Public Comments for 02/09/2026 Appropriations
HB66 - Medical assistance and social services programs; DMAS and DSS to modernize technology systems.
HB127 - Person not free on bail; court appearance.
We are in support of this bill instituting Counsel at First Appearance. This is working in James City County and is highly effective!
The problem with this and all of the other proposed statutory changes to the criminal code such as pregnant women not serving jail or prison time, the continued falling and failing sentencing guidelines for egregious criminal actions, forbidding plea agreements to include signing over 4th amendment rights, etc. is that none of you have actually been to jail or prison, arrested for a crime, or had a felony or prison sentence looming in your future or sat in a jail or prison cell when that door goes CLINK and locks behind you. So, you look at this as a two sided coin. Here in lies the fallacy, It is and never has been as simple as "lock them up" or "set them free" which is why after decades and decades of this debate- we are no better, no worse, just stagnate ....while millions of people and families suffer and two parties think they know best. How can I say this? As a drug addict who has been clean for 17 years, a mother, a wife and a powerfully intelligent woman who has made herself into a productive member of society and a force in the political arena- WITHOUT the program of intense cognitive rehabilitation COMBINED WITH jail accountability (break a rule- off you go back to Riverside) this program also once known as Chesterfield county Drug Court; which has now been minimized to "recovery court" where you have to use drugs 3-4 times before you get sent back to jail (so people are now dying in this once amazing program). My point being, you, me, none of us are looking at a two sided coin. We are looking at a multidimensional box, all on different sides of the room seeing a different side of the box (perspective and feelings) and without the ability to move where you are standing to see a different side of the box and change that perspective or accept it is even there and valid- you can never see that we are ALL looking at the same thing (the same box). And thus, you can never see that what has been and what you are attempting to do here will HELP NOONE, especially people caught in riptide and undercurrent of the generational criminal justice system. I am sure you have never had a once felon, now reformed, who will tell you and the public how GREATFUL they are to have been blessed with people who taught me accountability for my actions without fluff or threats, but actual black and white consequences for my actions that always ended in a day in jail or even weeks in jail -while at the same time supporting me with intensive therapy to overcome abuse and other contributing factors plus cognitive therapy treating the underlying problem no matter the offense- which is the behavior. I beg you to move your spot in the room to see a different side of the box, and recognize that the two sided coin has failed the public, families, offenders and the Commonwealth as a whole far too long
Chair Watts and Members of the Courts of Justice - Criminal Subcommittee: My name is Erin George and I am the National Director of Policy at The Bail Project. I write to the subcommittee today in support of HB 127. The Bail Project is a national nonprofit organization that provides cash bail assistance and court return support like transportation and court date reminders to low-income people across the country. Since 2017, we have supported nearly 40,000 people who return to 92% of their court appearances. Working directly with our clients and their families, we have seen first hand the difference that access to counsel at the earliest stages can make in an individual’s case, and in their ability to secure pretrial freedom. In Virginia, people detained pretrial can sit in jail for days, and in some places a week or more, before they speak to a lawyer. When they do appear in court, they often face a complex and technical hearing alone, making them more likely to be detained pretrial or face an unaffordable bail amount. HB 127 is a vital step towards guaranteeing Virginians’ constitutional right to counsel and upholding due process. Appointing defense counsel as soon as an individual's liberty is at stake increases procedural justice and efficiency, improves court appearance rates, and reduces the amount of time people spend in jail while awaiting trial. By mandating counsel at first appearance in jurisdictions with a public defender’s office, HB 127 builds upon progress already underway in the Commonwealth. Several jurisdictions across the Commonwealth are already implementing counsel at first appearance (CAFA). In Fairfax County, a CAFA pilot program limited the negative consequences of pretrial detention, reduced racial disparities in who is appointed counsel, and reduced the number of overall bond motions – alleviating stress on the judicial system. HB 127 will support these jurisdictions and encourage others to adopt the practice. Evidence from across the country also points to the success of counsel at first appearance. In Maryland, individuals provided counsel at bail hearings were 2.5 times more likely to be released on their own recognizance, 4 times more likely to have their bail amount reduced, and 2 times more likely to be released on the day of arrest. In Michigan, three county pilot programs reduced the amount of time a defendant spends in jail between arraignment and release, reduced the number of hearings, and resulted in more cases resolved at the first appearance. [1] CAFA improves not only pretrial fairness, it makes courts more efficient. Passing HB 127 is in the best interest of pretrial justice and public safety. People detained pretrial simply because they cannot afford bail and have no one to advocate for their release are at an increased risk of losing their jobs, their homes, and custody of their children, and are more likely to become justice-involved again in the future. Counsel at first appearance reduces these harms, upholds efficiency and fairness in the pretrial system, and promotes safer communities. I urge you to vote yes on HB 127. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Erin George [1] See National Legal Aid & Defender Association, Access to Counsel at First Appearance: A Key Component of Pretrial Justice, prepared by Michael Mrozinski and Claire Buetow (Washington, DC: NLADA, 2020), 5, https://www.nlada.org/sites/default/files/NLADA%20CAFA.pdf.
I am Scott E. Peyton, Director of Government Affairs at Prison Fellowship, and I am writing to express Prison Fellowship’s support for HB127. At its core, HB127 reflects a fundamental constitutional principle: liberty must be safeguarded through fair and timely due process whenever it is at risk. Virginia’s Patrick Henry, a leading champion of the Bill of Rights, believed that individual liberties must be protected through clear constitutional safeguards, especially in criminal proceedings where the state's power weighs heavily against the individual. That enduring commitment to liberty through due process continues to guide our understanding of justice today. HB127 honors Virginia’s constitutional tradition by reinforcing the protections that secure liberty through fair and timely due process. By strengthening access to counsel at the earliest stage of a criminal case, the bill upholds the presumption of innocence, advances due process, and reflects the principles that inspired the adoption of the Bill of Rights itself. For these reasons, Prison Fellowship respectfully urges your support of HB127.
I support this bill. As a person who used a PD, I had very limited access to them - why? Their case load was too big. I had a case that could give me a life sentence and I had 1 meeting with my PD. The only time we talked was 5-10 minutes before we went into the courtroom. Now ask yourself if you were literally fighting for your life with no knowledge of the legal system or your rights, would that be enough time to put a real defense together? For me, it wasn’t.
I support this bill because it will allow those charged with a crime to know more about their case. The court appearance will also allow defendants to see their lawyers and speak with them about elements in their case.
HB195 - Programs for at-risk students; permissible uses of funding.
The American public education system has been disrupted for decades. The inconsistent system of lower standards and expectations for students is not working. Same with the constant lack of accountability for students’ behavior in classrooms. Now Harvard is teaching remedial classes. Family must be responsible for their children’s education.
Madame chairperdon, Thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of HB195, which addresses permissible uses of funding for at-risk students. I believe this bill is crucial addressing the whole child in setting them up to learn and excel to their fullest potential. It is well recognized that students cannot learn effectively if they do not feel well—physically or mentally. This is particularly true for students from lower-income areas, who are at greater risk for elevated stress and anxiety, food insecurity, mental health concerns, and challenges to their overall physical well-being. Such barriers can significantly hinder their educational achievement and personal development. Nurses are essential members of the educational support team, capable of addressing each of these issues. Their presence ensures that children are school-ready and able to learn, by supporting both their physical and mental health needs. The Virginia Department of Education has identified chronic absenteeism as a key factor that impacts student achievement. HB195 aligns with this understanding by acknowledging that students are whole persons, and that at-risk youth often face additional obstacles that can impede their education. Importantly, this bill allows districts the flexibility to choose how best to use the allocated funding, empowering them to address the unique barriers present within their own communities. By supporting HB195, we are not only endorsing educational excellence but also affirming our commitment to the well-being and success of at-risk students across the state. I urge you to vote in the affirmative and support HB195. School nurses-which include registered nurses (RNs), advanced practice nurses, and licensed practical nurses if there are not RNs are key members of the educational support team. Your support will make a meaningful difference in the lives of countless students .
