June 9, 2026 Legislative Update
Legislative Update
June 6, 2026
Jan Lanier, JD, RN
Election year frenzy
Introduction
Legislators plan to take a break from the statehouse beginning June 10th assuming they can get their key initiatives passed one way or another. They are not planning to return until after the November 3rd General Election, so the actions being taken now are likely to factor into the campaign strategies of both parties during the next five months. The republican party holds a veto proof majority in both the Ohio house and senate, so there is little that can stop republican leadership from moving its agenda forward.
At this point the emphasis seems to center on the following issues (in no particular order):
- Abortion “safeguards” vs. “limitations”, such as a 24-hour waiting period before a woman seeking an abortion can undergo the procedure.
- Data centers—moratoriums on new centers, pausing tax exemptions that have significantly exceeded predicted amounts, or the current free-for-all; which approach will prevail?
- Medicaid fraud—It became a headline grabber when an investigative reporter claimed to have uncovered serious incidences of fraud related to the provision of home health services covered by Ohio Medicaid. The house Medicaid committee took up HB 795 as the bill it would use as a foundation for making sweeping changes to Ohio’s home and community-based care waiver programs. The same reporter has also been visible at the federal level and his message resonated with members of the U.S. House Oversight Committee. He also got the attention of the U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, who wants to partner with Ohio to end blatant Medicaid fraud. The outcome of this issue remains uncertain.
- Amending the Ohio Constitution to include language, already in current Ohio law, that would require voters to present an unexpired government issued photo ID to be eligible to vote. Some see this as a harmless amendment because the photo ID requirement is already in state law. Others believe including it in the Constitution would make it harder to alter or rescind in the future.
- The capital budget usually takes center stage at this point in the legislative calendar. It provides an opportunity for lawmakers to advocate for projects in their home districts that can be helpful to their chances in November. However, this year the other perhaps more pressing issues relegated this bill to the backseat. It is expected to pass both chambers without much opposition or even discussion.
A Deeper Dive
Abortion-related legislation.
Ohioans voted in 2023 to include in the state’s constitution a provision that made abortions legal in Ohio up to fetal viability (21-22 weeks generally). Many may have thought the issue was resolved. But that has not been the case. Several bills have been carefully drafted to stay within the bounds set in the constitution while putting constraints around abortion rights in the state. Under the guise of making women safe, ensuring that women know the physical and mental dangers of an abortion, and making them more aware of the options and the support systems available to them, these bills are making their way into Ohio law. In addition, public dollars cannot be used to support any non-abortion health services provided by entities that also offer abortion services.(HB 410) School children as part of health education will learn fetal development starting in 5th grade through videos prescribed in the law. (HB 485) These bills seems to have lost momentum, at least temporarily. Although the two bills listed below have not been scheduled for a committee vote, they may still be viable and possibly added to another bill that is being voted upon. Finally, HB 783 sponsored by Reps. Johnathan Newman (R-Troy) and Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester) would require physicians to inform women about the ability to reverse a chemical abortion before taking the first pill. Discharge instructions must include information about reversing the abortion, and the Ohio Department of Health must develop a dedicated section on its website about abortion pill reversal. The bill was referred to the house health committee, but it has received no attention to date.
Bills that impact women’s health that are currently before the General Assembly include:
| Bill | Sponsors | Overview of content | Status |
| HB 324 | Rep. Adam Mathews (R-Lebanon)
Rep. Meredith Craig (R-Smithville)
|
Regulate the sale and distribution of “dangerous drugs” as defined in the bill, which could include medications prescribed for abortions. Requires in-person consultation before prescribing these drugs and prohibits mail order sale as well. | Passed the house on a party line vote and referred to senate health committee. Third hearing set for 6/10/26. Not scheduled for a vote. (yet) |
| HB 347 | Rep. Mike Odioso (R-Green Township)
Rep. Josh Williams (R-Sylvania) |
Dubbed the “She Wins Act”, the bill requires a 24-hour waiting period after having an in-person consultation with a physician to obtain informed consent prior to an elective abortion. Also addresses civil liability for the physician related to the disclosure of possible complications. | Passed House on a party line vote and referred to senate health committee. Hearing set for 6/10/26. Not scheduled for a vote.(yet) |
Data Centers
Shortly after ANA-Ohio developed an overview of the status of data centers in Ohio, (dated May 12, 2026) the landscape changed. What remains unchanged is the extent to which Ohio has invested in these centers and the concerns of people who are finding themselves and their communities in the middle of the debate about whether data centers should be reined in all together or otherwise limited. A campaign was embarked upon by average citizens to put a citizen initiated constitutional amendment to a vote in November. If the group were to be successful, construction of data centers would be prohibited in Ohio; however, meeting the requirements for getting on a ballot is very difficult. Once the group of volunteers found they were not going to meet the signature requirements (a total of over 413,000 eligible voters from at least 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties) in time to be voted upon in 2026, they decided to keep gathering signature in hopes of making the 2027 ballot.
