneers Association. I'm known as the good news auctioneer because I primarily conduct charity auctions for nonprofits, schools, and foundations. However, I speak on behalf of the GAA and many other licensed auctioneers across our state. Let's say that we do support modernizing Georgia auction laws to reflect today's evolving marketplace, particularly the growth of online auctions, while continuing to preserve strong consumer protections and professional accountability.

303. 1:20:11

     Auctioneers routinely handle significant sums of other people's money, estates, trust funds, legal settlements, and much more. Georgia's current system is self-funded, protects consumers without burdening taxpayers, and benefits from auction-specific expertise. As legislative changes are considered, we respectfully encourage preserving the auction industry's ability to be heard in the regulatory process. One area of concern is elimination of the auction company license, thus replacing responsibility and placing responsibility solely on individual auctioneers.

304. 1:20:49

     Maintaining clear accountability for auction companies, not just individual auctioneers working for them, is important for transparency and consumer protection. We also respectfully request that the GAA and licensed auctioneer professionals have access to a clear and direct path to the recovery and education fund for continuing educational purposes. Perhaps I missed it, but as currently written, HB 1254 does not seem to clearly indicate how auction professionals could access these funds.

305. 1:21:23

     Would we contact an individual? A director? Would there be an application process? What would the procedure be? Other states provide such access. For example, Kentucky has auctioneers who utilize funds like this for educational seminars and college-level auction training. Through their board of auctioneers and written requests which meet certain criteria, every new auctioneer, uh, certain criteria, they are able to r- have access to those funds. Every new auctioneer in Georgia has been required to pay $150 to this fund here in Georgia for several decades now, and as far as I know, we have never touched that money.

306. 1:22:01

     Also, we do not want to see the fund eliminated completely in the near future and absorbed by the state. Respectfully, I ask this committee, how would you feel if your funds were taken away and simply absorbed by the state? Finally, maintaining reciprocity weathers, with other states remains critical for Georgia auctioneers conducting business across state lines. We do believe that this legislation will keep that framework in place, and we thank you for that. The GAA appreciates the collaborative approach taken by the governor's office and Representative Reeves and the legislature in working to protect both consumers and professional standards.

307. 1:22:39

     Thank you for your time and consideration.

308. 1:22:42

     Thank you. Senator Albers, you're recognized for a question.

309. 1:22:44

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony today. I, I guess I'm gonna try and simplify this. I think it's crazy that we're regulating auctioneers at all- ... as well as most of the stuff in here. I mean, 20 states don't even do that, and they seem-

310. 1:22:56

     You're right

311. 1:22:56

     ... to be operating just fine. You know, why don't let the free market do what the free market does and let yourselves go out there and earn your business and just get government the heck out of your way?

312. 1:23:05

     I don't think the GAA has taken a stand against the regulation, per se, of licensing. You're right. Across the Mississippi west side, no auctioneer licenses. East side, many auctioneer licenses. It's a mishmash of, uh, legislation and regulation. I, I'm not against, or the GAA is not against the marketplace speaking for the marketplace. Primarily, we're here to see if we can keep tabs on that auctioneer's fund. We put several hundred thousand dollars into that, and to see it disappear is not of our liking.

313. 1:23:37

     Uh, I understand the funding part of it.

314. 1:23:38

     Yes, sir.

315. 1:23:38

     Mr. Chairman.

316. 1:23:39

     Sure, you can carry on.

317. 1:23:39

     We ought to send it back to you and just abolish the whole darn thing. Um, that would make a whole lot more sense. I mean, at this point, you know, we're gonna regulate everything, including opening that do- that door soon, so.

318. 1:23:49

     We gotta make sure they don't talk too fast.

319. 1:23:51

     Well, no doubt, but, um- ... we as, we as a GAA board, uh, believe it was important to s- publicly state our opinion on that. Yeah, it's about the money. It always is about the money.

320. 1:24:03

     Senator Lucas, you wanna comment?

321. 1:24:05

     Senator Lucas. I rec- I recognize Senator Lucas for a comment or a second or an amen.

322. 1:24:14

     Mr. Chairman, it, it, it seems though we have a, uh,

323. 1:24:21

     objection by one group over another group. And it seems that it, it has not been worked out. And we caught in the middle. And there was a song, blues song said, "Caught in the Middle." That, that, that's, that's where we are.

324. 1:24:41

     I love it.

325. 1:24:42

     Y- y- you know, you would hope that somehow they could get together and work this thing out rather than to put us in the middle of, of deciding. That's my response b- based on what I'm hearing here today.

326. 1:25:00

     All righty. I got one more. Gwen Cantrell. Let's hear

327. 1:25:08

     what you got to say.

328. 1:25:14

     Good morning. Um, thank y'all for giving me the chance to speak. Um, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for, um, letting me be here today. Senator Cowsert, you may remember me from the Walton County Board of Education for 12 years, um, and community events in Walton County. I appreciate all of your representation for our community. Um, my name is Gwen Cantrell. I am a nationally board-certified hearing instrument specialist for the state of Georgia, a small business owner, and I currently serve on the Georgia State Board of Hearing Aid Dealers and Dispensers, being directly appointed by Governor Kemp.

