Rep. Ed Osienski

Like House Bill No. 286, House Substitute No. 1 for House Bill No. 286 prohibits discrimination in life insurance based on genetic characteristics, genetic information, or the result of any genetic test. House Substitute No. 1 for House Bill No. 286 differs from House Bill No. 286 as follows: 1. Provides a definition of “direct-to-consumer genetic testing”. 2. Allows the use of any genetic information that is in an individual's medical record or application for life insurance. 3. Allows a person engaged in the business of life insurance to request that an individual share genetic information from a direct-to-consumer genetic testing or to request that an individual provide written consent for entity to provide that information. 4. Allows an entity that provides direct-to-consumer genetic testing to share information with a person engaged in the business of life insurance but only with the written consent of the individual. 5. Clarifies that a person engaged in the business of life insurance may not do any of the following: a. Require that an individual take a genetic test. b. Require that an individual provide genetic information received from an entity providing direct-to-consumer genetic testing or provide written consent for the entity to provide that information. c. Take into consideration the refusal by an individual to take a genetic test, provide genetic information received from direct-to-consumer genetic testing, or provide written consent to share information from direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Like HB 286, HS 1 for HB 286 also does all of the following: 1. Makes corresponding corrections to § 2317 of Title 18 by revising the heading for clarity and the definition of "insurance" to conform with the terms and definitions used in Title 18. 2. Is known as "The Ericka Byler Act”.

This Joint Resolution directs the Division of Motor Vehicles to opt into the FMCSA’s federal exemption that allows for first time CDL applicants seeking a school bus only endorsement on their driver’s license. An applicant’s school bus only endorsement would only apply to intrastate operation of a school bus. The Division of Motor Vehicles is directed to implement this policy by May 1, 2024.

Healthcare facility assessments are currently the second largest source of funding for states’ shares of Medicaid costs, behind general funds. Today, 49 states have at least one facility assessment in place, including Delaware, while 34 states and Washington D.C. have 3 or more provider taxes. Delaware is one of only 6 states without a facility assessment on hospitals, causing the state to miss out on critical Medicaid funding that most states are already able to access. This Act is a substitute for Senate Bill No. 13. Like Senate Bill No. 13, this Act creates the Hospital Quality Assessment, which places a 3.58% assessment on Delaware hospitals’ net patient revenues. Funds generated by the Hospital Quality Assessment must be utilized in one of two ways: (1) To increase the inpatient and outpatient payments to hospitals. (2) To develop or enhance funding for Medicaid initiatives, unlocking federal matching dollars. Funds may not be used to supplant or replace appropriations for programs in existence on the effective date of this Act, except for 25% of these funds, which may be used to support the general operations of the Medicaid program. Like Senate Bill No. 13, this Act also creates the Hospital Quality and Health Equity Assessment Commission (“Commission”), which includes state agency and hospital representation. The Commission is required to meet at least annually to monitor the implementation of the assessment. If the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) determines that either the assessment or the expenditure of money does not satisfy eligibility requirements for federal financial participation or that modifications are necessary to assure continued eligibility for federal financial participation, the Commission shall develop and approve modifications to Subchapters II and III of Chapter 10 of Tile 16 of the Delaware Code and submit the modifications to the General Assembly. This Act differs from Senate Bill No. 13 as follows: (1) By directing the Department of Health and Social Services (“Department”) to administer the Hospital Quality Assessment. (2) By establishing a different method of calculating the assessment for a hospital that begins or ceases hospital operations or does not conduct hospital operations through a calendar year or fiscal year. (3) By prohibiting a hospital subject to the Hospital Quality Assessment from passing on the cost of the assessment to any patient, insurer, self-insured program, or other responsible party. (4) By requiring a hospital subject to the Hospital Quality Assessment to attest in writing to the Department that an oral or written, formal or informal agreement or arrangement does not exist to share, redirect, or redistribute Medicaid payments which would result in violation of federal or state law. (5) By updating the split in percentages of the funds collected from the Hospital Quality Assessment to reflect the wide range of federal match levels for services. The expected amount to be collected by the Assessment does not change as the result of the update. (6) By requiring the Registrar of Regulations to publish in the Register of Regulations a certification by the Commission under § 1034(d) and (e) of Title 16 of the Delaware Code, as contained in this Act. (7) By providing that appointments of members of the Minority Caucus of the House of Representatives and Senate are to be made by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate, respectively. (8) By making modifications to the requirements for meetings of the Commission. (9) By providing that modifications to Subchapters II and III of Chapter 10 of Tile 16 of the Delaware Code recommended by the Commission take effect as of July 1 of the ensuing fiscal year unless rejected in full by an act of the General Assembly before that ensuing fiscal year. This Act requires a greater than majority vote for passage because § 11 of Article VIII of the Delaware Constitution requires the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly to impose or levy a tax or license fee. This Act may be cited as the “Protect Medicaid Act of 2024”.

