Arkansas Legislative Council (ALC)

So Lack of Members, please move to your seats. Hey, did you get? Welcome to Arkansas Legislative Council, if you will, stand with me, Senator Gilmore lead us in prayer. There you are. Pray with me, members. Heavenly Father, Lord, we just thank you for your many blessings. We thank you for who you are, Lord, we thank you for your guidance and direction, Lord, we pray for your wisdom in here today, Lord, as we make decisions, I pray that everything we do brings you honor and glory and that we serve the people of Arkansas. Well, Lord, I pray that you would just hide us behind the cross so that only you were seen, and I pray that you would increase and we would decrease in order that you might receive all the honor, all the praise and all the glory. In your name we pray. Amen. Thank you, Senator Gilmore. Members, hopefully you've had a chance to look at the minutes I'd take a motion to approve the minutes. a motion in a second, all in favor of I, uh, passes, uh, next step we're gonna bring up Doctor Silva. Doctor Silver, thank you for being here. If you will state your name and please uh open your report. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Carlos Silva, Bureau of Legislative Research, and today I'm here to present the September 2024 revenue forecast as we look on page number one, you're going to see Gross collections there for the first for the first quarter of this fiscal year at $2003 million which is down $54.2 million from last year or 2.6% for uh those first three months comparison as we move down we're gonna find available uh general revenue available for distribution. We're going to have 1, 753 35, sorry. $1 million for this 1st 3 months which is down 41.6 million. Compared to those 1st 3 months of the last fiscal year, which is around 2.3% decline as we move from page number 2, you're going to see the cumulative deviation from the latest forecast from from the agency which was the August 2022, August 22 of 2024 forecast and we're gonna see a slight increase again there for a total of $17.7 million above forecasts, which have followed a similar trend that happened on last month from page number 3 and page number 4 we're gonna have general revenue. collections for page number 4 and 7 we have this special revenue collections as this month move forward we continue to follow um. Some of the differences on the Income groups we have seen consumer sentiment has gone down on this month with spending retail spending is still up. Uh, there's a difference in spending between the different income groups and we following closing with that and, and a discussion whether or not the excess savings for the different income groups have been depleted or not, and we continue to follow that. We'll be happy to talk to any individual member later on if they're more interested on that and as we had Hurricane Herlene and Milton. We might expect some fluctuations. Some on the national level reporting and we're gonna follow that and update the members as needed without taking any further questions. Thank you. Thank you, Doctor Silva, uh, Senator King, you'd recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any questions, Ms. Seller. I just have one question for DFA about the revenue forecast for the future. Just one question. Jack around DFA come up. Good morning Ms. Jim Hudson, Secretary of DFA. Good morning, Senator. Good morning. So I've been asked in the past, it's been a while about the revenue forecast and how concerned I am about, I feel like Rosie forecast, uh, but, uh, so the answer was back then that you, you know, revenues are going down, flattening whatever they're doing right now. Uh, but yet, you know, the answer was a while back that eventually with the spending increases that's coming that the economy is going to get back to normal. That was the original answer. And Revenues are going to start going back up. Is that still your prediction and looking 2345 years down the road. Well, our, our forecast is 2 years. We don't do 345 years down the road. We're currently working on the revised forecast that we will present ahead of the session we'll present that roughly about a month from now. Well, I mean, we're only a month out, so you can't even give any indication. Do you expect revenues to go back up. Senator, I won't speak to a revenue forecast that we're currently working on and drafting will provide the report, uh, to all, all members as we get closer to finishing it. But the reality is we're making business decision, money decisions based on what we think is going to come in, but again, from your back history of saying, you know this last question, I mean, you, you think that revenues are going to go up? That was the answer back year to. Go that that revenue, things are going to get back to normal and revenues are going to go back up. I'd refer you to the revised forecast that we presented a few months ago, which shows that relatively flat revenues for the first half of the fiscal year with an expected uptick slightly in the back half of the fiscal year, we're looking at all that information now and provide that in our revised forecast in about a month. So you, you basically, you said that you think revenues are gonna go up. OK, thank you. OK. Thank you, uh, Mrs. Hudson and Doctor Silva for your report and next up, uh, my co-chair has the exec subcommittee report. Think my chair, I guess it helps if you log into your new system. The executive subcommittee met on October 3rd and heard from a Tasco consulting regarding proposal to assist subcommittee