329. 1:25:50

     Uh, this profession deeply, um, is personal to me. My daughter is deaf and relies on her hearing aids on a daily basis to communicate with the world around her. I myself wear hearing aids, um, so I benefit from that as well. Um, this field runs deep in my family. I have eight family members who are licensed hearing instrument specialists here in Georgia, in a profession with only about 200 licensed, little more, uh, professionals statewide. Every one of them supports this bill.

330. 1:26:20

     Some are genuinely excited about it. It means, um, and what it means for our profession. I'm here today to support House Bill 1254. When I first learned about this bill, I did not support the original version. My concern was about our profession could lose its licensing board and be moved under the Secretary of State without professional oversight. That would've been bad for our profession and bad for Georgia consumers. I came to the Capitol, spoke with legislators and the governor's team, and pushed for changes.

331. 1:26:52

     They listened and improved the bill. It's my understanding that all of our laws, rules, regulations are all codified in this bill, um, and that our professional licensing will be protected, and our scope of practice will be protected because everything's already been moved over and codified into this bill. Um, I've read the bill, um, and I believe that the substitute version corrected that problem. Instead of removing oversight, the bill merges current board with Audiology Speech Pathology Board, one combined clinical licensing board.

332. 1:27:27

     It guarantees two seats for licensing, which was a compromise rather than being just pushed over to the Secretary of State's office where there would be no oversight. Um, and so, um, those changes matter because this is about protecting consumers. These licensing boards exist to protect the public. They ensure patients receive appropriate care, are not taken advantage of, and that are, there is accountability in the system. Hearing aids are a significant investment, especially for seniors.

333. 1:27:59

     The board provides the oversight to ensure patients are treated properly and gives them a clear place of fi- to file complaints and get help. For patients and providers, the day-to-day practice does not change. Our licenses remain in place, our scope remains protected, and our profession still has a seat at the table. I believe in having a seat than no seat. Um, I have spoken with hearing instrument specialists and audiologists across Georgia. Some are understand- understandably nervous about change.

334. 1:28:30

     Many others believe that this is a positive step forward. I also spoke directly with four hearing instrument specialists serving on merge boards in four different states. Every one of them told me that bringing hear- that bringing hearing professionals together under one board does not just work, it works better, improving collaboration, leading to better outcomes for patients. Several described it as the new gold standard, and many said they would not go back to an independent board. This bill is ultimately about consolidating, reconstructing licensing boards, but it does so in a deliberate, well-considered way.

335. 1:29:06

     And in doing that, I believe it has real potential to strengthen hearing healthcare in Georgia, especially for seniors and for families like mine. My daughter depends on hearing care every day, and bringing professionals together under one board leads to a better co- uh, coordination, stronger oversight, and better outcomes. Um, you know, I, I cannot imagine my daughter without her hearing aids. I got into this because of that. Um, I used to be a teacher. I used to be on the Board of Education. And I was passionate enough, and every one of my children, I'm a mother of eight, I'm a grandmother of 24.

336. 1:29:41

     Ooh.

337. 1:29:41

     Wow. So- Very, very ... I have eight family members that are licensed professionals in this state. And I've been to many places. And yes, it's, it's very hard to know where to go and who to trust. And as long as, you know, we have our, our, you know, laws, rules, and regulations codified into this bill, I think it's better for us to have a seat at the table than no seat at the table and have a voice. Any questions?

338. 1:30:07

     Thank you, Senator. Ginn, you're recognized for a question.

339. 1:30:11

     Eh. I can fix that.

340. 1:30:14

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cindy, uh, look, I, I don't know how long we're gonna debate this, but, but, uh, for me-

341. 1:30:20

     Time for the speaker

342. 1:30:21

     I wanna, I wanna make sure that I can hear my constituent down on the second floor, and I know that we've had some folks that have worked real hard on this bill for a long time. I'd like to go ahead and see this bill move, and I move do pass on LC560646S.

343. 1:30:38

     Well, unfortunately, you were not recognized for a motion. You were n- recognized for a question. I'm gonna let Representative Reeves conclude before we take action on this. Uh, but then I will call on you.

344. 1:30:52

     Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I think I hear you.

345. 1:30:54

     Yeah.

346. 1:30:55

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, uh, I'll be brief since Senator Ginn, uh, is prepared to make a motion. Uh, responding to some of the issues, sometimes it's good to pay attention to the dogs that aren't barking. Uh, geologists, you didn't hear many opposition from them. Cemeterians, you didn't hear any oppositions from him. As Senator Williams pointed out, we've got funeral directors, uh, here at the Capitol, particularly in the House. Uh, uh, no issues with the cemeterians. As far as the hearing aid dispensers, you just heard from Ms. Cantrell. They're hearing aid dispensers, uh, who support this bill.

347. 1:31:28

     And, uh, just responding to some of the issues raised today, uh, the governor's office and I and the House Regulated Industries Committee, we walk through issues raised by hearing aid dispensers. And time after time after time, arguments that were made, uh, just, uh, didn't hit the mark. And this statutory argument they've made this morning, that is a new argument. Uh, this bill has gone through committee and on the floor, and they've raised this argument today that, uh, uh, language is dropped. Nothing could be further from the truth.