Madame chairperdon, Thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of HB195, which addresses permissible uses of funding for at-risk students. I believe this bill is crucial addressing the whole child in setting them up to learn and excel to their fullest potential. It is well recognized that students cannot learn effectively if they do not feel well—physically or mentally. This is particularly true for students from lower-income areas, who are at greater risk for elevated stress and anxiety, food insecurity, mental health concerns, and challenges to their overall physical well-being. Such barriers can significantly hinder their educational achievement and personal development. Nurses are essential members of the educational support team, capable of addressing each of these issues. Their presence ensures that children are school-ready and able to learn, by supporting both their physical and mental health needs. The Virginia Department of Education has identified chronic absenteeism as a key factor that impacts student achievement. HB195 aligns with this understanding by acknowledging that students are whole persons, and that at-risk youth often face additional obstacles that can impede their education. Importantly, this bill allows districts the flexibility to choose how best to use the allocated funding, empowering them to address the unique barriers present within their own communities. By supporting HB195, we are not only endorsing educational excellence but also affirming our commitment to the well-being and success of at-risk students across the state. I urge you to vote in the affirmative and support HB195. School nurses-which include registered nurses (RNs), advanced practice nurses, and licensed practical nurses if there are not RNs are key members of the educational support team. Your support will make a meaningful difference in the lives of countless students .
I support this bill.
Thank you to the Delegate for this bill. It is critical that language be added to include the permissible use of funds for these at risk programs be restricted to a designated account to include a list of qualified providers for selection and decision-making by the parents or caregiver in support of VA Code 1-240.1. First choice to use these funds should be in order based on school divisions consistently performing in the lowest academic percentile across the 131 school divisions. For example in the Richmond City public school division the Superintendent is recommending the closing of the virtual school as well as taking away summer school for children in grades kindergarten through 8th. These 2 recommendations are a significant barrier for too many children who need access to programs like a virtual school or even summer school to ensure they thrive academically. It is unconscionable that a Superintendent would make a recommendation of this caliber and as such I implore this body to restore the right of the parent and restrict at risk program funding use for the parent's decision-making.
I tried to sign up to speak on these bills. VASS supports HB195, HB332, HB785 and HB1171 Dr. Tom Smith
I am a nationally board certified school nurse and was awarded the honor of VASN School Nurse of the Year in 2024. I am a product of the public education system in Virginia. I am the daughter of a teacher who is currently in her 50th year of teaching. Most importantly to me, I am a mother of two children attending public school in Virginia. When my own child was struggling with complications from medications, I felt comfortable sending my child to school because I knew there was a nurse on site if something terrible were to happen. Professionally, I have been involved in countless situations where my ability as a nurse to navigate difficult conversations has benefited the entire IEP and 504 teams, including parents and students. When another school nurse comes to me with doubts, I like to remind them "If we can walk a family through the death of their loved ones, we can walk them through this." When considering the dedication of funding, we must consider the cost/benefit. School nurses are shown to have an overall net gain of $2.20 for every $1 spent on nursing services (Wang, L., et al., 2014). Historically, nurses have proven their value and benefit to schools. Starting in 1902 when Lillian Wald and Lina Rogers reduced school absenteeism by 90% by providing nursing care in schools, and continuing today through the Covid-19 pandemic when school nurses remained steadfast in their commitment to enhancing access to education, school nursing must remain a priority for our communities. At a time with strong opinions and concerns over vaccine safety and medical autonomy, school nurses can provide objective education to staff and families. We can bridge the gaps to keep children in school, provide staff with guidance, and act as a buffer to the already overburdened education system. Thank you, Christine Tindall, BS, RN, NCSN
Voices for Virginia's children supports HB195. This bill acknowledges that student thriving involves multiple-levels of support. Specifically, the bill allows for the hiring of registered nurses to better support students' health and mental health. Finally, HB195 targets students with the greatest need. For these reasons, Voices supports this bill.
We support this bill. We know kids with medial complexities face incredible challenges safely attending schools, and we want schools to have access to using any available funds to meet the needs of these students who have the right to be there, but who can only do so with appropriate medical care and oversight.
I am writing in support of HB195. It would help students receive more support by schools to optimize their learning.
Lisa J. Johnson, BSN, RN 01/25/2026 House Bill 195 represents a paramount investment in Virginia’s at-risk students by recognizing that academic success is inseparable from physical and mental health. By expanding allowable uses of at-risk funding to include registered nurses, especially those with mental health expertise and advanced practice training, this legislation addresses a long-standing gap in school-based support. For many vulnerable students, school is the most consistent point of contact with a healthcare professional. Access to qualified nurses who can assess needs early, provide mental health support, and connect students to appropriate resources has the power to change life trajectories. HB195 moves beyond short-term fixes and instead builds a sustainable framework that equips students with healthier coping skills, emotional regulation, and preventative care that supports both learning and long-term wellbeing. As a registered nurse, I have heard repeatedly from school nurses across our Commonwealth about the inadequacies they face when trying to meet student needs with only the most minimal, legally required resources. Budget constraints often force nurses into a reactive role addressing crises rather than preventing them, while mental health concerns go under-supported or unaddressed altogether. HB195 offers a meaningful solution by allowing increased and more flexible funding to support appropriately trained nursing staff who can truly fulfill the scope of their professional role. This bill empowers school nurses to do more than “get by”; it enables them to guide the next generation toward healthier lifestyles, stronger coping skills, and improved academic outcomes. In doing so, HB195 affirms that caring for at-risk students is not optional; it is essential.
See attached pdf file below!
HB247 - Deferred disposition in a criminal case; persons w/autism or intellectual disabilities, expungement.
Subject Line: Please Vote YES on HB247 Dear Members of the House Appropriations General Government and Capital Outlay Subcommittee, Please VOTE YES on HB247. This will allow a Judge to consider diversion for a defendant with intellectual or developmental disabilities before sentencing. If diversion is the outcome, then months of court appearances serve no purpose and often worsen mental health. For autistic individuals, repeated court dates can trigger severe anxiety, trauma, and crisis. When people receive support instead of punishment, they succeed—and the Commonwealth avoids the far higher costs of incarceration, emergency services, and repeated court involvement. There is no fiscal impact of this bill, according to the Fiscal Impact Statement. Please Vote YES on HB247. Sincerely, Piumini Wanigasundera.
Please vote YES on HB247. This bill allows the court to consider diversion for a defendant with an intellectual or developmental disability – before sentencing. This bill may help that disabled person avoid the lifelong damage of a criminal record. And according to the Fiscal Impact Statement, this bill has no fiscal impact. Please vote YES on HB247.
Dear Members of the House Appropriations General Government and Capital Outlay Subcommittee, Please VOTE YES on HB247. This will allow a Judge to consider diversion for a defendant with intellectual or developmental disabilities before sentencing. If diversion is the outcome, then months of court appearances serve no purpose and often worsen mental health. For autistic individuals, repeated court dates can trigger severe anxiety, trauma, and crisis. When people receive support instead of punishment, they succeed—and the Commonwealth avoids the far higher costs of incarceration, emergency services, and repeated court involvement. There is no fiscal impact of this bill, according to the Fiscal Impact Statement. Please Vote YES on HB247. Sincerely
I am a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School in 1966 and have been a lawyer for almost 60 years and a law professor emeritus from the University of Detroit Mercy. I have written extensively on the subject of autism and the criminal justice system including: Caught in the Web of the Criminal Justice System: Autism, Developmental Disabilities, and Sex Offenses (2017) with co editor and contributor Emily Horowitz; Autism Spectrum Disorder in the criminal Justice System: A Guide to Understanding Suspects, Defendants and Offenders with Autism with Clare Allely (2022) along with a number of published book chapters. The mitigation of the assault statute and deferred disposition for autism and expungement are completely consistent with all of the information provided in my books and articles and I completely support their ultimate passage into law. It is the humane way to provide justice for people on the autism spectrum whose neurological wiring from birth makes these laws necessary.
Both HB 246 and HB 247 are so very important to ensure that our criminal justice system is fair and just. It is no secret that for far too many years behaviors that are a manifestation of a developmental disability have resulted in arrests, misdemeanors and felonies. Sincerest appreciation to Delegate Watts for being a voice for those who often have none. Her wisdom, compassion and determination are exemplary. Please pass these much needed bills. Thank you, Jude Harrison and family
These bills are important to me as a Disability CBO Leader in Arlington VA and as a neurodiverse individual residing in Arlington County Virginia. Please support and vote YES for both of these bills.
