Funding for New Mexico and focus is provided by viewers like you.

The House has.

Adjourned.

A swift special session has wrapped up in Santa Fe with Democrats and Republicans disagreeing over whether it should have happened at all.

Lawmakers have funded health care, rural hospitals and public media after a flood of cuts by the Trump administration.

Welcome to New Mexico and focus on Nash Jones.

New Mexico lawmakers adjourned a two day special session last night.

Our crew was there from gavel to gavel, and over the next hour, we're going to break down everything they did and didn't get done.

The session was billed as an emergency response to the federal reconciliation bill, the so-called one big, beautiful bill that's set to dramatically lower federal funding for Medicaid and SNAP.

One in five New Mexicans rely on SNAP to stay fed.

And over 40% of state residents get their health coverage through Medicaid.

Federal Medicaid cuts will also put hospitals and clinics in rural New Mexico at risk of closure.

Lawmakers filled some of those expected gaps with more than $162 million in state funds.

And we're going to bring you the specifics throughout the show.

They created state responses to other federal changes to tax credits that make Obamacare plans more affordable or are set to expire at the end of the year unless Democrats in Congress are able to expand them in their negotiations over this week's government shutdown.

Well, no matter how the debate plays out federally.

New Mexico lawmakers have put state money towards keeping your exchange plans cheaper.

They also approved funding for public broadcasting stations like ours and more than a dozen others, which officially lost all federal funding this week as a result of the federal rescission package Trump signed in July.

Additionally, amid federal confusion over COVID vaccine access, state lawmakers amended the state law.

So New Mexico's health department doesn't have to depend on those federal guidelines just for this flu and COVID season.

Finally, lawmakers also made a fix to a public safety package they passed earlier this year, allowing judges at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court to determine a defendant's competency to stand trial.

Five bills in two days.

So we've got lots to cover to make sure you understand what lawmakers enacted on your behalf.

So let's start where they ended with Democratic House leaders speaking to the press moments after gaveling out yesterday, hours after the Senate had already gone home.

Here's Democratic Speaker of the House Javier Martinez.

The last few days, you took critical steps to safeguard New Mexicans from the greatest threats facing them.

But the work here is not done.

While we may only be in session a small part of the year.

Our work on federal cuts in other priority issues like public safety and child well-being will continue in the next legislative session.

These are not new issues to us.

That's why we have been laser focused on things like wiki reform, public safety, infrastructure, health care.

And while Washington sits in dysfunction, this legislature and in particular we this caucus will continue to show how we can work with civility and on behalf of New Mexico.

The last thing I want to say is it's the men and women you see behind me.

Each of each and every single one of them is an incredible leader for their community.

We've got representatives who travel many hours to get up here for this two day special session.

We've got people who came from Navajo Nation.

We have people who came from the Colonials down with our border with Mexico.

We have people who left their young children, their elderly parents to be here to deliver for the people of New Mexico, because that's what we were elected to do.

And we're not going to play into the hands of the dysfunctional game that we see in Washington, D.C.

That's not who we are.

So caucus voters.

Thank you all for sticking this out to my counterparts on the other side of the aisle.

Thank you for the healthy and fruitful debate.

Thank you for standing up for your ideas and your ideals and your values.

I know I speak on behalf of this caucus behind me that we enjoy and look forward to a robust, healthy debate any time, any place.

I have not talked to the governor, but in our conversations prior to this special session, which resulted in the proclamation that is that gave way to this special session, I think that she will be very much supportive of the work that we did over the last couple of days.

I should also say big props to the governor and her team, as well as our Senate colleagues for putting in the hard work.

Those guys finished before we did.

Obviously grateful for them.

It was a great, great partnership over the last few days.

This these are temporary fixes.

No state in the nation can withstand the immensity and the cruelty of the cuts in the big bill.

Most states actually can't even plug the holes that will play.

We have been very smart with taxpayer money over the last several years and we are in a position to help offset, for example, increases in insurance premiums on the Obamacare exchange.

But it's not a long term solution.

Now, as we look forward to the 30 day session and beyond, because a lot of these cuts, they deferred a Y. My opinion is that they were afraid to face the voters in November of 2026.

So unless the Congress changes hands in the rescind these cuts, we're going to be back here looking for ways to plug these holes.

But again, these are insurmountable holes for any seat to put.

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham released a statement last night saying she plans to sign the five bills lawmakers sent to her desk, adding, quote, We refuse to let New Mexico families fall through the cracks because Republicans in Washington have abandoned their responsibility to the American people.

She expressed, quote, deep disappointment in state Republicans for their votes against the vaccine policy change, which kept the bill from reaching the two thirds majority vote.

It needed to go into effect immediately.

It will instead be enacted 90 days after it's signed.

Quote, There's no good reason for Republicans to make New Mexicans wait 90 days for vaccines they need to protect their health.

The governor wrote, While she and Democratic lawmakers mostly saw eye to eye this session, that's not always the case.

The last special session in 2024 ended in the matter of hours after the governor's party rebuffed her public safety proposals as not ready for primetime.

Well, as this week's session got underway, I caught up with majority floor leader Senator Peter Wirth to find out how the governor's proposal shaped up, where they found compromises, and why Democrats agreed that these were the issues that needed urgent attention.

Yesterday, your Republican colleagues said that this is not an emergency, or at least the priorities that the Democratic leadership have set out are not emergencies.