348. 1:31:59

     Code Section 43-44-3 subsection 6 specifically has a definition of hearing aid disp- dispensing hearing aids as well as the fitting and the things that they mentioned here today. So the reason this bill may not have it in there is 'cause it's already in Title 44 in a different code section. So that new argument that they've made, uh, that's kind of the latest in a series of arguments that have been made. Um, the number of licensees has declined.

349. 1:32:30

     They talked about patient access. Uh, the number of licensees has declined by about 100 in recent years. Uh, there are dealers and dispensers. When you total those up, in 2025, there were 634. This year in 2026, there are 518. So, uh, uh, this industry has dwindled. It has shrunk the last few years, and, uh, they need to work together with other people serving patients with hearing needs. That's what this combined board would do. They're asking for more board seats, but arguably with the number of hearing aid dispenser licensees, two, uh, is more than, uh, is justified due to the number of 741 audiologists and 6,878, uh, speech and language pathologists.

350. 1:33:17

     So two seats is adequate considering, uh, the below 300 number of hearing aid dispensers. They cited a North Carolina case, but if you read that case, what that case says is don't let a small number of licensees regulate themselves on their own, because what that does is create protectionism and access problems. And, uh, uh, that is what this bill does in, uh, having the hearing aid dispensers work together with other people serving patients with hearing needs.

351. 1:33:47

     This whole notion of scope of practice, uh, they're not m- there's not medical training required of hearing aid dispensers, whereas audiologists and speech and language pathologists and ear, nose, and throat doctors have medical training. The prescriptions that are being discussed, those are ones that often people other than hearing aid dispensers write. So having a combined board like 13 other states will promote, uh, people working together for people with, uh, hearing needs. They asked for a seat at the table.

352. 1:34:18

     They've not only got a seat at the table under this bill, they've got two seats at the table under this bill. Um, the, the, uh, the question about access in rural areas, uh, with the over-the-counter phenomenon, uh, you've got Walmart, drugstores, Costco. Uh, there, there are more hearing aids available now than there were five or 10 years ago, uh, in all areas of the state. Um, they mentioned opponents of hearing aid dispensers. This bill does not oppose hearing aid dispensers.

353. 1:34:49

     This bill is a regulatory reform that brings Georgia into line with at least 13 other states to serve patients better and more economically, and at the end of the day, to get good hearing aids to people at the best price and the best service. Um, you've heard the arguments about the, the House substitute and all that. Those are the same arguments made in the House committee. I mean, this bill before you is what passed the House 163 to three after these same arguments that you've heard today. So we would ask you to, uh, move forward.

354. 1:35:20

     As far as the auctioneers, uh, there were many people last year who raised the question about agricultural auctions and farm equipment and reciprocity. The governor's office work with them. Uh, Mr. Franco does charity auctions. As you know from prior legislation, many of those are exempt already. And so, um, the, the auctioneers fund, there is a component that the governor's office could talk about in more detail about continuing education use. But that is not, uh, uh, personal or business funds. Those are already state funds that have accrued over the years, and this bill has good guardrails around it.

355. 1:35:55

     So we thank you for your time and ask you to pass this regulatory reform and, uh, keep these consumer protections in code. Thank you.

356. 1:36:03

     Got a couple quick questions. Uh, Senator Summers has a question for you.

357. 1:36:08

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would you please just, if you don't mind, would you, with legal

358. 1:36:13

     Mine that you have here, you said it's in the bill, the statutory language that they're wanting to-

359. 1:36:18

     It's in the code.

360. 1:36:19

     Correct. Uh, that is, uh, 43-44-3 subsection 6. That is existing law outside of the bill, and it defines dispensing hearing aids as providing hearing aids to a consumer by sale, rental, lease, or otherwise, and includes, without being limited to, conducting testing or other procedures to determine suitability for use of a hearing aid, to, to determine hearing aid characteristics which properly compensate the hearing condition, to select suitable hearing aids, to fit hearing aids to the subject, and to counsel and instruct in the use thereof.

361. 1:36:57

     That is existing law. It stays on the books, and this bill matches up with that. So it is def- the hearing aid dispensing is defined under law.

362. 1:37:05

     All right. Senator Williams.

363. 1:37:08

     Thank you. Thank you, Representative. I appreciate it. Tell me what is the purpose of a state board?

364. 1:37:17

     Uh, a pur- nursing I think is a great example. Uh, if you have a large number of licensees who have a standard of care and have, uh, criteria and professional standards to make sure that their patients or customers are being served pursuant to those standards and that you don't have professionals acting outside the scope of that profession in an objective way now that the courts say, in the North Carolina case, the Georgia case, and others. So to uphold professional standards to serve the patient or the customer.

365. 1:37:48

     Also, to hear complaints. Is that not correct?

366. 1:37:50

     Absolutely.

367. 1:37:51

     And is the state, is these sto- state boards, is their job to protect the profession or protect the public?

368. 1:38:02

     It should be to protect the public, but what we see often, if you have a small number of licensees, it becomes very self-centered, and, um, that's what this bill does. It reorients. It keeps consumer protection, and it makes sures that, uh, it makes sure that the consumers are being served in Georgia and not the profession itself.