The purpose of this Act is to combat aggressive driving and dangerous speed differentials on targeted roadways. This Act prohibits vehicles from traveling in the left lane on the portions of State Route 1 or Interstate 495 that are an express highway, as defined in § 101 of Title 17, or a controlled access facility, as defined in § 172 of Title 17, except in any of the following circumstances: (1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing overtaking and passing another vehicle. (2) When necessary to enter, leave, or continue on the roadway. (3) When necessary due to an obstruction. (4) When necessary in response to emergency conditions. (5) When necessary due to traffic conditions or congestion. (6) To comply with other law or regulation. In addition to being prohibited from traveling in the left lane, a vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of more than 26,000 pounds is further restricted to traveling only in the right-hand lane except in the same circumstances as when a vehicle may travel in the left lane. An operator who refuses, fails, or neglects to comply with § 4114A is subject to a civil penalty as follows: (1) For a first occurrence, a civil penalty of not less than $25 nor more than $75. (2) For a subsequent occurrence, a civil penalty of not less than $57.50 nor more than $95.

This Act establishes employment protections for certain service employees during changes of ownership by requiring all of the following: 1. Notice to affected service employees at covered locations at least 15 days before a service contract is terminated, services are contracted out, or the property where they are employed is sold or transferred. This notice must state the event triggering the notice, information about the new awardee, purchaser, or transferee, and the service employee’s rights under this Act. 2. The successor employer must retain all affected service employees at a covered location for a 90-day transition period. The successor employer may not reduce any affected service employee's work hours in order to circumvent the protections under this Act and requires that a successor employer give an affected service employee a written offer of employment in English, Spanish, and in any language that is the first language spoken by at least 5% of the affected service employees. 3. Copies of the required notice and offer of employment must also be sent to the employee's collective bargaining representative, if any. This Act applies as follows: 1. To contractors who enter into a service contract for a covered location, if the contractor employs more than 4 service employees anywhere in the United States. 2. To service employees at covered locations. "Service employees" are individuals employed or assigned to a covered location on a full or part-time basis for at least 60 days in connection with the care or maintenance of a building or property, specific services at an airport, or food preparation services at a school that is an agency under § 6902 of Title 29. Service employees do not include managerial or professional employees, employees regularly scheduled to work less than 16 hours per week, or individuals who work on structural, electric, HVAC, or plumbing projects that require a permit. 3. To service contracts at the following locations: • A multi-family residential building with more than 50 units. • A commercial center, commercial or office complex, or office building occupying more than 100,000 square feet. • A cultural center or complex, including museums, convention centers, arenas, or performance halls. • An industrial site. • A pharmaceutical lab. • An airport or train station. • A health care facility that provides long-term, acute, or outpatient health-care services as these services are defined in § 7971 of Title 29. • A warehouse or distribution center. • A building operated by a State agency subject to the procurement requirements under Chapter 69 of Title 29. A successor employer may only retain fewer than all of the affected service employees during the transition period if the successor employer: 1. Finds that fewer service employees are required to perform the work than the predecessor employer had employed. 2. Retains service employees by seniority within each job classification. 3. Maintains a preferential hiring list of those service employees not retained. 4. Hires any additional service employees from the preferential hiring list, in order of seniority, until all affected service employees have been offered employment. A service employee who has been discharged or otherwise not retained in violation of the requirements under this Act may bring an action against a successor employer or an awarding authority and these violations are subject to punitive damages as follows: 1. For a first violation, an amount not exceeding $2,500. 2. For a second or subsequent violation, an amount not exceeding $5,000. 3. Each work week during which there is a day when a violation occurs constitutes a separate violation. 4. A court may also order back pay, compensatory damages, issue injunctive relief requiring that the successor employer comply with requirements under this Act, and award the service employee reasonable attorney fees and costs. This Act takes effect 90 days after enactment and applies to all contracts entered into or renewed after its enactment into law and is known as “The Service Worker Protection Act”.