As the parent of a 20 year old daughter with profound autism, this legislation has been important to me since first introduced. Individuals on the autism spectrum and similar conditions are not afforded any latitude because of their disability. This bill is not asking for a blanket "pass", just that the mental/cognitive condition of a person be taken into consideration during an encounter with law enforcement. Similar bills have passed previously and been vetoed. I hope this is the year our loved ones are heard.
Dear Members of the House Courts of Justice, Criminal Subcommittee, Please Vote YES on HB247. I have a relative who has Autism. HB247 allows someone with intellectual disabilities (ID) or developmental disabilities (DD) to pause the case and ask the Judge to consider a deferred disposition earlier in the case rather than waiting until a plea. This makes it possible to divert someone with ID/DD out of the criminal justice system earlier in the court process. Please VOTE YES on HB247.
Dear Members of the House Courts of Justice, Criminal Subcommittee, Please Vote YES on HB2467. HB247 allows someone with intellectual disabilities (ID) or developmental disabilities (DD) to pause the case and ask the Judge to consider a deferred disposition earlier in the case rather than waiting until a plea. This makes it possible to divert someone with ID/DD out of the criminal justice system earlier in the court process. Please VOTE YES on HB247.
Please Vote YES on HB247- This bill allows a defendant with an intellectual disability (ID) or a developmental disability (DD) ask the Judge to consider a deferred prosecution at any point in the case. Currently, a deferred prosecution is only considered after a plea. This will allow diversion to be offered to someone with ID/DD earlier in the criminal justice process and prevent guilty pleas that are forced just to be able to access services. If the defendant’s ID/DD diagnosis substantially caused the criminal behavior then the Judge can pause the case and order a deferred prosecution. --If the conditions are met, which are set by the court, then the case is dismissed, and the charges are expunged. --Successful completion of the diversion ordered by the Judge means there can be a dismissal of the case without a conviction and then an expungement of these charges from the person's record, preserving their ability to access social services and supports. --Jails and prisons do not address disability related behaviors and diversion offers access to treatments and supports that can actually benefit the individual and prevent a recurrence of future offenses. The Judge maintains oversight and control, and yet judicial discretion is allowed. Please Vote YES on HB247
My older son, one of two on the autism spectrum, was dragged through the juvenile justice system twice when he shouldn’t have been. Once was due to his dad and his dad’s parents lying to the police (who never talked to my son nor explained any rights to him) and in court; the other was due to something he said to a classmate about another classmate whom took offense to it. He should NEVER have had to serve time in juvenile detention nor had to be on house arrest as, in both cases, he didn’t do anything. Unfortunately, due to his autism and mental illness, he was never allowed to speak to anyone about anything and ended up in JV detention and then 6 months on house arrest for something that ultimately got dismissed. Our justice system is completely backwards and broken, especially for people like my son who have trouble communicating in a calm and rational way. This should not be the case nor should it be tolerated. People like my son deserve a chance to have sentences deferred without a guilty plea and to be listened to by someone who understands them.
I’m writing in support of HB247, which allows deferred disposition in some criminal cases for persons with autism. If deferred disposition had been available in the past, it might have saved our family from catastrophe: A few years ago, our young adult son, who is on the autism spectrum, was arrested for downloading illegal images. He was evaluated by forensic and behavioral psychologists – who stated that his offense was directly related to his autism, that there was no criminal intent. Nonetheless, our son became a convicted felon, spent a year in jail, and will be listed on the sex offender registry for the rest of his life. He will struggle to find housing, employment, and community support. My husband and I worry about how he will survive once we are gone. If HB247 had been in effect, deferred disposition might have rescued our son’s life. In the future, I hope HB247 will help rescue the lives of other autistic individuals. Our criminal justice system should NOT be a one-size-fits-all, punishment-first regime.
Something’s should have been looked into before and changed way before now.
This is a good start, this bill! As the parent of an autistic young adult, life is hard enough on these youngsters such that any bill that takes into account their unique needs and inability to function under regular order and rules of engagement which may even challenge some non-impaired citizens, ought to be routinely considered by this Assembly.
HB362 - Public elementary and secondary student textbooks; print as primary curriculum basis.
The American public education system has been disrupted for decades. The inconsistent system of lower standards and expectations for students is not working. Same with the constant lack of accountability for students’ behavior in classrooms. Now Harvard is teaching remedial classes. Family must be responsible for their children’s education.
HB470 - Medicaid waivers; consumer-directed services, employer of record.
HB483 - Prescription Drug Affordability Board; established, drug cost affordability review, report.
The Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC) is writing to share the concerns of patients and people with disabilities related to efforts in Virginia to establish a Prescription Drug Affordability Board (PDAB). We oppose HB 483 and SB 271 which would allow for reference to value assessments of new health innovations using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and similar measures. Over 100 organizations representing patients and people with disabilities agree. Our comments are attached as a file.
Dear Honorable Delegate: Please Oppose HB 483, Drug Affordability Board; established, drug cost affordability review, report. (Delaney) PDABs have a poor record of performance! Just look at the other states that have these boards and the cost of the prescription drugs they claim to regulate. The best way to lower drug prices is to increase supply; we support Virginia’s plan to bolster the pharmaceutical industry here; and we, the Building Trades, are ready to go to work. Please OPPOSE HB 483; thank you! Respectfully Submitted, Lou Spencer Virginia Commonwealth Director Pharmaceutical Industry Labor Management Association (PILMA) A partnership between the Building Trades and the Pharmaceutical Companies
The Patient Inclusion Council (PIC) submits this comment to oppose/amend HB 483 and urges delaying PDAB authority to set upper payment limits (UPLs) until patient access, cost, and equity impacts are studied, as evidence shows UPLs risk patient harm without lowering out-of-pocket costs.
The Patient Inclusion Council (PIC) and Ensuring Access through Collaborative Health (EACH) respectfully submit this written comment to oppose or amend HB 483. I am a Virginia resident and patient living with chronic health conditions, and our coalition represents patients and caregivers across a broad range of chronic and serious diseases statewide. The attached Virginia PDAB Policy Research One-Pager summarizes evidence that Prescription Drug Affordability Boards and upper payment limits (UPLs) do not reduce patient out-of-pocket costs and create risks to access, equity, and state healthcare spending. Granting PDAB UPL authority without first conducting a patient-focused study risks harming the very Virginians this policy is intended to help.
The Patient Inclusion Council (PIC) respectfully submits this written comment to oppose/amend HB 483, which would create a Prescription Drug Affordability Board (PDAB) with authority to set upper payment limits (UPLs). I am a Virginia resident and a patient living with chronic health conditions, and our coalition represents patients and caregivers across a wide range of chronic and serious diseases statewide. While we support efforts to improve affordability, granting UPL authority without first studying patient access, costs, and equity risks harms patients without evidence of savings. This comment summarizes our concerns about patient harm and the need for a study before proceeding.
Dear Chair Willett and Members of the House Appropriations Health and Human Resources Subcommitee, On behalf of the Association of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), I am sharing a letter outlining concerns that upper payment limits set by HB 483 would jeopardize access to necessary care for Virginia patients with cancer. Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions about cancer care; we're happy to be a resource. Best, Sarah Lanford Associate Director of State Advocacy Association for Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
CANN respectfully opposes HB483. While good-intentioned, the bill does not address affordability concerns for patients and could adversely affect patient access. Upper payment limits are not affordability solutions; they are *insurance* payment caps that do not directly benefit patients. They ultimately would only benefit Pharmacy Benefit Managers and their associated insurance companies at the expense of patients, independent pharmacists, and the state. Data already shows that Upper Payment Limits would result in increased cost-sharing and administrative burdens for patients, increased insurance premiums, and harmful impacts to pharmacy reimbursement, which would make it less likely pharmacies would continue to stock drugs with a UPL. The language in the bill that attempts to address this is not sufficient. The bill also uses Medicare Maximum Fair Price as the surrogate Upper Payment Limit to be used for drugs on the Medicare Drug Negotiation List that are deemed to be affordability challenges. The MFP is based on federal data, not Virginia. Using the MFP ignores any analysis of the specific needs of Virginia patients, the state budget, and entities such as community health centers. Additionally, conducting an affordability analysis of drugs on the Medicare Drug Negotiation List is a waste of time and financial resources since it also disregards a thorough analysis of which drugs are specifically financially burdensome to patients and the state. To date, no active Prescription Drug Advisory Board has generated any savings for patients or their states in spite of millions of dollars being spent on their activities. Notably, the New Hampshire PDAB was repealed and dissolved because its efforts proved to be unproductive and failed to offer any meaningful benefits to stakeholders. Vermont's Green Mountain Care Board also recently released an analysis reporting that PDABs and UPLs are not effective endeavors for their state. Patient cost is directly a factor of insurance design. Therefore, pursuing solutions such as various aspects of PBM reform and consideration of copay cap legislation are evidence-based solutions that would help patients in a more timely manner with less potential for harm. Prescription Drug Advisory Boards with their associated UPLs are expensive experiments with too much potential for harm.
