HB1491

Eight written submissions were filed on HB1491, five in support and three in opposition. Supporters, including municipal and school district members of pooled risk programs, emphasize that the bill preserves non-assessable risk pools while providing oversight and a nationally used solvency standard. Opponents object to lowering allowable contingency reserves, arguing the current reserve accounting is more prudent and that inadequate reserves could expose small public entities to unexpected assessments.

• Provides stringent oversight of non-assessable poolsSupport3 of 8 · 38%

  Supporters state the bill establishes strong regulatory oversight of non-assessable risk pools while allowing them to continue operating.

  • “This will allow for stringent oversight of non-assessable risk pools. It will also allow the continuation of these risk pools”

    — Gary Winn, Chesterfield · #590655 — read full submission →

  • “I support this bill as it allows non-assessable risk pools to maintain adequate reserves while having solid oversight”

    — Megan Barr, Pelham · #603379 — read full submission →

• Aligns with national insurance solvency standardsSupport2 of 8 · 25%

  Supporters say the bill applies a solvency model used for comparable insurance entities by insurance departments nationally.

  • “allows non-assessable risk pools to maintain adequate reserves while having solid oversight and aligns with similar insurance entities nationally.”

    — Megan Barr, Pelham · #603379 — read full submission →

  • “The bill allows for strong oversight, prudent reserves, and a solvency model applied to similar insurance entities nationally by all 50 state Insurance Departments.”

    — Chip McGee, Pelham · #605999 — read full submission →

• Risk pools are important to NH municipalitiesSupport2 of 8 · 25%

  Supporters note that continuing insurance risk pools matters for New Hampshire municipalities and school districts that are members.

  • “Continuing and supporting insurance risk pools are very important for NH municipalities.”

    — Debra Ford, Enfield · #603814 — read full submission →

  • “Pelham School District is a member of HealthTrust and we strongly support HB1491.”

    — Chip McGee, Pelham · #605999 — read full submission →

• Protects local governments from unexpected shortfallsSupport1 of 8 · 13%

  A supporter argues the bill guards municipalities against unexpected funding shortfalls, drawing a comparison to past underfunding of the retirement system.

  • “protect the local governments from unexpected shortfalls similar to the short sighted funding of the retirement systems in the past.”

    — Gary Winn, Chesterfield · #590655 — read full submission →

• Supports the interests of NH votersSupport1 of 8 · 13%

  One supporter offers a general statement that the bill serves New Hampshire voters.

  • “I vote this way for the sake of NH voters.”

    — Donna Tully, Littleton · #601954 — read full submission →

• Bill would lower maximum contingency reservesOppose1 of 8 · 13%

  Opponents object to the bill on the grounds that it reduces the maximum contingency reserves permitted in health risk pools.

  • “I oppose this bill that would lower maximum contingency reserves allowed in health risk pools.”

    — Philip Langsdorf, Grantham · #592324 — read full submission →

• Current reserve accounting is more fiscally prudentOppose1 of 8 · 13%

  An opponent argues that the existing reserve pool accounting approach is the more conservative and prudent option.

  • “As a fiscal conservative I feel the current reserve pool accounting is the more conservative and prudent.”

    — PAUL HAZELTON, HEBRON · #597033 — read full submission →

• Insufficient reserves risk assessments on small entitiesOppose1 of 8 · 13%

  An opposing organization warns that restricting non-assessable pools or requiring insufficient reserves could result in unexpected assessments that fixed-budget public entities cannot absorb, shifting costs onto employees.

  • “Any unexpected assessment related to health coverage would create a significant financial hardship, either jeopardizing our ability to operate or shifting an unaffordable burden onto our employees.”

    — Vicky Nelson, Brentwood · #610231 — read full submission →