369. 1:38:21

     And so by having only members of that profession on that state board, I think they may wind up protecting the profession more than protecting the public. And if it was up to me, I would have one audiologist, one hearing aid dispenser, one speech pathologist, and four consumer advocates. Give the consumer and give the public a seat at the table also.

370. 1:38:49

     And also, a hearing aid dispenser should not be afraid to work with audiologists, ear, nose, and throat doctors, speech and language pathologists. They should be working together for the benefit of the patients and the customers.

371. 1:39:00

     Exactly. Thank you.

372. 1:39:04

     Amy, did you have anything you wanted to respond to? I've been watching your body language as you reacted to speakers. If, if you want to add anything that Representative Reeves didn't to clarify our record before I recognize Senator Ginn for a motion.

373. 1:39:22

     I won't say too much. I think I will say that we did meet with every single industry in here. We actually met with the hearing aid dispensers prior to this bill dropping, gave them the language. No one responded to us. Uh, we sent it to them and their lobbyist. Then after the bill was dropped, they did come to us with some concerns. We talked about it. As we did, we offered them the compromise of combining the boards. They declined. We then talked to other members of the industry who were willing and open to compromise, and that is how we got there.

374. 1:39:53

     We worked very well with the auctioneers. We had started off completely eliminating the license. We reached the compromise that we currently have now. We have worked with the geologists. I went to the Fernbank to meet with the Atlanta Geological Society on a Tuesday night. We have worked so closely with all of these professions. At this point, it is becoming truly so disheartening that individuals were too... They wouldn't come to our face. These concerns were never sent to me today or before this meeting.

375. 1:40:25

     And so at the end of the day, I'm happy to dispel any concerns. I could literally go on with this for hours, but I do not want it to go unnoticed that the governor's office did put effort into reaching compromise with every single group in this bill.

376. 1:40:41

     Thank you. Senator Ginn, you're recognized for a motion.

377. 1:40:45

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move due pass on LC560646S.

378. 1:40:52

     Second.

379. 1:40:54

     Okay. And that is by committee substituted, seconded by the Dean of the Senate. Is there any discussion or any proposed amendments? All right, hearing none, all in favor, raise your hand.

380. 1:41:07

     Appears to be unanimous. That will move on to rules. Senator, I mean, Representative Reeves, you got somebody to carry this for you, I'm assuming, Bo Hatchett being a-

381. 1:41:15

     The governor's floor leader, Bo Hatchett

382. 1:41:16

     ... floor leader. Okay.

383. 1:41:16

     Thank you.

384. 1:41:16

     We'll make a note of that. Thank you.

385. 1:41:18

     Appreciate it.

386. 1:41:19

     All right, I promise you the other two bills will be significantly quicker. Uh, Representative Silcox, you have already presented previously your bill. Um, I know we have a substitute, and you may wanna just sort of fill us in what's, what's occurred since your last meeting with us.

387. 1:41:38

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, yes. As we met last week, of course, um, under the massage therapy bill, the two groups, the two major national groups were going to have a meeting on Thursday, and they did meet Thursday. There was not resolution between those two groups. And so the governor's office approached me and asked me, um, if they could use my bill as a vehicle, um, to get one of their bills passed, um, which is a priority for Governor Kemp before he leaves.

388. 1:42:09

     And, um, so I said I would be delighted to help Governor Kemp. And I will tell you that the only provision that is remaining, um, that was agreed to by both parties left from the massage therapy bill is actually on the very last page of the substitute that y'all have. It's-

389. 1:42:25

     So we all have it, substitute to House Bill 232.

390. 1:42:28

     Yes, sir. I'll send-

391. 1:42:29

     LC560677S for committee members to-

392. 1:42:32

     Thank you

393. 1:42:32

     ... to look at.

394. 1:42:33

     And it is on page 67. It's section four. And, um, pursuant to Senator Brass' previous suggestion, um, the governor's office- Agreed with him that we wanna keep the hours as low as possible while at the same time, um, making sure that we make our Pell Grant kids eligible still for those Pell Grants. So it's my understanding that we had to raise that to 600 hours, but still keeping it not at 625, but at 600 hours, and that's just what everybody agreed to.

395. 1:43:06

     That amount is required in order to be eligible for the Pell Grant?

396. 1:43:10

     Yes, sir.

397. 1:43:11

     Okay.

398. 1:43:12

     So to keep this-

399. 1:43:12

     Regardless of your licensing for massage therapy, if you wanna qualify and receive a Pell Grant, you have to have the 600 hours.

400. 1:43:20

     That's my understanding from the Federal Department of Education.

401. 1:43:22

     Okay. And so all of your 80-page bill or whatever on the- ... compact and massage therapist is-

402. 1:43:30

     It's, it's all gone

403. 1:43:30

     ... disappeared other than this.

404. 1:43:32

     Right. But let me tell you about what you have before you. Um, this bill has been heard by this committee several times before. The substitute removes most of the original bill, as I said. It has been amended to incorporate Senate Bill 553, which previously passed out of this committee March 3rd and passed the Senate unanimously on March 6th. I bring this substitute with the intent of codifying objective licensing requirements and streamlining the licensing process under the five divisions of the new State Construction Industry Licensing Board.