As President of the Coastal Virginia Medical Society, I respectfully oppose passage of the Prescription Drug Affordability Board legislation (HB483) today as it is being heard in the House Labor and Commerce Subcommittee #1. While it sounds good on the surface, using the word "Affordability" in the title, PDAPs have never saved any money, but rather end up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Patient costs will increase by over 30%. The "fixes"of this bill over last year's bill are minimal window dressing and will not result in any improvement. The fundamental problem is that the bill is structured incorrectly. The consequences will be decreased supply of life saving drugs and increased cost to the recipient. Please refer this bill to the Joint Commission on Health Care to study it more carefully and fix it so that it does what it is actually intended to do. Thank you.
I'm Greg Josephs and I'm in Ashburn. I want to thank Delegate Delaney for including an exemption for rare disease medications in this bill. Advocates like her and Senator Deeds hear our concerns and address them in this bill. After fighting and managing this disease (Myasthenia Gravis) for 23 years, this exemption is vital to ensuring patients like me have access to the lifesaving meds and therapies we need. Godspeed! Go
The Value of Care Coalition, a network of patient, provider and caregiver organizations, urges opposition to HB 483, primarily for two reasons: First, it's unlikely that savings, if any exist, will reach patients in a meaningful way. Insurers have indicated that if UPLs are implemented, patient costs will rise – not decrease – and that any savings to payers would likely be consumed by new compliance and administrative burdens. Second, substantial evidence suggests that access could be diminished. Surveys of pharmacists, doctors and health plans all point to this likely, and concerning, outcome. The bill relies heavily on Medicare’s maximum fair price, but studies have shown that drugs subjected to the MFP have seen patient out of pocket costs rise by 32% on average last year, with health plans increasing deductibles and shifting drugs to higher cost-sharing tiers. Finally, Virginia voters are hesitant about PDABs and upper payment limits as well. A recent survey by the Coalition shows support dropping dramatically when informed about concerns from important entities in the health care delivery system that directly shape the patient experience, like pharmacists, doctors and health plans. A full comment is attached. We kindly ask that you consider these concerns, and oppose HB 483. Thank you - Derek Flowers, Value of Care Coalition
The Diabetes Patient Advocacy Coalition (DPAC) appreciates the opportunity to express its concerns regarding HB 483. DPAC is an alliance of people with diabetes, caregivers, patient advocates, health professionals, and others working together to support public policy initiatives to improve the lives of Americans living with and at risk for diabetes and its complications. As an organization run by and for people with diabetes, DPAC seeks to ensure quality of and access to care, medications and devices for our community. We appreciate the Committee’s interest in addressing the prescription drug affordability crisis for Virginians; however, we believe that creating a Prescription Drug Affordability Board (PDAB) in the state is not the most direct way to address patient cost concerns. Even years after implementation, states that have established PDABs have not produced direct cost relief for patients, and their primary cost-control mechanism, Upper Payment Limits (UPLs), is misguided. UPLs or similar affordability actions will likely disrupt the rebate contracts between manufacturers and the PBMs who control plan formularies. PBMs have a well-established practice of preferring higher priced drugs that come with a higher rebate for preferential formulary placement. A UPL that results in lowering the rebate received by the PBM may result in that drug being excluded from the formulary or being placed on a higher copayment tier to dissuade the patient from using that medication. Either of those easily anticipated moves by the PBM will restrict patient access and raise patient cost despite the opposite intention. Another common PBM practice is to place restrictive prior authorization requirements on drugs that they want to steer patients away from, which they likely would do in reaction to UPLs. Prior authorizations are proven delay tactics and are detrimental to the management of chronic diseases like diabetes. This is especially frustrating to patients who have been taking the medication for many months or even years and now must get re-approved to continue their successful therapy. As an organization dedicated to protecting patient access and affordability, we respectfully urge the Committee to take steps that would immediately lower patients’ out-of-pocket costs by passing PBM reform measures. There is strong evidence supporting rebate pass-through policies that require insurers and PBMs to pass negotiated savings directly to patients at the point-of-sale. West Virginia, Indiana, and Arkansas passed such legislation in 2021, 2023 and 2024, respectively. Following implementation, rate filings for plans in Indiana and Arkansas saw no increase in premiums attributable to these policy reforms. In addition, delinking PBM compensation from drug list prices will limit future increases in list price, as it will remove incentives to inflate list prices and provide higher rebates to PBMs. It will ensure that patients benefit from the lowered list prices. A recent analysis on drug costs showed that delinking compensation from the list price of a drug could lower overall drug spending by about 15%. These approaches offer evidence-based pathways to improve affordability while minimizing the risk of unintended access disruptions that may be caused by setting up a UPL through a PDAB. Advancing these strategies should be central to the state’s efforts to protect patient access and affordability. Thank you for your commitment to Virginia patients.
I am here to speak on behalf of the PDAB. I am a physician Assistant who became a full time care giver of two aging parents and son whom I adopted with cerebral palsy. With one in four Virginians having to make the decision on whether or not to take their medications as prescribed due to the cost of medications and trying to pay for rent and everyday life needs. The choice of taking the medications needed to live and paying for shelter and food shouldn't be a constant choice Virginians should have to make to survival. Especially when we can have drug companies charge more reasonable rates for the medications that Virginian need.
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) respectfully opposes SB271/HB483, which would create a Prescription Drug Affordability Board tasked with reviewing prescription drug costs and setting upper payment limits for specified prescription drugs. Government price controls like those proposed by this bill are an especially drastic action with unpredictable consequences. While the intent of this bill is to lower drug prices, we fear SB271/HB483 will fail to bring down costs for consumers or institutions and instead disincentivize development of new therapeutic breakthroughs. This bill will not lower prescription drug costs for patients because it does not address outof-pocket costs. Patients pay a given price when they visit a pharmacy based on what their health insurer determines—it is for this reason why two patients will pay a different price for the same drug. Out-of-pocket costs have been rising for patients as a result of decisions made by health insurers. SB271/HB483 does not address the price patients pay out-ofpocket and will therefore not directly impact patient affordability for prescription medications. This bill also provides no clear path for lowering prescription drug costs for public or private payers or the healthcare system overall. The price control scheme in HB 1724 is designed around the premise that prescription drug costs have ballooned out of control or are increasing at an unsustainable rate. Yet according to the latest OECD Data for 2023, pharmaceutical spending in the U.S. accounted for 12.4% of national health expendituresless than Canada (14.9%), Japan (17.6%), Germany (13.7%), France (12.9%), and over a dozen other OECD nations.1 And net prices for branded medicines continue to grow slower than inflation; in 2024, net price growth was 0.1% while the annual average CPI growth was 2.9%.2 Unfortunately, artificial price controls only serve to disincentivize biopharmaceutical companies from developing new, more effective therapies. Economists have estimated that government price controls can have a significant, damaging effect on the development pipeline. For example, one study found that an artificial 50% decrease in prices could reduce the number of drugs in the development pipeline by as much as 24%,3 while another study found investment in new Phase I research would fall by nearly 60%,4 decreasing the hopes of patients who are seeking new cures and treatments. Price controls will dampen investment and would not allow companies to adequately establish prices that will provide a return on investment. The average biopharmaceutical costs $2.6 billion to bring from research and development to market.5 They sacrifice millions of dollars, often for decades before ever turning a profit, if at all. In fact, 92% of publicly traded therapeutic biotechnology companies, and 97% of private firms, operate with no profit.6 Out of thousands of compounds only one will receive approval. For drugs that are advanced to phase I clinical trial, there is a 90% failure rate.7
As President of the Virginia Association of Hematologists and Oncologists (VAHO), I am writing to respectfully oppose SB271 and HB483, legislation that would create a Prescription Drug Affordability Board in Virginia. Since our founding in 1990, VAHO has represented Virginia’s largest community of oncologists and multidisciplinary cancer care providers, all dedicated to improving patient outcomes across the Commonwealth. We share your goal of making prescription medications more affordable. However, we have significant concerns that establishing a Prescription Drug Affordability Board, and authorizing the use of Upper Payment Limits, could unintentionally restrict access to critical cancer treatments for Virginia patients. Many oncology drugs are high-cost, highly specialized therapies with limited, if any, generic or therapeutic alternatives. When reimbursement is capped below the real-world cost of acquisition and delivery, providers may be unable to obtain or sustainably offer these therapies, and patients can face delays, disruptions in care, or loss of access to the most appropriate treatment. Cancer is not a condition where patients can wait while supply chains and coverage decisions adjust. Treatment delays can have real consequences, and even short interruptions can undermine outcomes. Measures that function as price controls risk shifting the burden of affordability onto patients and the physicians and clinics caring for them, particularly in community oncology settings where most Virginians receive treatment. To provide additional context, we would welcome the opportunity to share VAHO’s position statement on Prescription Drug Affordability Boards (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1utZjFR53XEgCZNLPytMshKCr8QXVCYff/view) and to discuss our concerns in more detail. We are also eager to work with you on practical approaches that improve affordability without jeopardizing timely access to medically necessary, life-saving cancer therapies. Thank you for your consideration, and for your continued work on behalf of Virginia patients and families.