This substitute bill for Senate Bill No. 307 clarifies the meaning of custom fabrication as first defined in Senate Substitute 1 for Senate Bill No. 102 in the 152nd General Assembly. That substitute bill modified the relationship between custom fabrication and the prevailing wage. This substitute removes custom fabrication as a term in Title 19 to avoid confusion of the term being defined differently in two different titles. Section 3 of this substitute bill becomes effective immediately. Sections 1, 2 and 4 of this substitute bill become effective January 1, 2025.

This Act amends the Delaware Antitrust Act (“DAA”) (Chapter 21, Title 6 of the Code) to provide indirect purchasers who have been harmed by violations of the Delaware Antitrust Act the ability to sue for damages. Indirect purchasers of a product or service in the chain of distribution are often the ones who bear the burden of any overcharges from antitrust violations such as price-fixing. Direct purchasers and others in the chain of distribution of the affected product or service often have the ability to pass the overcharge through the chain of distribution to end users. This will align Delaware with at least 36 other states which currently allow for a cause of action for damages for indirect purchasers. Often, end users who make purchases in Delaware, primarily Delaware residents and businesses, are excluded from making claims against multimillion dollar settlement funds set up to compensate indirect purchasers for transactions made in other states that do authorize lawsuits for damages for indirect purchasers. To avoid complicated proof issues related to the pass through of any overcharge through the chain of distribution of a product or service, the Act creates a presumption that any overcharge paid by the first purchaser as a result of a violation of the DAA is passed through to the end user. Also, to simplify issues of proof, the Act provides a plaintiff may elect 25% of the consideration paid for the goods or services in connection with the transaction affected by an illegal restraint of trade as an alternative liquidated damage amount to actual harm. To allow Delaware consumers and businesses to fully take advantage of the remedies provided by this Act, the Act creates a private right of action. Delaware is one of only 2 states that do not provide for a private right of action under their state antitrust law of general applicability. Currently, only the Attorney General has a right to bring actions under the DAA and the Attorney General does not have the resources to review or participate in every national antitrust action. This will ensure Delaware indirect purchasers receive the benefits of private enforcement of the DAA. Section 2 of the Act creates a Delaware state law equivalent to Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the federal antitrust statute, which establishes three offenses commonly termed “monopolization,” “attempted monopolization,” and “conspiracy to monopolize.” Delaware is only 1 of 9 states that does not have a state law equivalent to Section 2 of the Sherman Act and its addition to the DAA is needed to ensure the remedies under the DAA including a right of recovery for indirect purchasers are available to the Attorney General and to Delaware consumers and businesses. Section 3 of the Act modifies the confidentiality restrictions of materials produced to the Attorney General pursuant to an investigative demand. It would allow for the materials to be shared with the Attorney General’s agents such as consultants, experts, electronic discovery platform vendors and economists which would be necessary for the Attorney General to decide on whether the law has been violated and how best to remedy the violation. The Act would also allow the Attorney General to share materials produced pursuant to an investigative demand with federal or state law enforcement officers that agree to keep the information confidential and use it only for official law enforcement purposes. Likewise, the Act requires the Attorney General to keep materials provided by other law enforcement officers received under similar process confidential. These provisions will make it easier for the Attorney General to work together with other federal and state law enforcers in enforcing state and federal antitrust laws. Section 4 of the Act provides an alternative calculation for civil penalties for violations of the Delaware Antitrust Act. Under certain facts and circumstances, the current maximum penalty for a violation of the DAA may be lower than the amount of the gain a violator may obtain by violating the DAA making any penalty a cost of doing business and an insufficient deterrent to violate the law. The alternative calculation provides for an assessment of a civil penalty of up to twice the gross gain or loss associated with the violation. This is like the alternative method for calculating federal criminal fines for the same conduct. Section 4 also authorizes a Court to award investigative costs, expert witness fees, and attorneys’ fees to the Attorney General when the Attorney General successfully brings a law enforcement action to enforce the DAA. Currently, a Court may only award attorney’s fees and expert costs to the Attorney General when the Attorney General brings an action on behalf of a public body or natural persons. Section 5 of the Act creates a right for indirect purchasers who have been harmed by violations of the DAA to sue for damages. It creates a presumption that overcharges paid by the first purchaser as a result of such violations are passed to the end user, and allows a plaintiff to seek liquidated damages in the amount of 25% of the consideration paid, as an alternative to seeking damages for actual harm incurred. Section 6 of the Act clarifies that the Court of Chancery has exclusive jurisdiction of all state court actions or proceedings under the DAA. The Act also makes several clarifications throughout the DAA to recognize it is often federal courts exercising supplemental jurisdiction deciding claims arising under the DAA.