In addition to the citizen initiative, state officials were notified by the Department of Taxation that the tax exemptions provided as an incentive to get center developers to locate in Ohio cost the state far more than originally predicted. In 2024, the state sales tax exemption cost Ohio $555 million, which was four times more than forecasted. In 2025, it cost $1.6 billion in lost revenue to the state, over $1.4 billion or eleven times more than the original estimate. The savings were realized, in large part, by Meta (Facebook), Alphabet (Google) and Amazon. (Source: Zuckerman, J. (5/21/26) Ohio data center tax break cost $1.4 billion more than expected. Retrieved from https://signalohio.org/ohio-data-center-tax-break-cost-1-4-billion-more-than-expected-in-2025/
The legislature proposed limiting the data center tax incentives in the state budget bill (HB 96); however, Governor Mike DeWine vetoed the provision. Legislative leaders did not believe they had enough votes to override the veto, so the exemption remained in effect. Shortly after these latest numbers were released to the public, the governor immediately paused the exemption, at least temporarily.
While the citizen initiative was underway, house members Reps. Gary Click (R-Vickery), and Kellie Deeter (R-Norwalk) responded by introducing HB 646 that would establish a data center study commission. It passed the house unanimously in March and was referred to the senate financial institutions, insurance, and technology committee. The bill quickly was identified as the vehicle to create a select bicameral data center committee that legislators determined was the preferred approach to take.
Lawmakers immediately announced the committee members, identified who would be invited to testify during the first meeting and established a preliminary meeting schedule. Co-chairs of the committee are senator Brian Chavez (R-Marietta) and rep. Adam Holmes (R-Nashport). Members are Reps. Thad Claggett (R-Licking County), Heidi Workman (R-Rootstown) and Chris Glassburn (D-North Olmsted), and senators Bill Reineke (R- Tiffin), Shane Wilkin (R-Hillsboro), and Willis Blackshear Jr. (D-Dayton). The mission of the committee is to ensure that Ohio citizens have accurate, relevant, and usable information about the impacts of data centers including economic, environmental, and security information. The first committee meetings were May 27th and May 28th. The committee has been hearing from companies, workers, local officials, and citizens. Over 100 Ohioans testified urging a statewide moratorium on the development of data centers. Several local communities have already imposed moratoriums for areas located within their jurisdiction. Many of the witness’ concerns focused on environmental issues. One 12-year-old boy shared his concerns about the far-reaching implications of expanding data centers. “Ohio has already lost one million acres of farmland and could lose more. The state has 13.5 million acres remaining”. (Source: DeVito M. ( 6/1/26) Ohioans urge statewide moratorium as data center boom sparks pushback. Columbus Dispatch.)
The information obtained by the committee will be shared with local officials in the hope that it will drive the critical conversations the committee expects to take place. (Source: Henry, M. (5/18/26) Ohio lawmakers are creating bipartisan data center committee what will start meeting this month. Ohio Capital Journal.)
Medicaid challenges impact families, communities, and care providers
Millions of Ohioans rely on Medicaid for their healthcare. Shake-ups in the Medicaid program largely prompted by the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) could affect three million Ohioans as the state begins to take stock of the potential loss of billions of federal dollars. The BBB will change how states can tax hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers to help pay for Medicaid. All these issues will affect nurses, their patients, and the options available to enable the elderly, those with developmental disabilities and people with physical disabilities to live safely in their homes.
Medicaid Fraud allegations targeting home care providers
Criminal activity investigated by Luke Rosiak a reporter with The Daily Wire along with likely cuts to the state’s income due to cuts by the BBB prompted legislators to focus immediately on ways to stop what appeared to be rampant criminal activity in one of the state’s most costly programs—Medicaid, particularly the home care waiver program.
In testimony before the house Medicaid committee and the U.S. House Oversight Committee Task Force, on Defending Constitutional Rights and Exposing Institutional Abuse Rosiak described his findings, and conclusion that bogus home health care agencies have been billing Medicaid for services that were never provided. A single office building in northeast Columbus allegedly was the site of countless home health agencies, most with dark offices, or perhaps a single employee on hand, who was unable to provide information about services the agency offered. These agencies billed Medicaid under their shared address which should have triggered a fraud investigation noted the reporter. Significant sums of money were paid by the State of Ohio in response to the invoices generated by these shell companies.
