What happens is, for each $3 that they’re going to draw down for this, they put in a dollar. What the change is made here is instead of putting in a dollar in the Senate version they have to put in basically $1.28. In the House version they have to put in $1.25. The $1.25 corresponds to a provision that was Senate only and I’ll explain that one in a little bit more detail and you’ll see how that’s linked when we get to it. Page 353 and 354, again another one where it’s helpful to keep them open and look at both. The subsections A and B are identical, however there were different modifications made to the list. This is the shared savings program. Both chambers repealed it, but there’s a 3% rate reduction. The Senate gave that 3% reduction back to optical services and supplies, podiatry, chiropractors, hearing aids. The House gave it back, if you look over on page 364, gave it back to nursing homes. So again, the subsections A and B are identical and it’s the C where those differences are. Turn to page 355, there was a Senate provision to publish Medicaid payments to providers, similar to what was published for Medicare payments was done recently. The House did not do that. On page 356, there was a study of a physician assessment. The House did not do that. On page 357, there was an increase to the hospital assessment retention by the state. You’ll , a few pages ago I was talking about that 25.9% and then the 28.85, that’s where these percentages come from. So the other provision would have treated UNC and Eastview the same as the other hospitals in terms of the percentage. And because this was a Senate only provision, the House did not increase the assessment on hospitals. They used the existing 25.5% for the universities. Page 358 was something that the Senate had included because the Governor had included it in his budget. We got additional information after the Senate budget passed that CMS will not approve this. This is something that we cannot do. There’s something else on page 359 which we also currently cannot do. This is what the House proposed. But this is an assessment on 1915C innovations waiver services. Federal government does not allow this, but this is a 3 year authorization that if federal law is changed or if CMS allows waivers to do this within the next 3 years, then this is something that the department may pursue. There’s already an assessment on IFCMR services and these are services that are in the alternative to those. And so this is something that was included there, another potential source of income. Again, the federal government authorized it, but they may. Over on page 360, the Senate’s repealed the planned CCNC payment of PNPMs. Last year’s budget had the department and CCNC work together to transfer all of the PNPM money to be paid out, and then have CCNC have in a tiered system make those payments to the doctors. The Senate repeals that. If you turn to page 361, the House directs it to occur. So, the complete opposite. That 12H.19 is the last one I’m going to do. At this point Jennifer Hillman is going to come up and do the rest of the Medicaid provisions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Bocklage. Miss Hillman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Picking up on page 362, we have a Senate provision that has a very different House counterpart. The Senate version authorizes a new Medicaid entity to terminate the CCNC contract upon 30 days notice, effective December 31 2015. And on page 363, the House version instead would direct DHHS to draft waivers to allow a primary care case management entity such as CCNC to require dual eligibles to enroll in case management programs. It also allows DHHS to draft a waiver for LMENCOs to do primary care case management for dual eligibles with a primary diagnosis of mental illness. On page 364, we have a Senate provision