Why does the special session need to happen and need to happen now?

So nothing could be further from the truth.

The impact of this federal bill is unlike anything I've seen in the 20 plus years I've been here, and we've been on some wild rollercoaster rides over those times.

Senator Heinrich said last week, $4 billion just in Medicaid cuts every year.

That's a recurring number.

And so this is a critical first step.

And I want to be clear, we're not going to solve all of this, but we have to be here to get the funding out to working families that are going to lose health insurance if we don't come in right now.

We've got to get the money to the health care authority, the agency that's going to implement all these changes.

When you have all these new requirements and qualification thresholds, obviously the system, it's the states government system.

The I.T.

has to be able to do that.

Those start January 1st.

So some of this is prepping for the changes.

Are there other provisions of the big bill that could not wait till January to be addressed?

Yeah, absolutely.

And I think you heard this morning we talked at a press conference earlier about the health care issue.

The reason the government is shut down is over this exact issue.

These were credits that were extended to allow insurance under the Affordable Care Act to be reachable for working families, that those insurance credits have been pulled back.

And the result of that, if we don't step in, are massive increases to insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

So that is a bill you're going to see right away.

Also, the rural hospital fund that we're going to open up and the changes we're going to make there are critical.

I think as you start to pull people off of Medicaid, those dollars are essential to the rural hospitals to function.

And so changing some eligibility requirements for additional state money will happen in this session.

Two examples of things that need to happen immediately.

And then you'll see in the appropriation bill a variety of little line items, whether it's SNAP benefits for targeted folks, public TV, public radio, some of the small public radio stations with how to supplement or lose.

That money's gone today.

There you go.

So right on time.

So we have to be here to just get ourselves to January and then we're going to be in round two.

And as this as these Medicaid cuts come, unless Congress changes this law, New Mexico is in for some really tough times.

Your last special session adjourned in a matter of hours.

Some of that was around disagreement between the legislative body and the governor's office about public safety priorities.

Do you anticipate the relationship between your body and the governor's office to be different this time around and that the length of time of the special session as well?

Yeah.

So we have work collaboratively House, Senate Democrats with the governor and this is the agenda we've come up with.

There will be five bills.

Much of them have been negotiated.

That language has gone back and forth.

They're the governor's bills.

They're all going to get hearings.

We're going to move them quick.

And I think we can move them quick because we've done the work in the front end to get us to this place.

You know, special sessions don't work unless the bills are really ready to go.

And so this is a very different situation from a year ago.

And I just want to commend the governor for recognizing the urgency of this moment and the more I get into this, the more I realize the road ahead of us is going to be long and it's critical that we're here.

One topic that's not big bill related that I think some folks were surprised to see and is and is one where there hasn't been agreement before with competency.

Is that bill fully baked at this point?

And what changed?

So it's one small piece that we're fixing.

So this was a bill that we did pass back in the 60 day session.

But what we did is we excluded the Albuquerque Metropolitan Court from being able to make competency decisions.

So the courts came to us and said, we have to have this lower court in Albuquerque able to make those decisions.

That's the only thing this bill does.

And so we agreed to include it because it kind of fits into the whole discussion about behavioral health that we've been having.

And I just think as you start to roll back New Mexicans off of Medicaid, more New Mexicans without Insurance for Care Act becomes too expensive.

Boy, having the safety net there, the behavioral health work that we did in January is going to be absolutely critical.

With strong majorities in both chambers.

New Mexico Democrats are empowered to set the agenda and pace of a legislative session.

And this week they did just that by signing all six Republican bills to a committee that never met ahead of the session.

House Republicans described being excluded from session planning.

Here's Representative Rebecca Dow.

46% of New Mexicans are being disenfranchized when the mine, the party and the minority is being left out.

Of the loop.

That that's not democracy.

The entire set up a balance of power is designed to protect the party of the minority, the party of the minority.

And we're being left out intentionally.

Party leaders also argued the session itself was unnecessary.

If that is, it would focus on the issues most pressing to Democrats, filling federal funding gaps with state dollars.

Cuts from Trump's big bill, they said, were neither immediate nor as drastic as the left is making them out to be.

The party relied on DC based conservative think tank EPIC, the Economic Policy Innovation Center, to make the case that snap cuts are moderate and Medicaid isn't actually being cut at all under the big bill.

News outlet The Hill characterized Epic as a, quote, key advice line for House Republicans crafting and advancing the federal reconciliation bill.

Their analysts argued that while Medicaid spending is set to drop nearly $1,000,000,000,000 over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, since spending will continue to increase each year, it's not technically a cut.

Semantics of what counts.

As a cut aside, the New Mexico Health Care Authority estimates the state will lose about three and a half billion dollars it would have otherwise received in federal Medicaid funding during the big bill's first year and nearly $20 billion over the next five.

To understand more about why state Republicans don't see this health care and food assistance funding losses as urgent and what they do see as emergencies facing New Mexico.

I sat down with minority floor leader senator bill share on the sessions.

Opening Day.

Minority Floor Leader Bill Share.

Thank you so much for for making the time.

Oh, it's my pleasure.

Absolutely.

How do you feel about the governor calling you all back to Santa Fe this week?

I absolutely think that this is not necessary.

It's very premature.

