Last week marked the beginning of the budget process in the Florida Legislature during the fourth week of the annual nine-week session. Chair recommendations from various budget subcommittees were released over several days and served as the basis for the House and Senate budgets, which were printed on Friday. In the area of intellectual and developmental disabilities, there are notable differences between the House and Senate budgets. The House allocates $61.4 million for the waiting list, split between the traditional iBudget and the new managed care pilot, while the Senate does not provide any waiting list funding. The Senate allocates $50 million for Direct Support Professional recruitment and retention, an issue the House does not address. Additionally, the Senate budget proposes replacing the iConnect system, a client data management system, whereas the House budget requires a plan to fix the system. A high-level overview of each chamber's proposals is below for those interested. Each chamber will take up their budget bills in committee on Wednesday, where amendments can be considered. Typically, the House sees very few amendments proposed and none adopted, while the Senate is likely to consider and adopt dozens of amendments. Once the budgets pass out of committee, they will be considered by the full chambers, presenting another opportunity for amendments. Historically, the Senate adopts multiple amendments, while the House adopts none. After each chamber passes a budget, leadership will appoint a conference committee to reconcile the differences between the two bills. The conference process concludes with a conference report, which is considered by each chamber and is not subject to amendment. Once passed by both chambers, the bill is presented to the Governor, who has line-item veto authority. This unique power allows the Governor to veto specific spending items while approving the overall budget. After the budget is signed and vetoes are identified, the Governor’s Office of Policy and Budget begins establishing each agency’s operating budget. Any modifications to operating budgets are subject to Legislative review and, in some cases, approval by a joint Legislative committee composed of members from both chambers. House and Senate budget proposals overview Waiting list The House provides $62.4 million equally provided between the iBudget waiver and the I/DD managed care pilot funded in the Agency for Health Care Administration. The additional funding for the pilot project which is estimated to serve 547 additional individuals, is contingent on passage of HB 1103 or similar legislation that expands the pilot to a statewide program. The Senate does not provide funding for the waiting list but authorizes the Agency for Persons with Disabilities to enroll individuals in crisis into the iBudget Waiver from existing funding. Provider rate increases Both chambers provide $9.1 million for rate increases for Vocational Rehabilitation providers. The Senate provides $50 million from prior year unspent funds in the iBudget Waiver for recruitment and retention incentives for Direct Support Professionals. The Senate provides $1.3 million to increase rates paid for state funded services through the Individual and Family Supports category. iBudget The Senate provides $2 million to engage iLab (an IT consulting company which recently conducted the iConnect evaluation) to develop business, functional and technical requirements for a system to replace iConnect. The language also requires APD to develop procurement documents for the replacement system. The House provides $1.5 million of non-recurring funds and requires the agency to develop a plan by September 1, 2025 to make systems improvements to include enhanced interface capability with external provider systems. Dental services for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities Both chambers make significant reductions to funding for dental services previously provided through a contract with the Arc of Florida due to the funds mostly remaining unspent for the last several years. The House reduces funding by $6 million which leaves $5.5 million available for services. The Senate reduces funding by $7.9 million which leaves $3.6 million. Institutions The Senate provides $17.9 million for fixed capital outlay projects in the state-operated institutions. This includes funding for planning for a new forensic facility. The House provides $9.6 million for fixed capital outlay projects in the state-operated institutions. This includes $8.4 million for the new forensic facility which would be located in Marianna on the Sunland campus. The Senate provides $13 million in state funds to replace a shortfall in Federal earnings in the state institutions. In addition, $6.6 million is provided in the current fiscal year budget. The House does not address. Other issues Both chambers fund continuation of the dually diagnosed pilot program in Leon, Broward, Orange, and Hillsborough Counties but from different sources. The House provides $6.5 million from non-recurring funds which is the current funding level for the project while the Senate reappropriates funding that is expected to remain unspent during the current fiscal year. The House reduces the waiver budget by roughly $1.3 billion by eliminating what is called “double budgeting” of Federal funds earned by the Agency for Health Care Administration. While this results in a dramatic decrease for both the waiver and in APD’s total budget, this will not result in reduced services or provider payments. The House eliminates 355.5 positions and $21 million from the APD budget which are associated with positions that have been vacant for more than 90 days. The House provides $8.9 million for various local appropriations projects while the Senate provides $8.5 million. Both chambers reappropriate funding to competitively procure an automated incident management system. Both chambers provide for reappropriation of any unspent funding for the iBudget waiver.