The EACH/PIC Coalition urges subcommittee members to oppose H.B. 483 legislation to create a Prescription Drug Affordability Board or delay the upper payment limit authority until adverse impacts on patients have been studied and considered by the Assembly.
Submission Summary – Opposition to HB483 (Prescription Drug Affordability Board) Patients Rising respectfully submits this comment in opposition to House Bill 483, which would establish a Prescription Drug Affordability Board (PDAB) in Virginia. While HB483 is framed as an affordability measure, its structure does not guarantee lower out-of-pocket costs for patients and creates meaningful risks to access—particularly for working Virginians and those who rely on community pharmacies. At its core, HB483 relies on Upper Payment Limits (UPLs) that cap reimbursement, not manufacturer pricing. Pharmacies purchase medications from wholesalers up front and are reimbursed after the fact by health plans, PBMs, or government payers. Because manufacturers are not compelled to accept UPLs, the financial pressure created by this policy falls on pharmacies and, ultimately, patients. Pharmacies may be reimbursed below acquisition cost plus dispensing fees, which can lead to reduced participation, limited inventory, or non-medical switching. Patients may face narrower access without any guaranteed reduction in copays, coinsurance, or deductibles. HB483 also fails to reach most working Virginians. The bill explicitly recognizes that self-funded employer plans governed by ERISA are outside state authority and may comply only if they voluntarily opt in. Because a majority of Virginians receive coverage through these plans, PDAB decisions would apply to only a limited segment of the market, undermining claims that the bill will broadly reduce prescription drug costs. While HB483 includes reporting requirements regarding how savings are used, it does not mandate that savings be passed directly to patients at the pharmacy counter. The bill does not require reductions in cost sharing and does not address rebate-driven pricing practices or PBM spread pricing—key drivers of what patients actually pay. The bill also permits tying reimbursement to Medicare’s Inflation Reduction Act Maximum Fair Price. However, the real-world access impacts of IRA-negotiated drugs are still emerging. Early indications suggest that plans may shift formulary placement toward non-IRA drugs with more favorable reimbursement structures rather than improve patient affordability. Even with IRA in place, access disruptions, formulary instability, and non-medical switching remain real concerns. Experience in other states reinforces these concerns. PDABs have not demonstrated patient savings. Maryland’s PDAB has not lowered the cost of a single drug after more than five years. New Hampshire has shut its PDAB down, Ohio’s remains dormant, and Colorado’s first UPL is currently mired in litigation. Affordability policy should be judged by a simple standard: does it reliably lower what patients pay without compromising access to care? HB483 fails that test. It shifts financial risk onto pharmacies and patients, excludes a large share of working Virginians due to ERISA preemption, and lacks enforceable protections to ensure real patient savings. For these reasons, Patients Rising urges the House Labor & Commerce Subcommittee to reject HB483 and pursue patient-centered reforms that deliver real, immediate, and guaranteed affordability while preserving access to needed medications.
I am the executive director of the Rare Access Action Project, and we submitted complete comments over the weekend in opposition to the bill. Let’s be clear, a UPL has been found unworkable in other states. Why? Because the Upper Payment Limit in this bill only sets a limit on what plans can pay for a therapy. It does not set the acquisition cost of the medicine which can be higher than a UPL. Plans have already said in study after study that they will limit use. Pharmacists won’t be able to stock it. And PBMs will switch from it. Again, this data has been shared in our RAAP paper that has been submitted to the committee. And patients are already seeing in CO non-therapeutic restrictions and access challenges with the first UPL product, which by the way, also used MFP to set the UPL. Further, use of MFP, which is designed for Medicare, much like the best price for Medicaid, or FSS, or 340(b) pricing, is intended for those programs only. For a PDAB, those numbers are merely a surrogate plug in for a UPL, and all the problems associated with a UPL tag along for the ride. While we thank the patrons for seeking protections for rare patients, please remember only 5 percent of rare diseases and conditions have an FDA approved therapy. This means that a vast majority of rare patients rely on medicines and therapies that can and will be subject to review by a PDAB. So, a rare disease exemption exempts rare disease prescription drugs but not rare disease patients. Before requiring patients to navigate a new bureaucracy, we ask that the bill be referred to a study committee where that committee can examine the issues, can explore the potential for access disruption, and can shed light on impact for all patients in the Commonwealth. Thank you.
To the Chair and members of the Committee, SAARA of Virginia is in full support of HB483 and SB 271. Prescriptions can’t be effective if they can’t be afforded. Our organization is in support of efforts that intentionally create oversight through the creation Prescription Drug Affordability Board to aid in lowering cost of prescriptions. Respectfully submitted by Anika Richburg, Executive Director, SAARA of Virginia
While HDA understands the goals of this legislation, we would like to respectfully raise for your awareness the concern that applying a state-level price ceiling does not adequately account for how prescription drugs are bought and paid for in the U.S. Rather, placing a cap on in-state purchases but not out- of-state purchases would ultimately limit the ability of pharmacies, clinics or other points of care to recoup costs for administering or dispensing these products, which could result in sites of care in Virginia being unable to stock these medications. For example, while Maximum Fair Price represents the most that Medicare will pay for a drug, it does not change the national “list price” of drugs sold in the U.S. Rather, Medicare reductions in price is a federal effort that will involve several complex steps that can not be replicated at the state level. The attached letter outlines in more detail the destabilizing impact that HB 483 could have on the pharmaceutical supply chain and patient access to critical medications in Virginia. Thank you.
The Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) would like to express concerns regarding HB 483, which would create a Prescription Drug Affordability Board that is empowered to apply the Medicare maximum fair price to physician reimbursements for provider administered medications. CSRO serves the practicing rheumatologist and is comprised of over 40 state and regional professional rheumatology societies nationwide whose mission is to advocate for excellence in the field of rheumatology, ensuring access to the highest quality of care for the management of rheumatologic and musculoskeletal disease. This legislation would establish a Prescription Drug Affordability Board that would have the ability to not only review the cost of prescription drugs, but establish upper payment limits. This legislation would set the upper payment limit for selected drugs at the Medicare maximum fair price for medications administered to patients throughout Virginia. This would in turn cap physician reimbursement for selected provider administered medications. We fear this proposal may actually limit patient access and drive up the cost of physician administered medications instead of making them more affordable for patients, while simultaneously causing significant financial strain on physician practices throughout Virginia. Please see comments attached.
Attached please find a letter of opposition to HB483 from the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute.