What we're talking about are actions that aren't going to happen for at least 18 months, which means that if there's something we need to do, we can do it in the regular session.

We don't need to do it now.

We certainly don't need to rush anything.

And so I just don't think it's that special.

When I spoke with Leader Worth, he was saying that, you know, one of one of the provisions they want to see is to help the health care authority bolster its capacity in order to get ready for some of these Medicaid changes.

And that that would be an example of something that needs to be done now.

Well, that's the only example of anything that is useful to do.

But even then, we don't have to change our budget to do it.

We have what we call budget adjustment systems.

So we could take a couple of hundred thousand dollars from the existing health care budget and apply it to where we think we need it just so we can do the the buildout that we need to do.

So it's not it didn't need to be a special budget session to do this.

We could have done that.

And this is the kind of stuff that we do all the time.

In fact, having a budget adjustment.

What about Medicaid and SNAP federal funding rollbacks?

Do you feel like that is something that is an emergent need, an urgent need or something that could have waited?

Nothing.

Nothing is going to happen on either one of those for at least 18 months.

So we absolutely could have waited.

Plus, we don't really know what all the rules are yet.

So the law's been written, but then all of the regulators write the regulations and the rules for that.

We don't have those rules yet.

So here we are with this anticipation of something happening, but we don't know what truly is going to happen.

And it's not going to happen for 18 months, which means that's why we don't need to be here today.

Are there issues that you feel like are emergencies in New Mexico?

Absolutely.

We have a health care crisis.

We have a huge health care crisis.

That's an emergency.

That's something we should be dealing with right now.

And that's because of the medical malpractise laws that we put in place that created this.

The legislature, legislature and the governor created this health care crisis.

Yes, that's important.

We need to fix that.

Our crime problem is huge.

We ought to fix that.

Yes.

The Republican Party, your Republican Party, has filed a few bills, has introduced a few bills to address what you are outlining as key emergencies in the state.

Can you talk about what the Republican Party is aiming to get done?

Well, the first thing here is we've got medical compacts, which is where we agree to accept medical licenses from other states so that doctors, nurses, whoever, psychologists, psychiatrists can operate in New Mexico.

And that has been held up for reasons that I don't understand.

It's been held up because the trial attorneys don't think they can sue the out of state doctor as well as they can.

And so they want to make sure they can do that.

Bizarre to me.

Our health care crisis is because we're suing doctors out of business and driving up their insurance that the medical professionals insurance rates to a point where they can't operate, they simply can't function.

Okay.

On the governor's call, there was a bill to their proposal to study and prepare for the eventual implementation of a compact like that.

That could be done in January.

Yes.

Is that something that you're excited to see?

How do you feel about that proposal?

Well, I'm grateful that they're finally coming around with this.

Absolutely.

We've been talking about it for a couple of years and it's just been very frustrating in my mind that as a legislature, we have chosen attorneys over doctors intentionally.

Most of us have a doctor.

Some of us have attorneys.

So why did we pick attorneys over doctors?

And we didn't have to pick one over the other.

But but that's what we did.

And that's what created this this medical crisis that we have.

And you have, I believe, six bills overall that the GOP does on the Senate side.

What are some of the other proposals?

So another one has to do with Cyf, the Children, Youth and Families Department all the time.

Not all the time, but often we're reading about another child that died while in Cyf custody or was sent back into a terrible situation and died or ended up in critical condition in the hospital system.

Because right now Cyf has a a by statute, a rule that says reunify vacation with the family is the goal.

Reunification.

But if you have a family situation that is dangerous for the child, why should reunification be the goal?

I mean, if you took the child out of that dangerous situation because the child was in danger, why do you want to put the child right back in there?

And that's the goal.

Ours is for the the for the child, the best interest of the child.

That's the words that we use.

The best interest of the child.

If the best interest of the child is to get mom and baby back together, good.

But if the best interest of the child is to move the baby away from mom or dad or whoever uncle, then the narrative that's way more important.

It appears to me that the Senate has assigned all of the Republican bills to the committees committee this morning.

I don't see the committee's committee on the schedule for meeting.

Is that a death sentence for these bills?

It is.

It's not unexpected.

But we felt that we had an obligation if we're going to have a special session, let's do something special.

Something else special that you did is you met with Democratic Majority Leader Pier Worth this morning and presented on political violence, addressed political violence at the top of the session.

Yes.

Tell me about that.

What was the thinking behind that?

Why was it important?

This is this is deeply important to me.

I am an infantry officer still mentally, even though I'm old, in fact, now.

But this is unacceptable in America.

It's unacceptable that the former speaker of the Minnesota, who's still a representative, is assassinated in our house.

It's unacceptable that Charlie Kirk, that violence would come to him.

So what did you in leader worth call for.

The stopped political violence?

Both of us from anybody, from any reason.

It's unthinkable that we would kill each other.

It's not unthinkable that we could argue with each other.

It's unthinkable that we could kill each other.

Senator Sherrod, thanks for your time.

Thank you.

We're going to hear a bit more about one of those items Senator Sherrod mentioned the Interstate Medical Compact a little later in the show outside of the round house.

Demonstrators showed up to protest two issues that have bubbled to the surface in recent years and stayed there far from.

Over.

This video is from a protest on Wednesday where dozens of people gathered to speak out against Israel's ongoing war in Gaza.

Demonstrators chanted and spoke up for Palestinians.

