A bill that supporters say would cut health care insurance costs for people across the state could have trouble getting over the finish line after the Senate made an eleventh hour change to its effective date late Thursday afternoon. That’s because the chamber now has another difference to reconcile with the House over the legislation, with potentially just a day left before the Legislature adjourns for the year.
Senators approved a change to a portion of the bill that would cap the price of outpatient pharmaceuticals, which are generally administered via injection or infusion in hospitals or clinics, rather than dispensed by a pharmacy. They are often used to treat cancer, autoimmune disorders or other conditions. The House first tacked the measure onto H.266, which would make a number of other changes related to drug pricing.
“This is the one thing that everybody is agreeing will actually reduce health care costs, and will do it quickly,” said Sen. Ruth Hardy, D-Addison, during a floor debate on the proposal. “Everything else that we are doing in all of these lovely bills … will take time.”
As approved by the House, the bill would cap the cost of outpatient pharmaceuticals at 130% of their average sales price starting July 1, and 120% of their average sales price starting January 2026. But on Thursday, the Senate adopted an amendment proposed by Sen. Terry Williams, R-Rutland, to remove the transitional period altogether and push back the start of the lower cap to January. Senators voted for the change 20-10.
The vote came just hours after Sen. Ginny Lyons, D-Chittenden Southeast, who chairs the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, said Senate leadership told her there wasn’t enough time for legislators to make more changes to the bill beyond what the House already had. That’s despite the fact, she said, that she saw some benefit to delaying the start of the cap.
“I don’t like this process whatsoever,” Lyons told her committee earlier on Thursday afternoon. “I think if we make a change to the bill, we may not see it stay alive.”
The Senate Health and Welfare Committee heard from witnesses both for and against the House’s proposed cap Thursday morning and into the afternoon.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont has said the proposal could reduce their requested premium increases — which are double digit percentages — for next year by four percentage points for individual and small group insurance plans on the health care marketplace, and three percentage points for school health insurance plans.
“I cannot think of another policy change with such an immediate and profound impact on insurance premiums,” wrote Jessica Holmes, a member of the Green Mountain Care Board, in a memo to senators Thursday. “This cap would provide the most meaningful financial relief to Vermont’s sickest patients.”
The Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, however, has said the proposed legislation would cause millions of dollars in losses, and would require multiple Vermont hospitals to cut staff or services. Williams cited those projected losses when presenting his amendment.
During Thursday’s hearing, Peter Wright, CEO of Northwestern Medical Center, said the House proposal would leave the St. Albans hospital with “no other option” but to close its infusion center, where outpatient drugs are administered. Stephen Leffler, the president and COO of the University of Vermont Medical Center in Burlington, said the legislation would reduce the hospital’s revenue by about $60 million, which could lead it to cut services. Both urged the committee to reject the House’s proposal.
“We have had no time for planning for this — and no time to figure out the full impacts to everything that we do,” Leffler told the senators.
The Senate’s change will now head back to the House for additional consideration in what could be the final hours of the session.
— Shaun Robinson
In the know
As courts continue to weigh the fate of the Trump administration’s tariff policy, a Burlington-based women’s cycling apparel company stands at the center of the ongoing legal squabble, along with the Vermont Attorney General’s Office.
Terry Precision Cycling, or Terry Cycling, was one of five small businesses that sued President Donald Trump and his administration in the U.S. Court of International Trade in April. The lawsuit prompted a ruling from a panel of three federal judges that struck down most of the president’s tariffs on Wednesday.
Nik Holm, president of Terry Cycling, said that the Vermont company decided to fight against the administration’s trade policy after recognizing that the tariffs were “an existential threat” to its business.
“We’re a company that reacts. We’re a direct to consumer company, so we kind of see changes pretty quickly and respond to them,” Holm said. “We raised our hand.”
The small business lawsuit dovetailed with a separate complaint filed in the same court also last month by Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark and the attorneys general of 11 other states.
Read more about Vermont’s role in the ruling here.
— Habib Sabet
On the move
In a flurry of messaging, the House and Senate worked their way through their differences on a handful of key bills Thursday. Both S.69 — known to advocates as the “Kids Code,” intended to force social media companies to adjust their design code for users under 18 — and H.91, a bill that would radically restructure the state’s emergency housing program, are now headed to Gov. Phil Scott’s desk for his consideration.
The Senate requested a conference committee for S.45, which would set further limits on when neighbors could sue farmers, suggesting that the bill may be put on ice until next year.
— Kristen Fountain
Visit our 2025 bill tracker for the latest updates on major legislation we are following.