When the reporter was asked what he believed was the way to stop the fraud, he recommended that the state stop the waiver program altogether. Several committee members shared his approach. He repeated several times that Ohio was one of only a few states that allow family caregivers to be paid for providing personal care services. Committee member Rep. Josh Williams (R-Sylvania) used that information to justify his emphasis on eliminating all use of paid family caregivers as the way to clean up Ohio’s fraud problem.
According to Caregiving in the US Research Report July 2025, developed by the National Alliance for Caregiving and ARRP, “forty-six states and the District of Columbia allow legally responsible relatives to become paid caregivers. (Florida, Indiana, and Utah did not respond to the survey.) Payments are authorized through self-directed care models implemented via Medicaid waivers 1915 (c) and 1115 or state plan options. Several states (California, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico, North Carolina, North and South Dakota adopted structured family care programs. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island have a similar program.” This is a longitudinal study that was initiated in 1997 and repeated every five years. The current survey is the first time the researchers looked at paid family caregivers. In response to COVID, policies were adopted over the past decade that allowed family caregivers to be paid. Legal requirements surrounding the payments are complicated and differ from state to state.
The U.S House Oversight Committee’s task force on Defending Constitutional Rights & Exposing Institutional Abuses also heard testimony from Rosiak. that implied family caregivers worked with no oversight and no auditing of their records. The care documents and claims submitted by family members who provide personal care or waiver services are regularly audited by Ohio Medicaid. Family caregivers are legally providers in Ohio, and their billing and care records are subject to the same scrutiny, structural reviews and compliance checks as professional agency staff.
In response to all the media coverage the issue was receiving, and the Medicaid committee’s likely response, Gov. DeWine identified several fraud prevention action steps to be taken:
- Implement a six-month moratorium on new home health care and hospice businesses being able to become a Medicaid provider.
- Immediately suspend payments to high-risk providers.
- Issue an executive order allowing the Department of Medicaid to implement emergency rules requiring more frequent remediation of providers being identified as high risk for committing fraud.
- File rule to require GPS for all providers using electronic visit verification.
- Begin rulemaking process to require live-in caregiver to use EVV during home healthcare and a requirement for payment.
(Source: Kano, K. (5/21/26) Visit verification bill likely to be the vehicle Omnibus. State-Affairs Gongwer-Ohio.)
This issue will continue to be considered by the house Medicaid committee the week of June 8th. HB 795, the so-called SHIELD Act (Safeguarding Healthcare Integrity through Electronic Location Data) introduced by Rep. Josh Williams (R-Sylvania) in late March has now become the vehicle that will address the issues. It was introduced before the Medicaid fraud stories became front page news and dealt with verification of non-emergency medical transport services and in-home personal care services provided for Medicaid recipients. It included provisions dealing with the use of electronic visit verification (EVV) technology designed to ensure payment integrity and discourage fraud. The bill has undergone significant revisions in the past week, and a third substitute bill is expected on Tuesday (June 9th)
ANA-Ohio has not taken an official position on this bill (issue) although several members have provided testimony opposing blanket elimination of payments for family care givers and elimination of the home and community-based services waiver program. There is a shortage of home care staff already and eliminating family care members will put greater pressure on an already stressed system.
Voter fraud prevention
Is voter fraud rampant in Ohio or is the state a stellar example of the right way to run an election? The answer depends on who you ask and when. Generally, Ohio’s outgoing Secretary of State Frank LaRose has touted the integrity of Ohio’s elections; however, in 2025 a poll found that only 45% of the electorate has confidence in U.S. elections. That skepticism could be driven by the repeated cries of “election fraud” when someone loses an election. Regardless of whether voters believe an election is fair or not, Ohio is taking one more step to assure voters by enshrining existing election law in the state’s constitution.
When compared to a citizen initiated constitutional amendment, a legislative initiative is relatively straight forward. Both the senate and house must approve a joint resolution by a 3/5th majority vote and then the issue can go forward to the voters where it needs a simple majority to pass.