Earlier that day, another group took aim at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, and the three immigrant prisons here in New Mexico.

They read letters from people detained at the Torrance County detention facility in Estancia.

Moving even further outside the roundhouse to the Santa Fe Plaza.

We're going to hear from another candidate for that city's mayor.

On previous episodes of The Focus, we ran through three questions with lower ranked candidates in the races for mayor of Santa Fe and Albuquerque.

And you may have seen some of our lengthier in-studio interviews with other candidates to make the call about who would get that longer treatment.

We factored in fundraising, excluding any contributions candidates made to themselves, along with ballot petition signatures to identify the candidates with the most and least support among voters.

This week, our reporter Kelly Cello returned to the plaza to let Santa Fe mayoral hopeful Taryn Nix make her case for the job.

I sat down with a couple of Santa Fe mayoral candidates so far, and today we're sitting down with Taryn Nix and giving her 60 seconds to answer three different questions.

Those are the same questions I've asked the other candidates about some of Sanofi's top issues like the unhoused, the affordability crisis and cultural reconciliation.

Darren, thank you so much for sitting down with me today.

Let's get right into it.

Question one.

How do you feel about the city's current response to the rising unhoused population, including Santa Fe's recent partnership with Urban Alchemy?

And what specifically would you change in terms of policy and strategy?

Yeah, I think the city's response has been a little short sighted and hasn't quite done what they hoped it would.

For me, it's about a one stop campus and an emergency action immediately to get some mental health facilities built, to get drug rehab facilities in place, to get a larger shelter, an emergency shelter that now doesn't exist because of the contract with Urban Alchemy and, you know, ensure that we have an encampment area.

You know, the next is just to really start working with our police and first responders to address that epidemic in house instead of going out of house and spending millions of dollars.

Thanks so much.

Moving on, question number two.

We see headlines all the time about the city's growing and affordability crisis, which is impacting everyone from service workers to police officers.

What is your plan to make Santa Fe a place where people can both work and live?

Yeah, you know, I mean, I'm on Habitat for Humanity board.

I take great pride in the fact that I've helped deliver affordable housing for seniors for the first time for the state land office.

I take housing very seriously, and the only one proposing that we think big, that we propose a $100 million trust to build out affordable that city owned and operated that stays affordable for generations as opposed to going into back to the market and rising costs.

I am all for streamlining our services.

I want affordable housing to jump straight to the front of the line and I want the city to actually commit to making the program happen, to do a down payment, down payments for our first responders to get them back into our communities.

Got 20 seconds if you want it.

And, you know, the other day, I'm a social worker, so I really care a lot about how we get not only our first responders, but our teachers back into our community, how we get our health care workers housing.

And I think the way we do that is through that hundred million dollars trust, we build out affordable units.

We build out Section eight for the first time in 30 years.

I'm committed and I'm ready to do it.

Great.

Thanks so much.

And question three What is your opinion of how the city has handled the issue of cultural reconciliation?

Whether it be through the Plaza Obelisk or the Kit Carson statue or fiestas?

And what, if anything, would you do differently as mayor?

Yeah, you know, I think this administration and has divided this community when it should have united us to celebrate all cultures.

I'm ready to lean in and ready to tell the full and complete history.

I think it's exciting what we come from.

I think our 400 year history is something that should be celebrated and told in its full and complete history.

That's all I've got.

Thank you so much.

Oh, that was it.

Yeah, that's it.

Oh, yeah.

That was Terry Nicks, one of the eight candidates vying for your vote for Santa Fe mayor.

We'll speak to the rest of the candidates as we get closer to the November election for New Mexico and focus on Kelly Taylor reporting.

Thanks to you, Terry Nicks, for sitting for our questions.

We'll continue covering the Santa Fe mayor's race in the coming weeks.

But back to this week's special session.

Access to COVID vaccines has been dizzying lately, with a policy change at the FDA, an adjustment to the CDC recommendation, and followed by multiple orders at the state level, including a blanket prescription written for all New Mexicans.

Well, at this week's session, Democratic lawmakers took on the state's immunization law in hopes of clearing it up and uncoupling it from the federal standards.

It passed despite broad Republican dissent.

However, it did fail to get the two thirds vote that would have put it into effect immediately upon the governor's signature and instead become law 90 days later.

And the law is temporary.

It's scheduled to sunset on July 1st to capture the opposing perspective.

Correspondent Gwenyth Dolan spoke with Democratic State Senator Linda Lopez and I spent a few minutes with Jay BLOCK, one of her outspoken Republican counterparts.

Senator, thank you so much for talking about this COVID vaccine bill that you are sponsoring.

It would shift the force of child vaccine recommendations away from the federal federal government and a CDC committee.

Why?

Well, the main reason is because the committee that, of course, is part of the CDC was taking a very long time to issue any type of information for states.

We are currently in the midst.

I call it in the mist the beginning, I guess some will say with regards to COVID as it's beginning to pop up in many different communities across the state.

And in waiting for that information direction to come down from the federal government.

It puts us, I think, in a very difficult place.

We want to make sure that our communities have access to COVID vaccines if they so wish to use advantage of it.

This is not a mandate, but it allows our Department of Health to issue the recommendations so that there's access for COVID vaccinations in New Mexico.

You had questions from some Republican members of the committee today about speeding up that process.

Is it safe to jump ahead of the CDC here?

I believe it is, because the recommendations that we're looking at is still referred to in the federal government.

But we'll be utilizing, again, the same recommendations from the Academy of Pediatrics and others to make sure that we're following the guidelines that have been issued.

But again, this is something that New Mexico will be able to move forward with and not waiting for the CDC to issue their information for us.

And more speedy at at the basic level is this Democrats in New Mexico saying we don't trust a CDC run by RFK and and we don't trust any of their appointees.

So we want to turn to people that we trust more.

It's just actually going through the process and saying, you're taking too long.

We value New Mexicans.

We value those in our communities to make sure that they can get a timely access to COVID vaccines if that's what they so choose to do.

So some of the recommendations that the state would follow if this passes will come from the American Association of Pediatrics and some would come from the State Department of Health as that.

Yes, it will.

Now, what if you're a Democrat?

If in a future administration there's a Republican governor and a Republican appointee who's the secretary of health here running our Department of Health, and maybe that future secretary is a lot like RFK.

Would you then be right back where you are?

Well, again, we're still following the recommendations, which is what the law the statute will say.

So based as to what the recommendations are of the professional organizations.

We would still have to follow that.

You had some concerns here.

All three Republicans who are present in committee today voted against this.

They were worried about parents abilities to say no to certain vaccines, about parents ability to get their kids into daycare and about constitutional issues.

Did any of those give you or the other presenters concern?

Well, there were some concerns that were raised about unconstitutionality.

I am unaware, but I certainly would go back and do some research and see if there is and are any issues around that.

But there's this is not a mandate.

And if parents wish to exempt their child, there's still that process that's in existence.

This does not change what is currently in statute with regards to exceptions.

That still stands.

Senator BLOCK, thanks so much for your time.

Thank you.

Nash Jones So you voted against the immunization rule change bill on the Senate floor.

Why?

It's going to cause a lot of confusion between the federal government in the state.

And, you know, we keep talking, you know, follow the science, more information.

And what the Democrats did, they did completely the opposite.

And now if you were saying that you felt like parents wouldn't be able to make as informed decisions, are you worried about mandates?

Because I'm not seeing any vaccine mandates in the bill.

It's not about mandates.

The exemptions are in there.

We asked about the religious exemptions.

They're in there even though the American Academy of Pediatrics, they have been against exemptions.

They've been against religious exemptions.

They have been wrong on many, many things with children's allergies, with masking up of two year olds and under during COVID.

Another concern you raised on the Senate floor was that this bill could put the state at risk for losing federal funding.

How so?

Well, I think when the feds take a look at this bill, if the governor signs it and they see all these differences between what New Mexico is doing and what mandates in compliance from the feds, they they could potentially withhold some funding.

And that's a concern for us, because New Mexico, as you know, we rely heavily on federal funding.

And this right here, if we lose federal funding on vaccines, again, the Democrats are putting a lot of people at risk.

And it's not right.

Your party is usually backing the states rights to do their own thing.

You know, it's funny you say that because we looked at that, right?

We have a whole list of states rights issues that we wanted.

And the Democrats say, well, this is the states rights issue.

Well, it's a safety issue as well.

And when we push back on all these federal mandates that the Democrats didn't push back on when we used the states rights argument.

So it was really just a it was it was a ignorant argument, which is completely.

Baseless.

Well, of course, the debate you're having here at the Senate is representative of New Mexicans, and you're doing it on behalf of the New Mexico public.

What are you hearing from your constituents about, you know, is there any vaccine confusion?

How do they feel about these rule changes?

That's a great question because I've been getting a lot of emails in the past two days.

I've been answering all of them on SB three.

I have had about 35 people email me and say, No, we don't want this.

It causes confusion.

And then I only had one in support.

So a lot of people right now, they don't trust the medical community.

And I can understand why.

And I think the Trump administration is trying to be a lot more transparent so they can make better decisions.

And again, New Mexicans want as much data as possible to protect their kids, and we're not getting it here in the state.

You heard Senator BLOCK referred to ASAP, arguing the bill completely eliminated the advisory committee from the state's consideration of its own vaccine recommendations.

That's not quite right.

Our team struggled to parse what role, if any, ACIP retained in the bill since Republicans argued it was completely scratched and Democrats argued they'd left it in as an available source to the state and simply added more.

Well, we reached out an expert on the subject to clear up the partizan talking points.

According to the state's chief medical officer, Dr.

Miranda Durham, ACIP recommendations remain an option for the department of Health in determining its vaccine policy.

To learn more about access to COVID vaccines in New Mexico, find out our extended interview last week with Dr.

Durham on the New Mexico and focus YouTube page.

The health and well-being of New Mexicans was a top priority in this week's special session.

From vaccines, as you just heard, to continued access to food assistance, affordable insurance and rural hospitals despite any funding rollbacks at the federal level.

Well, all of that state funding will go through the new Mexico Health Care Authority.

That agency will also be charged with implementing the related policy changes that lawmakers passed.

So between committee hearings where the Health Authority Secretary Armijo was serving as an expert witness on how her agency would navigate it all, we asked her to break down the bills and extra money that are heading her way.

Secretary, me, thanks so much for making the time.

Thanks for taking the time to miss me.

Of course.

Well, the health care, the rural health care delivery fund was established back in 2023.

It's back on the agenda for the special session.

Why?

What changes are needed?

Well, as we look ahead to what's at the federal level, there are going to be major changes to our coverage landscape here in New Mexico.

So we're going to see losses of Medicaid coverage.

We're going to see some losses on the marketplace that's going to result in higher uncompensated care to our health care system.

And we're also looking at changes in how Medicaid reimbursement works at the federal level, which is going to result in eight and a half billion dollars loss of federal funding to New Mexico's health care delivery system over the next 9 to 10 years.

So what we're really doing with this change to the rural health care delivery fund is making sure that we have a pot of money to stabilize New Mexico's provider network when there are providers out there that may be struggling to stay afloat to keep those services going in our rural communities.

And where does the fund stand today?

I mean, despite what happens at the special session, is it out of money?

Well, almost out of money.

We have we've distributed the health care authorities distributed at 146 million to New Mexico's health care providers to expand new services.

But the current statute is really limited to the expansion of new services, and it really is in poor stabilization.

So that's the main change that we're making.

In addition to requesting $50 million to support that new stabilization effort.

Okay.

And in terms of changing the eligibility, I had spoken with some Republican lawmakers before the session started who were concerned that how the eligibility was shifting would actually dilute what's available to rural communities and make more urban communities qualify.

I don't believe that's correct.

You can you break down who newly qualifies?

Yeah.

So currently the statute is limited to counties with fewer than 100,000 residents.

And so there are some counties in New Mexico with that didn't qualify for the existing funding because they have more than 100,000 residents, that they have very rural pockets within those counties.

And so what we try to do is make a change to really get at those very rural catchment areas within counties that might be more urban.

So same Dona Ana County, which has lost, says it also has a few rural.

Exactly.

So for example, Hatch is a really rural community and they would qualify under the new structure, but Las Cruces wouldn't.

And New Mexico's hospital association estimated that between six and eight hospitals could close because of the Medicaid rollbacks that you're referring to.

Does $50 million change that?

Probably not, to be honest.

You know, as you're looking at eight and a half billion dollars loss to New Mexico's hospitals over the next decade, $50 million, even if it was distributed all to hospitals, wouldn't make up that difference.

But it is something is a way to stabilize some services out in our communities so that they don't have to shrink those at those times.

You know, hospitals are going to be looking ahead to a couple of years from now and making some business decisions about what they need to cut.

And what we're trying to do is reduce those caps and try to make up for that and create some stability as we head into changes under the reconciliation bill.

Is there a chance that long term there's further investments?

I sure hope so.

I hope that we will be really investing heavily in New Mexico's health care system over the next couple of years.

Your agency is also set to receive $16 million from this session's budget bill to maintain SNAP benefits.

Which one in five New Mexicans rely on to to stay fed.

Your department had previously said that under the new federal reconciliation bill, the big bill, New Mexico will need to contribute around $200 million a year to maintain current services as they are.

So what does $16 million do to that effort?

Yeah, great question.

So there are different provisions of the reconciliation bill that are going to hit at different times.

So that bigger financial hit is coming later for New Mexico.

And so it wasn't addressed specifically in this special session.

What the special session is for that $16 million is really for people who are immediately affected by snap changes that are going into effect during fiscal year 26.

And that's really what we're trying to protect for now.

And then we'll come back and address those bigger dollar issues later.

Okay.

$10 million is going to be used to prepare your agency to deal with the changes in Medicaid and SNAP.

How will you those funds?

Well, we've got a staff up and we've got to train our workforce because most of these changes affect our frontline workers.

But we also have major I.T.

system changes that we need to make.

We've got an eligibility systems.

We're going to have to program that with the new changes.

We've got major call center infrastructure so that we can provide good customer service.

And then we've got our customer portal.

So where New Mexicans report changes, we're going have to make some changes there, too.

That sounds like a lot.

Yeah, well, 10 million be enough.

I'm.

Yeah, I think it's a good start.

It's a good start.

We may need a little bit more, but we'll address that during the 30 day session.

So it's a great start.

I'm really grateful for the legislative support of the agency.

A bargaining chip that we have been seeing used on the federal level during this week's shutdown is the the premium tax credits for ACA plans for Obamacare plans.

They are set to expire at the end of the year.

Another bill this session in the House would authorize the states health care affordability fund to be used to help keep plans affordable for New Mexicans.

What would this mean for those who get their health care on the exchange?

What it really means is that didn't they had planned ahead for the expiration of the advance premium tax credits, the enhanced tax credits we had planned for that for people below 400% of poverty.

But watching premium increases really across the country on the marketplace, we're really fighting to make sure that we can continue to support families over 400% of the poverty level because they are going to be hit with really high premium increases, as much as 91% in a premium increase.

If we don't go in and get this funding now.

So we're really trying to support that so we can minimize coverage losses on the marketplace and sustain that coverage landscape is.

It everybody above 400% or is there a cap?

I believe there is a cap and that it kind of scales up.

And so it's really for folks closest to that line there.

And the budget bill allows for 17 million from the affordability fund.

This in this first fiscal year, I think for the remainder of this fiscal year.

Will there be additional funds pulled from the affordability fund in future?

Yeah, I mean, that's the goal is to really try to address those kinds of broader issues in the 30 day session.

But we'll be looking to share all of that up in a longer session.

Secretary, thank you.

Thank you.