This Act increases the amount of the annual appropriation to prefund future State employee retiree health insurance as recommended by the Retiree Healthcare Benefits Advisory Subcommittee of the State Employee Benefits Committee. Like other required contributions to the Other Post-Employment Benefits Fund (OPEB) Fund, this appropriation must be included in the review of and plan for proposed expenditures that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget submits to the Governor and in the Governor's Budget Appropriation Bill. This Act also revises existing law to allow the current practice of making the annual payment to the OPEB Fund of 1% of the operating budget appropriations for the prior fiscal year in a Supplementary Appropriation Bill and makes technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual.

This Act acknowledges the importance of diversity and inclusivity in education by requiring the Department of Education to update content standards and regulations using a non-exhaustive list of racial, ethnic, and cultural groups.

The Delaware Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment “DMOST” was enacted in 2016 under HB 64 (148th). The DMOST form allows Delawareans to plan ahead for health-care decisions, express their wishes in writing, and both enable and obligate health care professionals to act in accordance with a patient’s expressed preferences. A DMOST form is different than an Advance Health-Care Directive because a DMOST form contains portable medical orders that respect the patient’s goals for care in regard to the use of CPR and other medical interventions. Currently, DMOST is being underutilized, despite efforts by advocates and the creation of a statewide, electronic registry for DMOST forms hosted by the Delaware Health Information Network (DHIN). This Act will improve the utilization of DMOST forms by health-care practitioners, health-care providers, emergency-care providers, and patients and their families by creating a DMOST Program at the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS). This Act expands upon DHSS’ current responsibilities under DMOST by doing all of the following: 1. Providing ongoing education and training for health-care practitioners, health-care providers, emergency-care providers, and patients and their families. 2. Maintaining a website for information and education about DMOST. 3. Working with the DHIN to maintain the electronic registry. 4. Coordinating with the National POLST Collaborative regarding current best practices and research. (POLST, which stands for Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment, was the name given to the first tool developed for honoring patients' wishes for end of life treatment in 1991.) 5. Creating a DMOST Steering Committee, consisting of a broad group of stakeholders, to evaluate and improve the DMOST Program and the use of DMOST forms. The DMOST Steering Committee must produce an annual report containing data about the use of DMOST forms, trainings, public education and outreach, and current challenges and recommendations to improve the DMOST Program. This Act also makes technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual.