Early Wednesday morning, the legislative Conference Committee tasked with hashing out differences between the House and Senate versions of the state budget legislation (HB 96) publicly released their final negotiated-upon budget proposal. Legislators approved the final iteration of HB 96 later that day. As a reminder, state leaders are subject to a June 30th state constitutional deadline for passing the two-year spending bill. With approval from both chambers, HB 96 now heads to the governor for his signature.
HB 96 provides the state operating budget for fiscal years 2026-2027. Among the major items in contention during the Conference Committee deliberations were state income tax plans, school funding, and numerous other competing spending priorities.
As OSMA reported last week, during this year’s budget process, items pertinent to health care—which OSMA actively advocated on—fared quite well overall during the Senate process. Once the Conference Committee process started, the OSMA Advocacy team urgently communicated with members of the Committee regarding several key items and their potential inclusion in the final budget bill.
OSMA was successful in getting language included in HB 96 prohibiting a health plan issuer from charging a health care provider a fee for delivering payments via check or electronic transmission of funds. This budget language inclusion successfully achieves the goal of SB 166, separate legislation OSMA has been supporting which prohibits charging fees for electronic payments from health plans.
OSMA, in partnership with the Ohio Academy of Family Physicians and the Ohio Psychiatric Physicians Association, was able to secure $2 million in additional state funds dedicated to expanding graduate medical education residency slots in family medicine and psychiatry, which are areas of great need and will help address physician workforce shortages in the state.
OSMA also successfully advocated to Conference Committee members to reject House-passed budget language concerning the re-establishment of prior authorization under Medicaid.
Our Advocacy Team supported maintaining current law which requires that county coroners are elected positions, and not appointed. OSMA believes it is important that county coroners are chosen by election in their local communities.
$10 million in funding the OhioSEE program was included in the final budget as well, which will provide vision screenings and eyeglasses to children in schools from kindergarten to third grade. This program would be administered through the Ohio Department of Health (ODH). OSMA supported this funding in order to support children’s vision. In the 2022-2023 school year, it is estimated that at least 35,000 students in Ohio who needed eyeglasses did not receive them. Families face barriers such as lack of vision insurance, time, transportation, and nearby vision care providers.
The final budget included OSMA support language that would prohibit courts from ordering any medical practitioner to perform a medical procedure that is inconsistent with the practitioner’s expert medical opinion. This includes body cavity and strip searches of patients. OSMA recently helped fight for physician autonomy and achieve a legal win in Lorain County regarding a case in which physicians at Mercy Health – Lorain Hospital Emergency Department were presented with a request from the Lorain Police Department to perform a manual rectal examination on a detainee to retrieve a suspected foreign object, presumed to be drugs. Physicians refused in accordance with their training and medical judgement, and a criminal complaint was filed. After OSMA joined together with the Lorain County Medical Society and the American College of Emergency Physicians (Ohio ACEP) in an effort to support the physicians involved in the case, the prosecutor dismissed the case. While this case resulted in a positive outcome, we urged the Committee to include this language in the final budget in order to cement safeguards for physician autonomy in the law. No healthcare provider should be forced to perform a procedure that they believe to be unsafe, unethical, or contrary to professional standards. Threatening physicians with legal or administrative repercussions for prioritizing patient safety and adhering to ethical guidelines is an unacceptable assault on the medical profession.