Specifications include, but are not limited to: Review draft sections of the MDH final report, provided by MDH, and provide feedback on them. Provide consultation, via virtual meetings, on six to eight issues to be identified by MDH when the contract begins. Examples of potential topics include the following: a. What types of transactions occur that may not be “on the radar” for regulators? b. Impact of policy changes under consideration for various regulatory framework options, e.g., unintended consequences or incentives the policy changes may create, unfair advantages or burdens for some regulated entities, etc. c. State-related conversion transactions and knowledge of other state nonprofit and nonprofit conversion regulatory structures and related laws. d. Relationship between conversion transactions and corporate structure and governance issues. e. Actions that constitute movement of assets from one state to another and options for regulating such actions. f. Where National Association of Insurance Companies (NAIC) model law language is sufficient or, if a state may want to add other protections in order to address specific nonprofit asset goals or other characteristics unique to Minnesota’s insurance markets. g. Regulatory differences nonprofit and for-profit HMOs in Minnesota may face in the current regulatory framework and related potential policy considerations. h. Identify what transparency for conversion transactions is possible and how state regulators may be impeded in providing transparency to lawmakers and the public about a conversion transaction, due to SEC or trade secret issues. i. Provide assistance in determining criteria that are reasonable to use in order to approve or disapprove conversions or change of domicile to another state. j. “Slow roll” methods of shifting assets from nonprofit to for-profit entities, and what options may exist for greater transparency and regulation around these slow roll issues, without unduly burdening HMOs or becoming overly prescriptive. If the state were to take a more proactive role in monitoring these from a perspective of protecting charitable assets, what thresholds and types of transactions should we be looking at?