Lawmakers passed all of the bills that I discussed with Secretary Armijo.

That includes those changes to the rural health care delivery fund, using another fund to keep ACA plans more affordable and new money to maintain SNAP benefits at their current levels and help the agency prepare for enrollment changes.

For weeks, Democratic Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham was pushing lawmakers in her party to get on board with New Mexico, joining what's called an interstate medical licensure compact to help address the state's doctor shortage.

Not unlike the governor's public safety proposals passed, it was Republican lawmakers who were on board.

Democratic lawmakers argued there wasn't enough time in this week's short session with more pressing needs in front of them.

But they did appear to strike a compromise approving $100,000 to study and prepare to implement interstate compacts.

Speaker Martinez said at the end of the session that Democratic lawmakers intended to approve compact agreements early on in January's regular session.

And this new funding will help speed that effort up.

To learn more about compacts, how they could bring more doctors to New Mexico and why joining in now felt urgent to some.

I walked across the street from the round house to meet up with Marshall Smith, executive director of the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission.

Marshall Smith, thanks so much for talking with me.

Thank You.

Let's start with what is an interstate medical licensure compact?

An interstate medical licensure compact is an expedited way that physicians can get license to practice in different states.

There are currently 43 member states, the District of Columbia and the territory Guam, that are part of the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact.

What that means is those physicians using our process can get a license to practice medicine in about 7 to 10 days versus a three to 4 to 6 month process that follows the traditional process.

How does that work?

Expedited.

So much.

So.

The way that our process is expedited is the physician is already licensed and practicing in another state and that state has already gathered all of the primary documents that states use to license physicians where they went to medical school, where they did their graduate medical education, where their board certification resides.

So that state, where they're already licensed verify is from primary source and an online application the physician fills out and therefore the other states then accept that application rather than gathering all of the paperwork that they would normally use to issue a license.

It's also why it's important that a state join the compact and that we become a part of the legislature passes the bill and the governor sign.

Okay.

New Mexico is not part of a compact yet, is that right?

They are not part of the medical, the physician compact.

New Mexico is a part of the nursing compact, but that's the only health care party compact.

And there is some bipartisan support around this because we are seeing calls from the New Mexico Republican Party to join Physician Compact as well as the Democratic governor's office.

Michelle Lujan Grisham wanted to see that in the special session agenda.

It appears to have been negotiated in some way because initially we were thinking this wasn't going to be on her call.

What we see on the agenda for this session is basically a bill to study and prepare for the potential implementation of something like this.

But the conversation around let's do this has mostly been around New Mexico's physician shortage.

So how does joining a physician compact address that.

So that the physician compacts each state that has joined our compact will generally sees about a 10 to 15% increase in the number of physicians that they license in a year.

And why so?

Because the physicians one, it makes your state an opportunity for them to extend to expand their practice.

And two, it allows for the tellement practice of telemedicine.

If you're practicing telemedicine, the physician has to be licensed in the state where the patient is receiving their care.

So if you have somebody in New Mexico talking to a physician and receiving health care via telehealth, that physician has to be licensed in New Mexico.

Do you think that New Mexico, if they passed that bill, this session will be readied quickly?

I quickly addressed this issue in January.

So we've had conversations in the past when the bill was being looked at earlier this session.

We've talked with the staff of the Mexico Medical Board.

They are ready to start the implementation process.

It usually takes about 4 to 6 months for a state to be able to change their system and change their processes.

But we will, as soon as the bill passes, start that process and make sure that we're we're here.

We're going to make it work for New Mexico.

And that's the other great thing about the compact is it really is designed as a tool for New Mexico, which has a different set of requirements and needs than Colorado or Arizona or Utah, which are all parts of the compact.

So it will be unique to New Mexico.

It will solve the problem.

New Mexico wants to solve with it because those people around the state that are on the border will allow them to get care on either side of the border because the physicians are licensed to do that.

It will also help people who don't live in New Mexico full time.

If you've got a physician and you have an illness or a you have a disease that you're being treated by your New Mexico physician, that New Mexico physician can get licensed in the state where you spend the other part of your your your your life.

And they then they can continue to treat you there and provide for prescriptions.

So it helps not only New Mexicans in New Mexico, but when they go abroad or if they're their sons or daughters go to college, they can continue to see the same physician.

Marshal Smith, thanks so much for breaking this all down.

Appreciate it.

All right.

Thanks to Marshal Smith for helping us wrap our heads around interstate medical compacts.

We're going to keep an eye on the ideas progress during the January session.

This is the first week that public media stations across the country, including us and more than a dozen others in New Mexico, are not federally funded.

That's because the Republican led Congress clawed back more than $1,000,000,000 that had already been budgeted for public media stations for the next two years.

And the special session New Mexico became one of, if not the first state in the country, to backfill that cut with state funding.

Lawmakers approved $5.6 million to split among the 12 public radio stations and three public TV stations, including an MPV.

That amounts to about one of the two years of federal funding that Congress took back.

The money will become available once the governor signs the bill and can be spent through the next fiscal year.

Correspondent Gwendolyn spoke with four representatives about what their district's public stations mean to their communities.

CPTPP has been a way of communication as well as an educational tool for us.

Many of our youths went through that activity, being the announcers and learning how to operate in the earlier days and we have been working on getting a local TV station, but that has not materialize yet at this point in time.