with the review of the RFP procurement procedures per the request of ALC, the subcommittee authorized BLR to negotiate a contract with them for their services. Subcommittee also heard from P at night and adopted recommendations concerning revisions to the program providing property insurance coverage for the education facilities and state properties. Subcommittee met again on October 17th and took up the following action, accepted the the final report on ALC game and fish and state police subcommittee concerning the firearms and concealed carry law study approved a contract between BLR and Tasco Contracting for consulting services related to the RFP procurement process, approved a new actuary. Actuarial and consulting service agreement between BLR and Pn to assist in subcommittee with implementation of property insurance recommendations and for ongoing assistance with oversight of the programs, approve the payment of mileage and per diem for members elect for attendance to legislative committee meetings after the general election, referred all Act 575 prior authorization programs to public health. For public health recommendations back to ALC of whether to accept these prior authorization, uh. Request Members, I'll also bring to your attention in November, there is a change to the budget hearings schedule that change is not. Totally concrete at the moment. So that change, um. Will be uh on the calendar so I just want to make sure that everyone is paying attention to the caliber the proposed change is doing away with the budget hearings on the week of November 19th and compressing those into the week prior. So we will be compressing ALC subcommittees that week to make room for those, uh, 3 days or 2.5 days of budget hearings. Uh, there is a conference, legislative conference that week of the 19th, and a lot of members will be out of town. We want to make sure that Members have ability to hear all budget hearings. So with that, I move adoption of the report and be happy to answer any questions, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator King, you have a question? Yeah, I want to make a substitute motion to pull out the OO or well I don't know how you pronounce it contract and voted separately. And when you give me a chance to explain, I'll explain. OK, I have a motion to pull out the coo uh Contract to have a second? Do you want to say? Well, if I can, can I explain my motion first before there's a second. OK, so members, since I came in next year will be 20 years ago, I come in this hiring a consultants has got epidemic. You know, we didn't hire consultants about like time ago. Jack Welch made a change at GE and quit hiring consultants. This consulting of hiring to study things we need to as we need to exhaust all resources first before we turn loose $300,000 to study it with a firm out of San Francisco. So if you look at different things we've hired a consultants we've had horrible records, and they've taken millions of dollars out of things. I'll give the example back all the way in 2008 when they gave consultants said that when we raise the natural gas tax. I didn't vote for it, that they best estimate, they base the estimates on $8 conservative estimates of $8 natural gas. Natural gas has got below $2. That's missed in it by 400%. So we have to have reliable information. A lot of these consultants, if you, if you Google and look into McKenzie, uh, McCarroll and Alvarez, all these consultants, it's created a scam. They've been in trouble with the federal government and we keep hiring these to study these. A lot of times these consultants just producing stuff on how we tie our shoes. And they're hiring lobbyists and they're using the game to play to get literally hundreds, you'll find out next week, hundreds of millions of dollars in consulting fees if we can't hire the right people, a lot of times do it. Sometimes you need a building manager for a prison or something. It needs to be happen. In 2017, the task force hired a consultant out of Philadelphia and was gonna pay them $400,000 and I said at the time it's a total waste of money, at least exhaust all efforts before you look into it and you know what happened? The bureau staff wound up having to, uh, uh, do the research and this study had been studied before. I'm not saying they're not need to be a consultant. We just need to start exhausting our resources before we turn loose this money to, uh. Look into these consultant things on procurement contracts we've got universities, we've got law schools. Why can't we turn that over to them? You have this chat GPT that a lot of times now they're presenting things and through that through AI that is saving companies and other things that they can use. I'm just saying we've got law schools, we've got universities, we've got retired state employees that can come in and look at the process and tell and a lot of times it's not the process, it's the people making decision. So I just asked that you pull this out, not approve this, and we get a little. At a time to look at this before we turn loose a bunch of money and make the mistakes. I'll remind you too, we're in 21, we're right, we're rated worst in violent crime in the nation. Well, we had millions of dollars spent on consultants to tell us how to fight crime. It didn't happen. So there's a long list of Hendry and you'll find out more next week about how we're, uh, the system is being scammed, uh, and we're being scammed by a lot of these consultants and they're using to play the game to get money. But I just ask that you just pull this