People living with rare diseases face extremely limited treatment options, as only 5% of rare conditions have an FDA-approved therapy. By excluding any "drug or biologic that is designated for a rare disease or condition,” you will ensure access to medication for patients living with a rare disease, who have no treatment alternatives. We appreciate the consideration of the unique circumstances of rare disease patients and therapies in this legislation. We urge the Committee to maintain the following section in the legislation: The Board shall not be required to identify every prescription drug product that meets the criteria of this subsection. The Board shall not include in such list of identified prescription drug products (i) any brand-name prescription drug or biologic that is designated for a rare disease or condition under 21 U.S.C. § 360bb and for which the only approved indication is for one or more rare diseases or conditions or (ii) any biological product that is derived from human blood or plasma. The Board shall determine whether to conduct an affordability review for each identified prescription drug product pursuant to the provisions of subsections C, D, and E”
(See attached letter)
Dear Chair Maldonado and Members of the House Labor and Commerce Subcommittee #1, On behalf of the Association for Clinical Oncology, I'm sharing a letter outlining concerns with the upper payment limit language in HB 483, which could jeopardize access to necessary care for Virginians with cancer. Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have questions with cancer care; we're happy to be a resource. Best, Sarah Lanford Associate Director of State Advocacy Association for Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
HB494 - Virginia Personnel Act; hiring preference in state government, certain former federal employees.
I’m a RIF’d federal government employee. Foreign Service. I have a lot of experience and skills that I can bring to the Virginia state government. Employment with the state will help keep my skills and economic activity in Virginia. You have a lot of highly skilled former federal government employees in VA. It’ll make VA look good and benefit the state economy
The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) strongly supports House Bill 494, which establishes a hiring preference within the Commonwealth of Virginia for former federal employees who were terminated as a result of federal budget reductions or administrative restructuring. Federal employees—including members of the Foreign Service—bring extensive experience in public administration, policy implementation, fiscal management, and service to the public interest. When these individuals are involuntarily separated due to broad budgetary or organizational decisions, Virginia stands to benefit by ensuring their skills and institutional knowledge are not lost to the workforce. AFSA represents some 12,400 U.S. Foreign Service personnel serving overseas and in the United States from six U.S. Government agencies, including nearly 4,000 retirees. We are both a professional association and the official representative for members of the U.S. Foreign Service. Our members include Foreign Service employees from the Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Foreign Commercial Service, the Foreign Agricultural Service, the U.S. Agency for Global Media, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Thank you.
I'm writing on behalf of HB 494 which provides Virginia hiring preference for those federal employees who have lost their jobs. While I am a retired fed and this would not impact me, I spent 34 years in the U.S. Foreign Service working for the Department of State. My colleagues were some of the most highly trained, skillful, and dedicated people in the workforce today. If they have the opportunity to bring their problem-solving skills and work ethic to the state of Virginia, our fellow residents can only benefit. Foreign Service officers in particular possess unique skillsets in foreign languages as well as management in crisis situations. Most federal employees have gone through extensive clearance and training processes. They are ready to make a contribution from the first day and represent an amazing potential resource for the state. I hope that this bill would allow the state to take advantage of this terrific opportunity.
As a federal contractor who has personally witnessed the chaos and harm caused by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), I am writing the General Assembly to voice my strong support for HB494. DOGE-driven budget cuts and contract cancellations have displaced thousands of highly skilled federal employees and contractors through no fault of their own. These workers, many of whom I call friend, provided essential public services, maintained critical infrastructure, and upheld national security- all for their love of mission and country. The arbitrary firings have destabilized families, damaged American soft power, and nearly tanked Virginia’s economy, all in service of tax cuts for the oligarchy. HB494 offers a sensible solution to Northern Virginia's new skilled labor challenges by granting hiring preference in state government to qualified former federal employees who were terminated due to DOGE initiatives or federal budget reductions. This bill ensures that Virginia can retain and enjoy top-notch professionals in its state government while helping families remain financially stable amidst the chaos coming from Washington. HB494 is a necessary corrective action that will strengthen the Commonwealth's workforce, and restore dignity to public servants who were displaced by the oligarchy. General Assembly members, I respectfully urge your passage of HB494.
HB580 - Consumer Counsel, Division of; expands duties, artificial intelligence fraud and abuse.
HB592 - Public schools; wearable panic alarm systems, grant program.
The American public education system has been disrupted for decades. The inconsistent system of lower standards and expectations for students is not working. Same with the constant lack of accountability for students’ behavior in classrooms. Now Harvard is teaching remedial classes. Family must be responsible for their children’s education.
HB670 - Labor & employment provisions; application of law, protection of employees, definition of employer.
HB777 - Va. Public Procurement Act; procurement of goods transported by privately owned commercial vessels.
HB794 - Opioid overdose and opioid overdose deaths; Department of Health to reduce rates, report.
America has been dealing the worst opioid epidemic ever since former President Biden and Democrats allowed drugs, cartels, criminals, and traffickers into America. Now taxpayers have to pay for the Left’s failures and selfishness.
HB795 - Health insurance; coverage for prescription and nonprescription opioid antagonists.
HB797 - Va. Information Tech. Agency; artificial intelligence, independent verification organizations.
On behalf of Chamber of Progress, a tech industry association supporting public policies to build a society in which all people benefit from technological advances, I respectfully urge you to oppose HB 797, which would impose a broad, mandatory third-party artificial intelligence (AI) verification regime that adds regulatory complexity without clear evidence of improved consumer protection or public safety.
HB833 - Land subdivision and development; optional provisions of a subdivision ordinance, etc.
HB833 is a common sense bill that will generate savings for owners of commercial, industrial and multifamily developments as Virginians continue to buy electric vehicles (EVs). By ensuring new buildings can accommodate EV charging during initial construction, EV readiness will help avoid costly future upgrades. Planning for EV charging during construction can reduce costs by anywhere from four to ten times compared to a retrofit. The bill provides flexibility for localities to set differing levels of EV-readiness based on their needs. Statewide building and electrical codes still apply, ensuring consistency in construction standards while allowing local governments to address their EV charging needs.
HB852 - Indigent defendant; abolition of fees, legal representation, jury rial costs, report.
I strongly support HB 853, which establishes a fair, thoughtful process for sentence modification for individuals who have been incarcerated long term and have demonstrated meaningful rehabilitation. This legislation acknowledges that people are capable of change and that lengthy incarceration, particularly over decades, can significantly alter an individual’s risk profile and readiness to reintegrate into society. HB 853 allows courts to consider critical factors such as demonstrated rehabilitation, age, time served, and an individual’s propensity to reoffend. Extensive research shows that people who have aged while incarcerated present a substantially lower risk to public safety. This bill does not guarantee release; rather, it provides a carefully structured opportunity for judicial review, ensuring that public safety and accountability remain central to the decision-making process. For individuals serving sentences without parole eligibility, HB 853 offers a meaningful path to review where none currently exists. It recognizes rehabilitation, incentivizes positive behavior, and affirms that justice should be both firm and fair. By permitting individualized consideration after a significant period of incarceration, this bill promotes proportionality, strengthens families and communities, and reflects an evidence-based approach to sentencing reform. I urge the General Assembly to support and pass HB 853.
HB865 - Workers' compensation; presumption of compensability for certain cancers.
HB885 - Court Date Reminder Program; established.
Please find a letter of support for the bill from Prosecutors Alliance Action attached.
I am Scott Peyton, Director of Government Affairs at Prison Fellowship. We are submitting written testimony in SUPPORT of HB885. Prison Fellowship supports HB 885 because we believe in just accountability, holding a citizen’s “day in court” as a sacred imperative. Every defendant should appear to answer the government’s accusation and present a defense. This legislation affirms that responsibility by ensuring that court protocols are calibrated to increase the likelihood that this interaction of accountability between government and citizen actually takes place.
Please see the attached testimony in support of HB 885, establishing an automated court reminders program.
HB1113 - Culturally responsive & language-appropriate mental health support & services; guidance & policies.
Transformative Changes supports HB 1113 because it advances a healing-centered approach to student mental health by recognizing that effective support must be culturally responsive and language-appropriate. Students bring their full identities, experiences, and stressors into the classroom, and when mental health services fail to reflect those realities, harm and disengagement can deepen—especially for Black, Brown, immigrant, and multilingual students. By directing the Department of Education to provide clear guidance and enabling school divisions to adopt inclusive policies, HB 1113 helps schools move beyond one-size-fits-all interventions toward care that builds trust, belonging, and resilience. This bill is a meaningful step toward school environments that promote healing, safety, and long-term wellbeing for all students.