405. 1:44:08

     Um, under this bill, there are gonna be, uh, like I said, five professions covered: electrical contractors, low voltage contractors, master and journeyman plumbers, utility contractors, and conditioned air conditioners. And as Representative Reeves, you know, mentioned earlier, this is really to bring Georgia, um, in compliance with the recent Supreme Court decisions, the Republican National Committee versus Eternal Vigilance, that was mentioned earlier, as well as Jackson versus Raffensperger, by ensuring that licensing qualifications are clearly set in statute rather than relying on open-ended rulemaking authority.

406. 1:44:49

     Um, it's my understanding from JC Martin and, um, Amy Dorman that, that over 1,000 hours of work went into this individual bill on their part, and that they sat down with all of the parties concerned, and that everyone is in agreement on this bill. Um, so I think this is, um... They are to be commended for their diligence in this area. This is, as they were the first to say, this is not a really exciting part of the law to work on. But I do think it's important for our contractors, and it will give them clear guidelines for what's expected, um, for a license in each of these professions, so.

407. 1:45:28

     That was Senate Bill, did you say 553 was the number?

408. 1:45:31

     Yes, sir.

409. 1:45:31

     Okay.

410. 1:45:31

     Yes, sir. Mm-hmm.

411. 1:45:32

     Committee members, you may remember this was another administration bill Senator Bo Hatchett presented to us. We passed it out of committee. It already passed the Senate. It's sitting in the House. It's been hijacked in a committee in the House, and that's why we're having to reload and do it again. That one may not be acceptable in its final format, so we're trying to, or the administration's trying to keep this clean.

412. 1:45:54

     And with that-

413. 1:45:54

     And you're riding along just on your one sentence. Okay.

414. 1:45:57

     Well, and, um, 553, there are, the, the only changes really were one-word stylistic changes for clarity. Um, the, the meaning of the bill under 553 was not changed at all, so.

415. 1:46:10

     Okay. You made such a splendid presentation, there's nobody even signed up to speak- ... for or against it. I'm gonna recognize Senator Ginn. He's my motion maker.

416. 1:46:18

     Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I looked through this audience and-

417. 1:46:21

     You're my seconder

418. 1:46:22

     ... don't see, uh, Lee Lemke, but I do see Tucker Green. I wanted him to stand up, and let's take a look at him on Saint Patrick's Day, see how green he is today. He, he represents all these people that are in this- ... this, uh, legislation. But the, uh, I move due pass on LC560677S.

419. 1:46:40

     All right. And it's seconded by Senator Albers. We're working on the substitute to House Bill 232. Is, uh, there any discussion or proposed amendments? All right. We're moving faster now. All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? All right. It passes unanimously. Thank you, and thanks for your patience. So I hope that your competing parties in the massage world will get together in the off-season, and maybe they'll work that out-

420. 1:47:06

     I think they-

421. 1:47:06

     ... you know, for next year

422. 1:47:06

     ... I think they expect to.

423. 1:47:07

     I'm glad they will.

424. 1:47:07

     But thank you, Mr. Chairman.

425. 1:47:08

     All right. Thank you.

426. 1:47:09

     I appreciate it.

427. 1:47:10

     Uh, we got one final bill that's gonna be a hearing only. I need to get educated on it, and so do, do we. House Bill 641. Uh, Representative Lim, thank you for being with us this morning, and, uh, ask you to go to the podium and fill us in on what you're trying to accomplish.

428. 1:47:30

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am here to present House Bill 641. We're working off LC560591S. This bill simply states that electric utility suppliers have some written policy regarding-

429. 1:47:44

     Okay. Wonderful

430. 1:47:44

     ... handling disconnections for those residential consumers with serious life-threatening conditions that could be aggravated by disconnection and would be able to furnish that policy to customers upon request. Uh, this bill came about after hearing from those with life-threatening conditions, uh, including those with LVADs, ventilators, oxygen concentrators, those who must refrigerate their medicines or otherwise rely on e- electricity, essentially, to stay alive. And above all, uh, Ms. Tina Marson, who I know is here. She may not have signed up in time to testify, but I would ask that you do so at the pleasure of the committee.

431. 1:48:16

     She has a left ventricular assist device, or LVAD, and can testify to the importance of the legislation given the disconnections she experienced despite being able to make payments, and her trouble determining, A, what the policy of her particular utility was, and B, whether one even existed. As she would testify to even having a policy and being able to communicate that to the consumer can make such a world of difference. And also, to be clear, Georgia Power, uh, which already has a policy per Public Service Commission rules that have existed since the late 1970s, as well as Georgia EMC and Electric Cities of Georgia, have been supportive of this version of the legislation.

432. 1:48:55

     I thank them, as I did in the House, for coming to the table as we amended this particular version of the bill from, uh, removing any specific requirements as to what the policy must say, and simply stating, again, that you just have to have a policy. Do we believe that that would allow for the deference for every individual supplier to be able to determine what the best policy is for them in their locality if they don't already have one? Uh, according to testimony in the House, br- roughly about 80% do, so we're trying to address perhaps the 20% that, that don't. Uh, that's the bill in, in the simplest forms.