out. Vote on it and you give a chance to look at this and study our procurement contracts and we have a lot of resources that we can depend on before we spend this money. That's it. I'll take any questions. Senator King, before I go to the next question, I will. Do the same thing I've done before. You're invited to any meetings? You get paid to be at any meetings and a lot of this stuff goes on in meetings and, and you. I, I've not heard anything from you. Uh, before this morning, but I'm going to center ice. Let me answer that question since you made that. I showed up at the executive committee. I was not recognized to answer a question. I texted you about that afterwards, after the fact, and I was sitting. All the way at one side and the board's over here and my co-chair said he did not, he did not see it either I did show up at that I'm not gonna argue with you, Senator King, but you can speak up when you want to speak, and I will try to speak up and I showed up at the meeting, Senator Ross. OK, I've got uh. Senator Matt McKee, you recognize? I guess I was just wondering, is there a reason why you picked this specific contract as opposed to any other ones. Yeah, this is a steady contract that is just studying procurement. We are, they did something in 2017, 2018 with the same company. We're just going, let's do something before we spend a much of money on consultants we can look at our universities, we could turn over. I mean, we pay them millions of dollars to look and study this. We have retired state employees. There's a lot of resources that could be done and I've already given the Last history of the bad consultants that were given that gave us horrible results and horrible numbers that were not used in that. So it's just another thing of like we used to not spend money on consultants a long time ago and now it's epidemic and I just think that we need to look at other resources before we turn loose this. Senator Hickey you recognize is I want to make sure this is the procurement, this is the procurement contract. Yes, sir. Is, is it time for me to speak on that, Senator Rice? Go ahead, uh, I think everybody knows that what it, what it transpired right here is we were doing this consultant because the Department of Corrections contract, uh, the statute that we have in place was good. But the rule that was passed did not line up with the statue, so we rescinded that. And what that's done is that's made us look at, uh, uh, all of our procurements which are. Which would be billions of dollars, I would say annually. So the thing is, is, uh, this consultant, uh, which I've not had. Anything to do with it was totally the executive committee. I fully support because we need to make sure that everything that we've got with procurement is in line and the thought that we'd use one of our universities. Uh, it looks like to me it would be a conflict because they're actually procuring these services too, and we need to make sure that everything's written so that we're getting the most advantageous people and price on all of our contracts. So I just wanted to make sure that that was uh the procurement that we were talking about. I'm a little surprised that, uh, this is one that we're going after. Thank you, Sent hammer, you recognized for discussion on the motion. Thank you, Ms. Chair. I'd like to direct your question to Senator King, through the chair, if I may. My question is that we're being asked to hold this on the basis of information that's coming up next week. I'd kind of like to know what that information is has been referred to twice that is going to be brought up next week to factor into my decision through the chair, please. We Central King fuel like, OK, go ahead Craing. I mean, I brought up the, the facts of like the crime issue how we were going to fight crime and spent millions. I mean, I'll go back to whether Medicaid or your expansion before or against it, the numbers that were given that we didn't save money on Medicaid, we spent more than ever. The numbers estimated for Medicaid never hit the original figures they got. So once again, we're spending a lot of money. We have retired state employees. We have other business professionals. There's a lot of options that can be looked at. To study these problems and look at it before you have to come back and exhaust our resources. Some of the stuff that you'll see that you can have these consultants. I mean, all you have to do is look at McKenzie and look at, uh, uh, Marisol and Alvarez and look at the problems they have. I mean, McKenzie, for example, let me give you a thing, you know, we're giving them $5 million. They say they're going to save $500 billion dollars. That's like you coming out my farm and saying, hey, Brian, for $5000 I'll save you $500,000. You know, we need to the right people first. I mean, we're, we're epidemic in spending on consultants. I mean, I've, I've already given you 4 examples of how consultants so mislead things and a lot of these consultants that you're hiring, they have a conflict of interest because it's a beneficial because they wind up recruiting something that causes you to spend more money. I mean, if you look at McKenzie, for example, we give them all this money, we're not paying them a settlement because they helped create the openity problem that we had. So there's a lot of examples, these consultants need to be looked at first and analyze who they are. Now whether you, I mean, Republicans down here, they want to lecture somebody, uh, you higher ed on teaching DEI where Google DEI and a lot of these