New Virginia Majority supports HB 1113 because it helps ensure that students across the Commonwealth can access mental health supports that are culturally responsive and language-appropriate. Students’ mental health needs do not exist in a vacuum, and when supports fail to reflect students’ cultural backgrounds or language needs, they are less effective and can deepen existing inequities. By directing the Department of Education to provide guidance and enabling school boards to adopt thoughtful, inclusive policies, HB 1113 equips school divisions with tools to better serve diverse student populations, improve student wellbeing, and create learning environments where all students feel understood, supported, and able to thrive.
The Legal Aid Justice Center is a statewide legal aid nonprofit that works with young people and families on education, mental health, and restorative justice issues. LAJC supports HB 1113 because it would ensure that mental health support, a vital resource in schools, is accessible to all students and families regardless of their language and background. Virginia currently ranks 32nd in the nation for access to youth mental health care (according to 2025 Mental Health in America Report) and in the most recent Virginia Survey of School Climate and Conditions (2025), non-white minority students generally reported disproportionately higher rates of mental health concerns. Implementing culturally responsive and language appropriate standards for mental health resources in schools means ensuring that all students, especially those experiencing disproportionate challenges, can access quality mental health in their times of need. We urge the committee to support HB 1113 to ensure that all students in the Commonwealth can receive quality and accessible mental health resources.
Students are more likely to benefit from mental health support when services reflect their cultural backgrounds and are provided in a language they understand. When supports are not culturally responsive or accessible, students and families may go without care or feel disconnected from the school system. Providing guidance and policies that promote culturally responsive and language-appropriate mental health services helps ensure that all students feel seen, understood, and supported. This is especially important for students from diverse communities who may already face barriers to accessing care.
I oppose mental health services from the public school systems. The family must be responsible for their children’s lives instead of government intervention. This doesn’t help encourage parents to be responsible and enables them more than ever.
I support this bill in expanding information and access on mental health resources.
HB1142 - Deferred or installment payment agreements; outstanding court-assessed fines, fees, taxes, or costs.
I support HB1142 because it gives people returning home from incarceration a real chance to rebuild their lives without being immediately crushed by court-imposed debt. In order to give individuals a fair opportunity to rehabilitate, we cannot weigh them down with fines, fees, taxes, or other costs the moment they reenter the community. Those first months are critical. People are trying to secure housing, find a job, reconnect with family, and care for their health. Immediate financial burdens push people into survival mode, making it nearly impossible to move forward. Too often, the system releases someone only to suffocate them in the free world with fines and fees, setting them up to fail and return to incarceration. By delaying immediate payments, this bill balances accountability with compassion. It recognizes that rehabilitation takes time and that breathing room is essential for lasting success. It creates space to regain independence and work toward compliance without feeling trapped by impossible demands. Families and communities benefit when people are supported rather than trapped in cycles of debt and punishment. Supporting this bill is about giving people a fair chance to stand on their own, take responsibility, and move forward with dignity.
I support this bill. My son owes court costs and is serving a long sentence. Once he is released it is going to take him time to find a place and a job (which will almost be near impossible because.of his offense). He will need time to get on his feet before he can even think about court costs. Thank you
I am Scott E. Peyton, Director of Government Affairs at Prison Fellowship, and I am writing to express Prison Fellowship’s support of HB 1142. With nearly 50 years of experience encountering Jesus with men and women behind bars, Prison Fellowship® is a leading national voice shaping the public debate on justice. Our guiding principles are rooted in the biblical call to seek justice, love mercy, and restore hope. In the early period after prison, the risks of recidivism, suicide, drug relapse, homelessness, and unemployment for men and women are particularly high. To aid this transition period, this legislation provides individuals returning from incarceration with a six-month grace period during which they are not required to make payments on court-assessed fines and fees related to their criminal case. This bill does not reduce the amount an individual owes to the court. Virginia has made great strides in supporting successful reentry. We respectfully urge this committee to continue that progress by voting YES on House Bill 1142.
HB1278 - SOQ; communication and language accessibility for limited English proficient parents, report.
HB1284 - State plan for med. assistance; patient-initiated consultation, provider-to-provider consultation.
HB1317 - Line of Duty Act; payments to beneficiaries.
I am writing in strong support of HB 1317. I have served for over 23 years as a firefighter and paramedic in Arlington County, and I currently reside in Springfield, Virginia. I am also a member of IAFF Local 2800 and am submitting this testimony in my personal capacity. Firefighters are exposed to carcinogens on a routine basis — not only from smoke at fire scenes, but also from diesel exhaust, contaminated protective gear, and the cumulative physiological effects of shift work, fatigue, and disrupted sleep. Today, the occupation itself is widely recognized as carrying elevated cancer risk, not just isolated chemical exposures. Many occupational cancers do not develop until years after the initial exposures. As a result, it is common for firefighters to retire before symptoms appear, even though the disease is directly related to their years of service. I have known colleagues who developed cancer both while still working and after retirement. When benefit eligibility is limited to a short post-retirement window, families can be left without protection despite the occupational nature of the illness. Families already absorb the realities of public safety work — irregular schedules, mandatory overtime, missed holidays, and long absences during emergencies. When a job-related cancer develops years later, those burdens do not disappear. Instead, families face medical uncertainty and financial strain at the very time when stability is most critical. HB 1317 appropriately addresses this reality by extending Line of Duty Act survivor benefit eligibility for certain occupational cancers beyond current post-retirement limits. This recognizes the medical reality of delayed disease onset and aligns benefit eligibility with how occupational cancer actually develops. Many departments are improving early detection and health monitoring, which is encouraging. But when cancer is diagnosed, families should not be penalized simply because the disease appeared outside an arbitrary time window that does not reflect occupational risk patterns. Extending eligibility supports family stability and honors the long-term sacrifices made by public safety workers. For additional context on this bill and related firefighter safety priorities, I have attached a one-page policy brief for your reference. I respectfully ask the committee to report HB 1317 favorably and allow it to advance.
HB1357 - Nursing facilities; comprehensive study of quality of care, etc., and operational practices.
I write in strong support of HB 1357, which directs the Virginia Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services to conduct a comprehensive study of nursing facilities across the Commonwealth. This legislation is both timely and necessary to ensure that our seniors and individuals with disabilities receive care that is safe, dignified, and centered on their well-being. Nursing facilities serve some of Virginia’s most vulnerable residents. Families entrust these institutions with the care of their loved ones, often during the most fragile stages of life. HB 1357 acknowledges this responsibility by calling for a thorough review of quality of care, resident safety, staffing, and operational practices. A comprehensive study paired with the formation of a knowledgeable work group -creates an opportunity to identify gaps, highlight best practices, and recommend meaningful improvements grounded in real data and lived experiences. This legislation also reflects a commitment to accountability and transparency. By requiring a formal report, HB 1357 ensures that findings are shared with policymakers, advocates, and the public, fostering informed decision-making and long-term systemic improvements. It moves the Commonwealth beyond reactive responses toward proactive oversight and continuous quality improvement. Importantly, HB 1357 brings multiple stakeholders to the table, recognizing that improving nursing facility care requires collaboration among providers, regulators, advocates, residents, and families. This inclusive approach strengthens trust and encourages solutions that are practical, compassionate, and sustainable. Virginia’s aging population is growing, and with it comes an increased demand for high-quality long-term care. HB 1357 positions the Commonwealth to meet this demand responsibly by examining what is working, what is not, and how we can do better. Supporting this bill is a clear statement that Virginia values the safety, dignity, and quality of life of its older adults and individuals receiving rehabilitative services. For these reasons, I urge support for HB 1357 and commend the General Assembly for prioritizing the care and protection of some of our most vulnerable residents.