433. 1:49:27

     And with that, I'm very happy to answer any questions.

434. 1:49:29

     It deals only with electric service, electricity?

435. 1:49:32

     Correct.

436. 1:49:33

     All right, so Georgia Power already does it. They're required to do it by Public Service Commission rule or regulation?

437. 1:49:39

     That's correct.

438. 1:49:40

     So your bill is aimed at the MEAGs or the EMCs, then?

439. 1:49:44

     Correct, yes.

440. 1:49:45

     Okay. All right. Um, I, I got a question from Senator Ginn.

441. 1:49:52

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Representative Lim, help me out. The, uh, you're not asking for a specific policy, but let's just say that, that, uh, you know, you, you got two customers, one that doesn't have any life-threatening issue, and one that does. Senator, you wanting that, uh, the one with the life-threatening, uh, situation to be treated differently than somebody else? They, uh, you know, how do you get somebody to pay their bill if they're on a ventilator, they, uh, and they don't ever pay their bill? What, what would an electric supplier be expected to do?

442. 1:50:23

     Yeah, that, that's a very good question. And this bill is narrowly tailored to address, uh, again, we, I think all of us would want to prevent people from dying. And it was tailored not only given the experiences we heard, but as I mentioned and as, as Chairman Cowsert had s- previously stated, there is already a Public Service Commission rule. I will tell you what that rule states, the rule that's existed since the 1970s. They say for those with, uh, w- illnesses or threatening conditions, that the s- utility supplier, within 10 days notice by the consumer, gives the abeyance of total of 30 days before a disconnection in order to allow that consumer to be able to go up to, uh, to make the payments.

443. 1:51:05

     Neither that rule nor certainly this policy, uh, abates any payments or removes any payments, et cetera, but I did want to state what that rule specifically says. Because it, to your question, uh, uh, uh, uh, Senator Ginn, that there's already a distinction among existing rules specifically for those with these conditions. And to, to my understanding, and Georgia Power can speak to this, that rule has worked pretty well. And so, again, without taking those specifics, stating that you have a, have a policy with this class of people, we feel would work well for the EMCs as well as the MEAGs.

444. 1:51:37

     Do you know of any electric supplier that cuts you off within 30 days of non-payment of the current bill?

445. 1:51:43

     Uh, I, I will not name names, but yes.

446. 1:51:46

     Thank you. Other questions? Senator Summers, you're recognized.

447. 1:51:51

     If you don't mind, a follow-up to Senator Ginn's question-

448. 1:51:53

     Yes

449. 1:51:53

     ... Representative Lim. Gaming the system. Uh, how do you stop somebody one more time from gaming the system on this? Let's say you got somebody in the house that obviously needs it, but you got 10 more people in the house that are living there 'cause it's free electricity. How do you, how do you stop that?

450. 1:52:08

     Absolutely. It's in deferring to the utilities themselves to set what that policy is so that they can best determine how to prevent people from, uh, to u- to use your terminology, gaming the system. Uh, I, that's the best possible way. Because we heard in committee, the original version of this bill, to be clear, was taking the, the PSE rule and applying it more broadly. We heard in, in committee and we took the feedback that that might be a little bit too restrictive. But by creating this version of the bill, we would then allow the electric utilities themselves to be able to set a policy including safeguards to prevent the gaming of the system.

451. 1:52:45

     Because th- certainly their interest is-

452. 1:52:47

     Follow-up

453. 1:52:47

     ... to, to prevent people from doing exactly that.

454. 1:52:50

     Follow-up. Uh, you mean any electrical, EMCs, MEAGs, Georgia Powers, whoever, you're, they'll set the policy here?

455. 1:53:01

     Correct.

456. 1:53:04

     But it can't be longer than 30 days, is that what you're saying?

457. 1:53:06

     Uh, no. To, to be clear, um, and that was in answer to, uh, uh, Senator Ginn's question. But the, the policy is up to them what, how to determine what that policy states. It's simply stating you should have a policy and will be able to furnish it to the consumer upon request. That's all it's stating. It's certainly not, uh, the original version of the bill did have the language around 30 days. That's been removed.

458. 1:53:28

     That's what I thought.

459. 1:53:28

     Yes.

460. 1:53:29

     That's right.

461. 1:53:29

     Senator Ginn, back to you.

462. 1:53:31

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the, uh, basically if an electric supplier says, "Hey, we treat all our customers exactly the same and that's gonna be our policy," that'd be fine, uh,

463. 1:53:41

     That would comply with, with this law. I will also add that, um, I have been very encouraged in the conversations with both EMCs and electric util- utilities, even regardless of the status of this bill, to be able to work with them on what the best version of the policy is. But to narrowly answer the question, that is correct.

464. 1:53:59

     Well, sometimes we do that in the course of presenting legislation. You reach solutions without even having to enact the law-

465. 1:54:07

     Yes.

466. 1:54:07

     ... if you get the cooperation that you needed. Um, back to you, Senator Summers.

467. 1:54:11

     Yeah, just, just, just to follow up.

468. 1:54:12

     Yes.