consultants that they're spending $100 million so before you start getting on these universities about DEI, you need to look at the hundreds of millions of dollars that go out to consultants that are all about DEI. Now whether you agree with it. If you want to look at it from the other side, you're not on the DEI argument, then look at it like we're just wasting money, the task force back a long time ago, we wasted money that. The information could have been handled by our staff back here and we wasted, I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars on a consultant and then they wound up it. So I'm just saying we need to, we need to make sure that we do exhaust our resources first before we turn loose as Senator King, you're repeating yourself, uh, going to co-chair of Woodlaw. Members, I, I've struggled with this. I didn't want to say anything, but I, I've, I've had enough. We hired consultants for council numerous times recently, and I just think it's important we didn't publicize this a couple months ago, but it's time to publicize it. One of our consultants consulting EBD saved the state of Arkansas and the members, state employees being those members, $3 million in negotiating on our behalf on a contract. So yes, it is very important to have experts in place to be able to tell us and advise us on how to make the right decisions. So, There is validity to some things he's saying, but the viability is those are executive branch consultants, not legislative branch consultants. Let's compare apples and apples, and let's stay on what he's fighting with and he's fighting with legislative consultants and our legislative consultants we've been very productive in the last 10 years. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Dodson, do you have something on the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair, just speaking to the motion specifically related to, uh, this Cosco consulting contract, um, just for the history of some of the membership, uh. We, we studied procurement law in-depth exhaustively for. More than a year, better part of 2 years, um, with this particular organization several years ago and made several legislative changes in the, the next session. Um, and so, uh. I feel very confident in this particular organization's expertise in this particular field, um, in a very complex. Area of law. Now, I don't care if we pull it out of the contract, vote on it separately. I generally agree overall with Senator King we need to exhaust all of our resources, um, we, we've had various task force throughout the time I've been here and consulting agreements. We've even fired consultants that didn't, uh, perform to their, their abilities as we're going through, um, uh. Tax relief and reform task force uh type things over the last 10 years. Um, but this particular organization, uh, I can speak to, uh, having worked with them as one of the best organizations that have the expertise and, uh, that I heavily drew on their, their knowledge and expertise of best practices from multiple states in their experience, um, throughout, uh, and their professionalism as well. Now, I don't know if they'll have the same, same people coming to Arkansas representing, uh, but it has been several years since we adopted those changes, uh, to statute to see how those things are working out, um, uh, I would say that they, they would be the experts that I would, I would want to call personally, uh, to review where we're at. And so I'm just speaking to this particular organization, um, and my history. with them for, for the member's consideration. Thank you. Thank you, co-chair Wardlaw, uh, made a motion for adopting the exec report, Senator King had a Substitute motion. Uh. And uh. I've asked for uh A 2nd for his motion. I'm going to let him speak, be distinct. Recognize so to answer, uh, Mr. Wardlaw, we're given 3 means you're supposed to save money. I've heard this thing that this, this con job we're gonna save money and we're spending record amounts of money overall. Let me tell you about this. If we, a lot of times when they're saving 3 million and they come in, the reality is you just hired the wrong people. We're given big bonuses and big salaries to these HD heads that make these can't make these decisions, don't make the right decisions and then all of a sudden we come in and spend money on a consultant that saves money that they should have done and exhausted in the first place. So, and then we, but I'm just saying, you know, this is, I'd appreciate a second on this motion. If you want to look at it, like I said, we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on consultants for a second. Do I have a 2nd. Your motion die for lack of a second, going back to, uh, chairman, co-chairman Wardlaw, uh, motion to accept the executive report all in favor. I opposed. Passes. Thank you. Next up, remember we're going to the standing subcommittee's administrative rules, uh. Uh, represented Brian Evans, if you will give that report, please, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, the administrative rule subcommittee met on October 17th, subcommittee filed one report from the executive subcommittee concerning the review and approval of emergency rules. The subcommittee filed a written update relating to rulemaking from the 2024 fiscal session. All rules were reviewed and approved as noted in the report, Mr. Chair, I move for the adoption of this report. Any questions on the report, not seeing any all in favor I. I posed It is passed. Uh, next we have EBD Center Hickey or recognized for