I write in strong support of HB 1357, which directs the Virginia Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services to conduct a comprehensive study of nursing facilities across the Commonwealth. This legislation is both timely and necessary to ensure that our seniors and individuals with disabilities receive care that is safe, dignified, and centered on their well-being. Nursing facilities serve some of Virginia’s most vulnerable residents. Families entrust these institutions with the care of their loved ones, often during the most fragile stages of life. HB 1357 acknowledges this responsibility by calling for a thorough review of quality of care, resident safety, staffing, and operational practices. A comprehensive study paired with the formation of a knowledgeable work group -creates an opportunity to identify gaps, highlight best practices, and recommend meaningful improvements grounded in real data and lived experiences. This legislation also reflects a commitment to accountability and transparency. By requiring a formal report, HB 1357 ensures that findings are shared with policymakers, advocates, and the public, fostering informed decision-making and long-term systemic improvements. It moves the Commonwealth beyond reactive responses toward proactive oversight and continuous quality improvement. Importantly, HB 1357 brings multiple stakeholders to the table, recognizing that improving nursing facility care requires collaboration among providers, regulators, advocates, residents, and families. This inclusive approach strengthens trust and encourages solutions that are practical, compassionate, and sustainable. Virginia’s aging population is growing, and with it comes an increased demand for high-quality long-term care. HB 1357 positions the Commonwealth to meet this demand responsibly by examining what is working, what is not, and how we can do better. Supporting this bill is a clear statement that Virginia values the safety, dignity, and quality of life of its older adults and individuals receiving rehabilitative services. For these reasons, I urge support for HB 1357 and commend the General Assembly for prioritizing the care and protection of some of our most vulnerable residents.
HB28 - Voter registration; regular periodic review of registration records.
I am opposed to any all bill that make it easier to cheat in elections like these bills being presented. I am opposed to any and all bills that make same sex marriage acceptable. I am opposed to any and all bills that allow full term abortion and allow minors to have abortions with out the parents knowledge. I am opposed to any and all bills that would allow minors to undergo transgender surgery . I am opposed to any and all bills that will raise taxes while the politicians are trying to give themselves a 150% increase no that is not acceptable.
As a Virginia voter, I support HB 28 and thank Delegate Henson for introducing it. Maintaining public confidence in the accuracy and integrity of our voter data is essential. Conducting systematic voter list changes too close to an election creates confusion and undermines trust. HB 28 provides reasonable, commonsense protections. Thank you.
Many election officials in Loudoun County oppose HB28. It jeopardizes election integrity by preventing broad reviews or cross-checks (e.g., with other states, postal data, or federal databases) during the critical pre-election window, potentially allowing ineligible voters to remain on rolls when ballots are cast and counted. In close races, outdated or inaccurate rolls heighten fraud risks and erode public confidence. Virginia should reject arbitrary restrictions on roll hygiene in favor of continuous, robust verification to protect fair and trustworthy voting.
Oppose Democrats and Socialists forcing gerrymandering in Virginia. We know that the left is trying to get power. We know the illegal aliens are one source for getting democratic votes. What happened to following the Rule of Law in America and following it without causing chaos, lockdowns, destruction, propaganda, riots, censoring, spying, fraudulent schemes, mail in ballots, and other forms of corruption?
OPPOSE HB 28Accurate voter rolls are essential for public confidence in election outcomes, and this bill creates unnecessary barriers to achieving that goal. HB 28 imposes a 90-day 'quiet period' before all elections and prohibits systematic removal of ineligible voters, risking inaccurate voter rolls. Doubles the time for non-citizens to respond to notifications and places unnecessarily delays critical to updating voter lists. Restrictions on timely voter roll maintenance undermines election integrity by potentially allowing ineligible individuals to remain registered. Please vote NO
I do not support HB28. It imposes unnecessary restrictions on timely voter roll maintenance thereby undermining election integrity by potentially allowing ineligible individuals to remain registered.
• As proposed, the bill’s minimum impact will eliminate 6 months of time for updates due to the yearly June Primary and November General elections. • Many localities have additional special primary elections each year – a 90-day quiet period would further restrict a registrar from fulfilling their duty to maintain accurate voter rolls per federal requirement. • An additional 90-days would be eliminated during the years with a Presidential Primary o The National Change of Address (NCOA) updates are typically completed during January or February – the bill would prohibit this update in time for the Presidential Primary • This legislation severely restricts registrars’ responsibly to maintain accurate voter registration rolls, and increases costs for duplicate and unnecessary mailings, staff time, decreases election officers’ ability to run efficient precincts, adds to voter confusion when not notified of polling place locations. • Therefore I strongly oppose HB28.
Dear Members of the Virginia Legislative Committee, I am writing to express my opposition to HB 28, which mandates a regular periodic review of voter registration records. As a concerned citizen of Virginia with a deep interest in maintaining fair and accessible elections, I believe this bill introduces unnecessary barriers to voting and risks disenfranchising eligible voters. HB 28 requires the Department of Elections to conduct frequent reviews of voter rolls with the intent of removing individuals deemed ineligible. While the goal of ensuring accurate voter records is commendable, this legislation places an undue burden on local election officials by mandating reviews without providing adequate resources or clear guidelines for implementation. This could lead to inconsistent application across jurisdictions, resulting in confusion and potential errors in voter roll maintenance. Furthermore, the bill risks disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations, such as low-income individuals, the elderly, and those with limited access to documentation, who may struggle to verify their eligibility during these reviews. Such outcomes could undermine trust in our electoral system and suppress voter participation. As a Virginian who values the democratic process, I am particularly concerned about the impact of HB 28 on my community. Many of my neighbors and fellow citizens, including those who have recently moved or face economic challenges, may find themselves inadvertently removed from the rolls due to administrative oversights or inability to respond promptly to verification requests. I have witnessed firsthand how difficult it can be for some to navigate bureaucratic processes, and I fear this bill will exacerbate those challenges, effectively silencing voices that deserve to be heard on Election Day. Our state should prioritize policies that encourage participation, not create hurdles that could prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their fundamental right to vote. I respectfully urge the committee to reconsider HB 28. While maintaining accurate voter records is important, this legislation risks disenfranchisement and places unnecessary strain on election officials without ensuring fair or equitable outcomes. Virginia deserves an electoral system that is both secure and accessible, and I believe HB 28 falls short of that standard. Thank you for considering my perspective and for your dedication to serving the Commonwealth. Sincerely, Deborah Wahlstrom
Fair Elections Center SUPPORTS HB 28 because it prevents last minute mistakes and administrative errors from harming the voting rights of eligible people to vote in Virginia elections. These rules currently exist in federal law and are applied to federal elections in Virginia. These same principles of protecting eligible voters from last minute mistakes also apply in state elections.
HB 28 The League of Women Voters of Virginia supports the bill and thanks Delegate Henson for introducing HB 28. The bill provides for a 90-day quiet period before Virginia elections, when the state cannot conduct systematic voter purges. It parallels the federal law requiring a 90-day quiet period leading up to federal elections. It also protects voters by extending the time for our registrars to cancel the registration of voters deemed to be ineligible to vote and by allowing voters 28 days to respond to a notice of cancellation, which is double the amount of time they now have. Considering the unreliability of mail delivery, that is an important improvement to Virginia’s voter registration rules. HB 78 The League supports HB 78. Past experience shows that the law needs to be clarified. Local Electoral Boards’ post-election duties are prescribed in the Code of Virginia and further detailed in the official handbook for general registrars and electoral boards. Once these tasks are accomplished, the responsibility of certifying an election is not discretionary. The bill codifies this clarification. HB 968 The League thanks Chair Price for carrying HB 968, which is simply a prophylactic measure to ensure that machine-readable ballots are cast on ballot scanning machines. Machine tallies are far more accurate than humans at counting ballots. Using ballot scanners whenever the ballots are printed for that purpose will provide election results quickly and accurately. HB 1213 The League opposes HB 1213. The voters who affirm their identities declare, under penalty of law, that they are who they say they are. Requiring voters to provide additional personal data on their Voter ID Confirmation Statement would needlessly turn legitimate voters away from the ballot box. Thank you.
I am strongly opposed to all changes in HB 28. This includes but is not limited to time restraint changes such as; increasing time limits on systematic removal of ineligible voters from voter registration and extending period of time registrars have to cancel registrations from 30-60 days
My husband and I are extremely concerned about proposed abortion bills and legislation. We have lived in this state for many years and never dreamed of these bills moving forward and are aghast at the thought of it. We are vehemently opposed to any such passage of abortion and whole heartedly in favor of preserving and protecting all life espeically of the most vulnerable unborn life that all science now admits. Please say "no" to such bills.