In this case, both versions of the resolution mimic current state law. SJR 10 is the senate version and HJR 9 is the House proposal. Many have questioned the need for a constitutional amendment. Proponents argue having it in the constitution makes it harder for future legislators to eliminate the photo ID requirement in the Revised Code should they have the votes to do that. Having the statutory language in the constitution merely adds another layer of protection to help assure voters regarding election integrity. In addition, gubernatorial candidate Vevek Ramaswamy called on the legislature to act. His running mate is senate president Rob McColley, so it is not surprising the resolution moved so quickly in the senate.
The senate joint resolution (SJR 10), sponsored by Sens. Jane Timkin (R-Canton) and Theresa Gavarone (R-Bowling Green) was introduced May 19th and had three hearings before the general government committee. Although the opposition witnesses outnumbered the proponents, the committee recommended the resolution for passage on a party line vote. The next day it received the required 3/5th majority approval vote with only Sen. Al Cutrona (R-Canfield) joining all democrats to oppose. Although the house version has had three hearings before its general government committee, it has not yet been scheduled for a vote. Interestingly, the house general government committee has heard from significantly more opponents but whether that is influencing the committee’s response is not clear. A media representative asked house Speaker Matt Huffman (Lima) about how the amount of opposition testimony that outnumbered proponents might affect supporters. His response was, “while committee testimony ‘means something’ to him, he and other lawmakers get input on proposals from a variety of sources… . Many Ohioans aren’t able to spend a weekday morning coming to Columbus to testify… . I think no matter what the issue is, you could get 78 people to show up and testify against it or for it in a committee meeting, but that can’t be the controlling determination.” (Source: Hartzell, A. (5/28/26). Ohio voter ID amendment hearing draws wave of opposition testimony. Cleveland.com.)
Efforts to make changes to the proposal (s) have not been approved, which has led to some opposition within the legislature. A cadre of legislators and others have advocated for requiring those voting by mail to include a state approved photo ID along with their voted absentee ballot. Currently, people voting by mail are allowed to send a signed ballot that includes the voter’s signature with only a unique personal identifier such as a portion of the voter’s social security number, current state- issued driver’s license or state-issued ID. As some lawmakers observed, having a photo ID from someone who is not standing before you means nothing.
Voter support seems strong so proponents are expecting success in November IF the house and senate can pass a joint legislative resolution to get the issue on the ballot before the July 1st deadline. There are some legislators who would like to include absentee voters in the photo ID requirement. Current law already allows absentee voters to submit certain acceptable individual identifiers, such as a social security number, when they submit their ballot. Others have suggested that the rush to enshrine this issue in the state’s constitution is politically motivated. “Republicans are advancing the amendment to boost turnout in an unfavorable election cycle. Republicans deny that’s the case.” (Source: Evans, N. (June 4, 2026) Ohio senate advances photo voter requirements to the Ohio House if lawmakers sign off. Ohio Capital Journal.)
SB 450 and HB 959—Capital Budget –almost an afterthought this general assembly
Every general assembly has an opportunity to provide state funding to help local projects come to fruition. This year there has been very little public action surrounding this initiative. The senate version of the budget (SB 450) was introduced by its sponsor, senate finance committee chair Sen. Jerry Cirino (Kirtland) on June 1st and the house version was filed the next day by its sponsor Rep. Brian Stewart (Ashville) house finance committee chair. That same day the house committee heard testimony from Kimberly Murnieks, Director of Ohio’s Office of Budget and Management. In her testimony she explained that the capital budget makes appropriations for the renovation, reconstruction, and construction of capital assets of state agencies, colleges, universities, and school districts. The bill also funds grants and loans to local governments for infrastructure. About $2 million will be appropriated to support targeted community projects of local or regional importance. Most of the projects are supported by long term debt issued through State of Ohio bonds.
Notable appropriations—
Department of Behavioral Health (DBH)
DBH would receive $385 million in new appropriations to fund general renovations at Ohio’s six psychiatric hospitals and continue support of program spaces for young individuals affected by mental illness and drug addiction, and construction of a new behavioral health hospital in the Dayton area.
Department of Disabilities (DODD)
DODD would receive $208 million for crucial updates at DODD’s eight developmental centers that provide residential placement, support construction of a youth unit at the SW Developmental Center.
Because of the tight timeline legislators set for themselves it is unlikely there will be opportunity for public testimony.
Finally—what’s happening with bills ANA-Ohio has been monitoring closely?
HB 508 (APRNs’ legislation dealing with standard care agreements) has not been scheduled for a committee vote yet. The committee has been focusing solely on the Medicaid fraud issue.
HB 535 (Nurse staffing bill—Rep Lorenz version) No action other than sponsor testimony.
HB 537 (licensure for non-nurse midwives) has also stalled.