Week 3 of the Florida Legislature was marked by significant developments, particularly in the areas of disability services and agency rulemaking. PCS for HB 1103 One of the major developments this week was consideration of a proposed committee substitute (PCS) for HB 1103 by the House Human Services Subcommittee. The bill was originally filed on behalf of the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) by Representative Jennifer Kincart Jonsson. However, the bill as originally filed was not considered. Instead, the House Human Services Subcommittee filed and considered the PCS which differs significantly from the original bill. The PCS passed. Among the key differences in the PCS: **Division Transfers**: APD had requested the transfer of the Divisions of Vocational Rehabilitation and Blind Services to its oversight. The PCS, however, does not include these transfers. **Adult Pathways Waiver**: Another request from APD was to codify a new “Adult Pathways” waiver, aimed at providing a limited array of services for adults with disabilities. It is reminiscent of the old Family and Supported Living Waiver, aka Tier 4, which was eliminated when iBudget was adopted in Florida. This waiver is absent in the PCS. It is clear that the House is using the PCS to address several of its priorities: **Transparency Requirements**: The PCS imposes strict transparency requirements on APD. This includes the online publication of quarterly reports and detailed information regarding the waiting list for services. **Managed Care Pilot Program**: The PCS expands the managed care pilot program for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities to a statewide initiative. It encompasses all individuals over the age of 18 on the waiting list and allows transitions from iBudget to the pilot program. It's important to highlight that managed care enrollment remains voluntary under this bill. **Role Adjustment**: The bill removes APD's role in assisting the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) in managing the pilot program. **Statewide Family Care Council**: The bill establishes a statewide Family Care Council, enhancing the responsibilities and authority of both local and statewide councils, ensuring a more cohesive and empowered advisory and advocacy framework. Agency Rulemaking Bills In addition to the PCS for HB 1103, we are closely following bills designed to refine agency rulemaking processes and strengthen safeguards against agencies imposing regulatory costs on private sector businesses through rulemaking. HB 433 by Representative Toby Overdorf, has successfully cleared its first committee and is now set to be reviewed by the House budget committee. Its Senate counterpart, CS/SB 108 by Senator Burgess, has advanced through committees and is ready for the Senate floor. Why it matters: **Legislative Ratification of rules imposing costs on businesses**: Both AHCA and APD have previously overlooked state laws requiring legislative ratification of agency rules that impose regulatory costs on private sector businesses. The proposed bills reinforce existing safeguards and ensure that agencies adhere to legislative oversight. iConnect is a good example of the problems caused when agency rules impose costs on small businesses that the Legislature did not intend. **Systematic Review**: The bills mandate a systematic review of all agency rules according to a specified schedule. This should serve as a vehicle to identify and eliminate or modify rules that no longer serve their intended purpose, exceed agency authority, and rules that unnecessarily burden small businesses and affect private sector competition. Insulin administration by family members and direct support professionals HB 1567 by Rep. Kaylee Tuck and SB 1736 by Sen. Erin Grall both advanced through their first committee stops this week. These bills would allow a family member or a direct support professional to assist in administering insulin through an epi pen or similar device. This has been a longstanding issue in Florida and we are hopeful that this common sense Legislation will continue to move through the process and become law. Up next In week 4, we anticipate the focus to turn to the state budget. We are hearing that both chambers plan to release their initial budget proposals next week. We will be following the usual priorities of provider rates and funding for the APD waiting list. We are also hopeful that we will see continued progress and discussion on APD transportation and iConnect remediation as the session nears its halfway point. The pace of decision making will exponentially increase in the following weeks. It is crucial for stakeholders, including disability advocates, business leaders, and policy makers, to stay informed and engaged. The legislative process is dynamic, and continuous dialogue and feedback will play a vital role in shaping the final outcomes.