469. 1:54:13

     Making sure now. If, let's just say you get cold of winter. I, I do believe there's a policy in place where they don't go cut off someone's electricity if there's, if the temperature is below a certain degrees. Is that, isn't that, are you familiar with that?

470. 1:54:28

     Yes. That applies to Public Service Commission regulated utilities.

471. 1:54:33

     Would that not fall under the same jurisdiction as what you're trying to do?

472. 1:54:37

     Correct, because, uh, EMCs and electric, uh, MEAGs do not fall under the Public Service Commission.

473. 1:54:44

     Say that one more time.

474. 1:54:45

     Uh, uh, MEAGs, uh, municipal electrici- uh, electric-

475. 1:54:48

     Right

476. 1:54:49

     ... suppliers, as well as EMCs, Electric Municipal Corporations, are not subject to that Public Service Commission rule.

477. 1:54:56

     So they can just cut off somebody's power in the middle of freezing winter?

478. 1:55:00

     Th- they c- could, uh, uh, with respect to not following that rule. Like, most of them are not, but they are not subject to that rule.

479. 1:55:05

     But this would put them under that rule is what you're basically saying.

480. 1:55:08

     No, it would not. This is creating a separate, um, a separate, um, requirement that does not put people... Because that would, to be very, very clear, that would require a lot of administrative burden, which I know this, uh, body is not, uh, friendly to, to put electric, uh, municipal corporations and, uh, municipal utilities, mu- municipal electric suppliers under the PSE. To be absolutely clear, that is not what we're doing.

481. 1:55:36

     Okay.

482. 1:55:37

     Just, just to confirm.

483. 1:55:41

     Yeah.

484. 1:55:41

     EMCs are not Electric Municipal Corporations. They're Electric Membership Corporations.

485. 1:55:46

     Oh, excuse me. Yes, membership cor- I apologize.

486. 1:55:50

     All right. I've got, uh, Terri Lindle signed up to speak. If Terri, if you'll come forward, and, and then if we have a minute, we'll let the, uh, other young lady speak, and that'll conclude us for the day.

487. 1:56:07

     Short and sweet. Terri Lindle on behalf of the Electric Cities of Georgia, the municipal providers, and we appreciate working with Representative Lim in crafting this language, and we support the bill.

488. 1:56:21

     Any questions? All right. Uh, Representative Lim, who is it that else is here?

489. 1:56:29

     Oh, Ms. Marsden.

490. 1:56:30

     Ms. Marsden, come on up if, if you'd like to share your thoughts. We're... You made the effort to be here, we'd love to hear from you. If you want to just come to this podium up here.

491. 1:56:40

     Can I sit down?

492. 1:56:40

     Excuse me?

493. 1:56:40

     Can I sit down?

494. 1:56:42

     Yeah.

495. 1:56:45

     Okay. Sorry, it's just I'm short of breath, so just standing-

496. 1:56:48

     Oh, okay. Well, just sit right here in front of me then at the witness two mic, and you can be heard from there.

497. 1:56:59

     Okay.

498. 1:56:59

     Do you need water or anything, ma'am?

499. 1:57:01

     Maybe some water.

500. 1:57:02

     Here you go.

501. 1:57:07

     Thank you.

502. 1:57:12

     Tell us your name.

503. 1:57:14

     Okay. Tina Marie Marsden.

504. 1:57:15

     Tina Marie Marsden.

505. 1:57:17

     Yes.

506. 1:57:17

     Okay.

507. 1:57:18

     I'm sorry. Give me a second.

508. 1:57:24

     Okay. Can you hear me good?

509. 1:57:26

     You're doing great.

510. 1:57:27

     Okay. Um, my name is Tina Marie Marsden. I developed postpartum cardiomyopathy, um, which is known as pregnancy induced heart failure, at the age of 28 after I had my second son. That led to me needing an LVAD, um, to sustain life, um, which is also considered portable li- life support. So my LVAD, um, I have a pump attached to my heart, and I have a controller and two batteries that are connected to a drive line, um, that comes out my stomach, and that requires electricity to live 24/7.

511. 1:58:06

     I can also plug myself up to the wall when I'm at home. Um, upon moving to Griffin in 2018, I attempted to have my utility account noted, um, that a household member, myself, required electricity to live. I was told that Griffin Utilities did not have a policy pertaining to life support customers, nor did they note accounts as part of any emergency preparedness plan. Over the course of three years, through 2021, I would face five electric disconnections while experiencing nine hospitalizations during that same t- that same time period.

512. 1:58:49

     I would like to note that Griffin Utilities has a combined utility. So that means your electricity, your sewer, your water, your trash are combined on one bill. In the past, I faced a disconnection for a total balance of $75 with no regard that I needed power to live. And when they disconnect you, they don't disconnect your water. They don't stop picking up your trash. They disconnect your electricity, which is what I need to live. With Griffin Utilities' current policy, I know there was the question asked, are there any utilities that will disconnect you in 30 days?

513. 1:59:25

     Griffin will. From your statement date to your disconnect date, um, you have 21 days to pay your bill from your statement date. You get a seven-day grace period after that. So within 28 days of your statement date, you are at risk of disconnection, and that applies to everybody. Sometime following, um, those incidents of me being disconnected, I received a copy of Griffin Utilities' customer service policy, which did in fact have a section titled Health of a Resident, although I had been told for three years they didn't have a policy.