But the communication is very vital because it's done in Navajo.

And when you think about the language and cultural that has been lost, this has kept us in line, our learning experience for our young people to listen to our own people speak their language and learning from that.

And that has become a focus within the school as well as through the radio station.

And I think that is very, very important.

Do you have a. Newspaper in Roraima?

No, we don't have a newspaper in Roraima.

We have to depend on either grants or Gallup.

And The Navajo Times.

Does does the do their TV stations like us cover you very often?

No, it does not.

Unless you have Internet or whatever.

Then then you'll get some news, but mostly it's we have to depend on the radio.

Senator Woods, you represent a big piece of eastern New Mexico that is largely covered by TMW, which is the station at eastern New Mexico University.

They have radio.

They have they have television, too.

What role did those stations play in your community with your constituents?

Well, you know, so other than the fact that you can just tune in and watch them, it's a great training ground for communications.

And they spend a lot of time and money in the community bringing up Cuban community events.

And, you know, I'm pretty proud.

And they do a they do a good job and their programing is actually pretty conservative programs.

So that fits that part of the world.

So you support restoring some of this funding in the short term during this session?

Yes, I do.

Yes.

Long term, I mean, KSW is going to lose a pretty significant portion of its funding.

Do you think the local community can make that up where.

Well, they could make up some of it, I'm sure.

But but yeah, it's probably going to have to come from the state in Mexico, a big majority of it.

Good afternoon.

But Representative Lantos, your very big district goes all the way from Sandia Pueblo almost to the northern border of the state.

And it includes Dawsey, where there's a little station.

KC, IEEE.

Have you been there?

I've been there.

What's it like?

Well, it's a room.

Not much larger than this one here.

And when I went there, it was in a mobile home.

So a single wide mobile home and really limited capacity for technology.

But nonetheless, it got the word out to the constituents and the community there on what was going on and what was important and what they had to be aware of at that certain time.

So nothing, no glass towers, nothing too spectacular to look at.

But it was a great news outlet and a source for the people in and around that community there in this bowl that if if you don't have the right connections or maybe the right antenna, you won't receive any type of news and you'll be kind of out there in the dark.

Right.

So that's why they rely so much on that radio station and their local newspaper to get the what's going on in the community.

But they don't even have a commercial newspaper.

They have you know, they have Apache Communications and they do a really good job of that.

But they're they're covered very little.

So what kind of role does a little station like this play in a community like that?

Well, obviously, I think in these days, right, to make sure that if there's a threat of any sort, that they can alert the people that, hey, this is what's going on around the community where there's a huge concern.

They see winters like we don't see in these parts of the state.

So making sure that people are aware that there's a storm coming in, that there's snow coming in, schools are going to be closed or these roads are going to be closed or open or whatever it might be, right?

So with or without that type of a broadcast and resource, again, I mean, you might as well just live out where there is no communication at all.

This is the.

Place to just fight through.

Representative Pettigrew, you were just in a committee hearing about a bill that includes the funding for public broadcasting, and you had some concerns.

Where are you on the issue of public funding for public broadcasting?

At the state level?

Where I have a problem with today very specifically is how the funding was asked for.

I don't know what the proper guardrails are.

What I do know is that public radio and public television supports the public.

They don't sit in an office.

They need to be out.

They need to be talking to communities.

Where's the revenue for the state coming from?

Where are the issues with respect to what happened with House Bill six and the destination tax?

So then what's the damage to southeastern New Mexico and all the other counties across the state?

Where's the reporting on that?

That's the political perspective.

I don't care.

Left to right.

What is the word we want?

Our constituents have to say, are our constituents even listening to you?

And do they even know you exist?

We're in the middle of of of a November election that's going to set new members for it, for school boards, county commissioners, city commissioners, mayors across the eastern side of the state.

With respect to the fatality radio system, they're not at the forums, or at least that they are.

They're not new ones in southeastern New Mexico.

They should be there.

They should be talking to the candidates, just like you guys do today.

So getting out of the studio, doing that kind of field reporting is often the most difficult and the most extensive.

So am I hearing you say you would be willing to increase state funding for public broadcasting if it were tied to a demonstrated increase in coverage?

Yeah.

You're supposed to be a news source.

The educates everybody in in your listening range.

I don't think it should be one sided.

I think the government should look at it.

Somebody in oversight should look at it from.

Is it fair and balanced?

Okay.

And I'm not talking Fox News star balanced.

I mean, is it truly a fair and balanced thing?

Are they talking about both sides of the perspective?

So, yes, I think there should be some level of oversight.

Do I think it should be underneath a very specific government arm?

No.

Do I believe it belongs in higher education?

Hell, no.

I don't believe it should be under higher education.

I believe that we've gotten too tilted in our education and too tilted on one side.

So I believe it needs to be created in a system to where there is a balance to it.

And yes, I think everything that involves government spending should have oversight.

Do I have a problem with the state of New Mexico funding public radio?

Public television?

Not at all.

As long as there's a set of guidelines and they are truly involved in the communities.

Thanks to Gwyneth Doland for her work this week and our whole crew for pulling long days at the Roundhouse and staying on their toes as we follow what lawmakers are up to.

For New Mexico PBS, I'm Nash Jones.

Until next week.

Stay focused.

Funding for New Mexico and focus is provided by viewers like you.