Public Comments

I am opposed to this bill. These so-called low paying jobs are not low paying at all.

Legislation that limits pathways for review, increases barriers, or discourages rehabilitation sends a damaging message — that no matter how much someone works to change, there will be no recognition of that effort. This not only undermines personal accountability, but removes incentives for positive institutional behavior and participation in programming that has been shown to reduce recidivism and improve public safety.

• 5B-12-10 of HB 4001, as currently drafted, would prohibit any person or organization from using the name “TEAM-WV” or words of similar meaning without the written consent of the newly created corporation. As written, this provision could require our long-established organization to seek permission from a newly created entity in order to continue using the name and identity under which we have operated for nearly four decades.

1. Enhance Patient Accessibility and Comfort Many patients suffer from respiratory conditions, compromised immune systems, or other medical issues that make inhalation unsuitable. Edibles provide a smoke-free and vapor-free option that aligns with broader public health objectives.
2. Provide Longer-Lasting Symptom Relief Edible cannabis products offer extended therapeutic effects compared to inhaled forms, which may benefit patients managing chronic pain, neurological disorders, cancer-related symptoms, and other qualifying conditions.
3. Promote Safe and Regulated Access Authorizing edibles within the state’s regulated dispensary system ensures product safety, standardized dosing, laboratory testing, child-resistant packaging, and clear labeling requirements. Regulation is preferable to forcing patients to seek alternatives outside the legal framework.
4. Align West Virginia with Other Medical Cannabis States A majority of medical cannabis programs nationwide permit edible products under strict regulatory oversight. Updating West Virginia’s policy would maintain consistency with evolving medical standards and patient-centered care practices.

• Strict THC concentration limits per serving and per package
• Mandatory child-resistant and tamper-evident packaging
• Clear labeling regarding dosage, delayed onset effects, and safety warnings
• Restrictions on marketing that could appeal to minors

In an emergency, patients can’t choose an ambulance service from a provider directory when calling 911.

Similarly, EMS must provide care without knowing the patient’s insurance status.

Nearly 60% of ambulance transports are out-of-network, according to data from Fair Health.

EMS agencies face significant challenges due to insurers reimbursing out-of-network ambulance services at rates that are unreasonably low, directly paying patients, or excessively delaying payments.

These practices are used to coerce EMS providers into unfavorable contracts jeopardizing their ability to deliver essential services.

When insurance companies fail to treat EMS agencies fairly, the financial shortfall must be made up by taxpayers or results in a reduction of vital services.

Therefore, implementing fair insurance practices is crucial for ensuring continued access to emergency medical care and minimizing the burden on taxpayers.

SB 645 would make a meaningful difference for EMS and Patients by:

• Prohibiting patients from being balance billed for ambulance services.
• Requiring EMS be paid a fair minimum rate by insurance for services.
• Requiring insurance companies to send payments directly to EMS agencies and ensuring payment for clean claims within 30 days.

This bill will help stabilize EMS funding, strengthen emergency care, and support the communities served by these first responders.

Why 400%?

The most frequently asked question about SB 645 has a straightforward answer: 400% of Medicare is based on cost reporting data collected through the Medicare Ground Ambulance Data Collection System. According to data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the average cost per ambulance transport is $2,673, and the median is $1,340. In contrast, Medicare pays an average of only $328.89. Even at four times the average Medicare payment, insurance companies are still reimbursing less than the actual median and mean costs of care.

The two leading insurance industry opponents of this bill have a history of reimbursing EMS providers at rates lower than Medicare, which makes the situation worse. They might argue that health insurance shouldn't be required to fund EMS, but as shown by the cost data, all we are asking is for them to come closer to covering cost of the care they promise to their policyholders.

EMS services need funding to remain available; without proper payment, the availability of 911 response could decline. The payment provisions in this bill present a policy decision: should insurance companies covering ambulance services contribute a greater amount toward the cost of care, or should the financial burden shift to all taxpayers?