514. 2:00:01

     It stated that with a notice from a physician, the account would be noted, which I had already provided, and it would postpone disconnection for seven days one time for the life of service. The policy also stated the city had the discretion to install a load limiter. If you're not familiar with a load limiter, they can put that on your meter, and it controls how many amps go to your meter. So it can leave you with just enough power to supply electricity for your medical device.

515. 2:00:33

     I was never informed about a load limiter. Um, as I continue to advocate, instead of establishing reasonable policies, Griffin Utilities amended and removed those limited protections. I do understand those representing city utilities and EMCs believe they know their needs of their communities best. Unfortunately, based on my experience and reports shared by others throughout the state, many local communities either have no policy, are unaware of their own policies, or fail to produce it when requested.

516. 2:01:08

     I have shared before that I have not lost sight that advancements in medical technology allow even more individuals to receive life-sustaining therapies in a home setting, which has left many local communities with outdated utility policies that do not truly reflect what's in the best interest of their medically vulnerable residents. I do appreciate the opportunity to share my testimony while also advocating for those who are unable to do so. It is not easy living with a chronic illness, and it can be even more challenging when you require life-sustaining equipment to survive.

517. 2:01:46

     It was difficult for me to be here today. I'm extremely symptomatic and short of breath. My current status is a prime example as to why these policies are needed. I was hospitaled... I was hospitalized for six weeks from December 18th, 2025 through January 28th, 2026. In addition to having my dis- my LVAD, I was discharged with a PICC line, um, which is an IV supplying my heart with medication 24/7, um, through my arm.

518. 2:02:19

     I currently have home healthcare to maintain my PICC line. Um, I will eventually go through cardiac rehab. Each of those come with unexpected co-pays and other costs. The need for House Bill 641 is not about customers who simply don't want to pay a bill. It is not asking to defer a bill. The goal is to establish reasonable policies so consumers are not at risk of losing their life due to a utility disconnection. Um, the initial goal of House Bill 641 was to have a more uniform, um, protections mimicking Georgia Power's policies for their life support consumers throughout the state.

519. 2:03:01

     However, as it's currently written, House Bill 641 will require public-owned utilities and EMCs to establish their own written policies to postpone disconnections for consumers with life-threatening medical conditions. Georgians should not be at risk of losing their life based solely on who provides their electrical services. Thank you.

520. 2:03:24

     Thank you so much for being with us today.

521. 2:03:26

     You're welcome.

522. 2:03:26

     Representative, can I get you to come up just for one more second? You can go to that podium. That'd be fine.

523. 2:03:34

     I just had a quick question. The version we're working off passed out of the House as a committee substitute. How did it change in committee in the House? I think she just said something that triggered that. Were you asking to have a rule initially, and then you softened it to just, rather than a specific rule, just have a policy that's published so the customers can know?

524. 2:03:59

     Correct. As it was initially introduced, uh, it was mirroring the policy set by the Public Service Commission adopted by Georgia Power that-

525. 2:04:09

     Right

526. 2:04:09

     ... I, I won't mention earlier what that policy was. It's certainly around 30 days.

527. 2:04:13

     You were trying to codify that to start with.

528. 2:04:13

     Uh, e- exactly, and, and expand it to all, because per, per the testimony, that's been working well for them. Listening to the feedback of the, the EMCs, the electric membership corporations, thank you, Senator Ginn, as well as electric cities, we amended it to just state you should have a policy and be able to furnish it. And per Ms. Morrison's testimony, that version would've helped in her instance as well other, other people's instances. So it requires some deference, but really strikes a balance to just say you have a policy for those that, as Ms.

529. 2:04:45

     Morrison said, shouldn't die-

530. 2:04:47

     Yeah

531. 2:04:47

     ... because they, uh, they couldn't find that policy.

532. 2:04:50

     Let, lets customers know what the rules are-

533. 2:04:52

     Exactly

534. 2:04:52

     ... for these people without imposing any particular-

535. 2:04:55

     That's correct

536. 2:04:55

     ... obligations on them. All right. I got some really high-powered lobbyists in here from Georgia Power and EMCs. Do y'all just wanna stand up and wave? Are you okay with this? Or you gotta... Anybody need to be heard? Are y'all, everybody good? Nobody's signed up in opposition. All right. I'm gonna put you back on the calendar Thursday afternoon. I wanna just sort of contemplate it, probably have a conversation with you. We're meeting at 3:00 on Thursday. I'm also gonna have House Bill 1027, uh, to be heard on, on Thursday afternoon. Those are really the only two bills that I am, uh, getting much pressure to hear.

537. 2:05:30

     Uh, I would ask any other people with bills before the committee, let me know. We'll also be meeting next Tuesday morning in this room at 10:00 AM. That's another committee day, uh, in case there are any other bills that we need to wrap up or we don't have time to finish up on, on Thursday afternoon. So with that, we are adjourned. Thank you, everybody-

538. 2:05:49

     Thank you

539. 2:05:49

     ... for being here with us.

540. 2:05:51

     Yeah, thanks.