• A structured review of child development studies found that higher screen use in early childhood is associated with poorer sleep, reduced physical activity, attention difficulties, and challenges in emotional and social functioning.  
• Research specific to preschoolers shows that routine use of devices to soothe or distract children can reduce self-regulation and is linked to lower inhibition and greater emotional lability.  

• Pediatric guidelines (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics) recommend no screen time under age 2 and no more than ~1 hour/day for ages 2–5, because exceeding these is associated with developmental delays and negative outcomes.  

• A pediatric behavioral study found that children with ≥2 hours/day of screen time showed more behavioral problems and ADHD-like symptoms, and mechanisms like excessive dopamine release from screen engagement make devices harder to disengage from (a marker of addictive patterns).  

Statement Opposing the Use of Speed Enforcement Cameras in Construction Zones

I oppose the use of speed enforcement cameras in construction zones.

Protecting road workers and motorists is essential, and work-zone safety should be taken seriously. However, automated speed cameras are not the best solution. These systems raise significant concerns about fairness, due process, and public trust. They often issue citations without accounting for context—such as sudden traffic flow changes, unclear signage, lane shifts, or whether workers were actually present in the zone at the time.

Speed camera enforcement can also become more about generating revenue than improving safety. When the public believes enforcement is primarily financial, confidence in traffic laws and highway safety efforts is weakened.

A better approach is to focus on visible law enforcement, clear signage, reasonable and consistently posted speed limits, improved lane markings, and public education. These measures promote safety while preserving accountability and discretion.

Work zones should be safe, but safety should be achieved through fair, transparent, and effective enforcement, not automated penalties that can overreach and erode public trust.

Public Comment Regarding SB704 – Veteran Perspective

To Whom It May Concern,

My name is Kristin T. Cicchetto, and I am a retired veteran who served 21 years in the United States Marine Corps. I am writing to respectfully express my opposition to SB704 and to ask that you carefully consider the unintended consequences this legislation would have on veterans like myself.

After dedicating over two decades of my life to military service, the transition to civilian life required rebuilding structure, purpose, and support systems outside of the military environment. Professional coaching services have been an important resource in helping veterans maintain accountability, set goals, manage stress, and continue progressing personally and professionally after service.

These services provide valuable support that complements medical care and mental health treatment. They help veterans stay engaged, focused, and productive members of their communities. Many veterans rely on coaching to assist with career transitions, personal development, and maintaining overall well-being. Removing or restricting access to these services would eliminate an important form of support that veterans voluntarily choose to improve their lives.

Veterans have earned the right to make informed decisions about the resources and services that best support their health, independence, and continued success. Limiting access to coaching services reduces those options and may negatively affect veterans who are working hard to build stable and meaningful lives after their military careers.

I respectfully ask that you consider the importance of preserving access to these services and oppose legislation that would restrict veterans’ ability to choose the support systems that work best for them.

Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your continued commitment to those who have served our nation.

Respectfully,

• Improves Access — FPA creates greater access to care, especially in underserved urban and rural areas. States with FPA are more likely to have NPs working in rural and underserved areas and NP practices than states with more restrictive licensure models.
• Streamlines Care and Makes Care Delivery More Efficient — FPA provides patients with full and direct access to NPs' services at the point of care. FPA removes delays in care that are created when dated regulations require an NP be part of an unnecessary regulatory-mandated contract with a physician as a condition of practicing their profession.
• Decreases Costs — FPA avoids duplication of services and billing costs associated with outdated physician oversight of NP practice. FPA reduces unnecessary repetition of orders, office visits and care services.
• Protects Patient Choice — FPA allows patients to see the health care provider of their choice. FPA removes anti-competitive licensing restrictions that interfere with patient-centered health care

Our citizens have suffered from lack for years! Lack of clean water, lack of employment, lack of help to improve conditions, lack of care or concern by our state government. Now is the time! Support this infrastructure improvement to improve the living conditions for not just the current residents but for the future residents. Our Southern Coalfields need help, not just for themselves but for our entire state! Thank you.