that report. Mr. Chair, uh, the employee benefits division oversight subcommittee met on Monday, October 7th, 2024 10 a.m. in room A Mac. The subcommittee reviewed and approved the United Healthcare amended contract for plan year 2025, which was approved by the State Board of Finance. The subcommittee met again on Wednesday, October 16th, 2024 at 10 a.m. in the room A Mac. The subcommittee adopted the Siegel Group recommend recommendations related to the diabetes management program study which will be included in its final report to the Legislative Council. The subcommittee heard information from the Seal Group and the employee benefitifest division concerning incentives related to participation in wellness programs, the subcommittee reviewed and approved contracts with Colonial Life and Accidental Insurance Company and Connect your Care Incorporated, which were approved by the state Board of Finance. I moved for adoption of the report. Saying no questions. I have a second on that, and 2nd on favor. I EVD report is adopted. Next up, we have Game Fish State Police Center Hill, you recognized for report. Chair, He gave me fair State Police subcommittee met Thursday, October 3, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in room A Mac. The subcommittee reviewed and discussed the draft legislation to be included in the final report for the firearms concealed carry laws study. A new version of the JLC 174 was presented to the subcommittee. The subcommittee adopted a motion to make additional changes to a new version of JLC 174. The subcommittee met again on Monday, October 7th, 2024 at 11 a.m. and MacB, the subcommittee, uh, discussed and adopted additional changes to JLC 174 to be included in the final report for the Arkansas Firearms and Concealed carry law study. The subcommittee made a motion to adopt the final report with the additional changes to JLC 174 and submit the report to AOC exe executive Committee. I moved for adoption of this report. No questions have a second. Beckett on in favor of adopted reports say a postd report is adopted. Thank you, Senator Hill. Uh occupational licing representative Crawford, you're going to give that for us today. Thank you. If you light up your mic, please. You But punch it again. Stay off of it. Punch it one time and. You didn't, you're not logged in, that's what it is. She's now. OK, you're live now pull you. It's, it's the next Mike down, I think, in it. We get 43. Thank you. The occupational licensing review subcommittee met on Thursday to discuss and approve the final report for occupational entities in groups 4 and 5, I move adoption of the report. Seeing no questions. I have a second. I I I posed occupational license report is adopted, uh, performance evaluation expenditure center disk might get recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the peer subcommittee met on Tuesday, October 15th. The committee reviewed received reports, reviewed requests, and approved the following various temporary appropriation, American Rescue Plan Act preparation, infrastructure Investment, Jobs Act appropriation and reallocation of resources for DHS and restricted reserve fund transfers. I, I 3 MFG request by the insurance department is marked as held by the subcommittee item notes, it has $356,000 in MFG appropriation requests. Department received a grant from DHHS, uh, to add a two-year funding for the senior Medicaid or Medicare portal. A move for adoption of the report. You have a motion to have a second. Sat no questions on favor I. Pod report is adopted. Uh, review, Senator Hammer, you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair. The review subcommittee met on Monday, October 14th at 1:30 p.m. and the committee room A, in addition to reviewing methods of finance, discretionary grants, submitted contracts, monthly reports subcommittee considered one supplemental item to review a construction project over 5 million for the SU Jonesboro New College of Veterinary Medicine. All items were reviewed with the exception of 12 on-call construction projects from UAMS which were held pending in additional information from the agency as of today, the information from UAMS has been received and the holds have been released and I believe there's information on the member's desk addressing that issue. The subcommittee also held out one out of state contract with Apers from Elena Solutions also held pending additional information from aper, Ms. Fletcher from Apers has provided information on the Hill contract which is also On your desk, I believe. Um, and she is here to answer any questions, Mr. Chair, I think the appropriate motion at this time is that we will approve all items on the report with the exception of the Aper and I think it's going to be taken up secondary after Ms. Fletcher comes and answers questions to the committee. I believe that's the way that, uh, the chairs wanted to have that address if I'm incorrect, straighten me out, uh, but otherwise, I moved for adoption of the report including the review of the previous items held. With the exception of Ms. Fletcher's. OK, members understand we're gonna uh have a vote on the adoption report with the exception of the one that will be handled separately. I have a second. All in favor. I, I posed. OK, that passes, uh, you wanna go ahead and bring Ms. Fletcher up. I'd like to ask Ms. Fletcher to come, uh, to the table, I believe, uh, there was just opportunity to give her. To explain, uh, and answer questions. And her team. Thank you all for being here today and if you will, state your name and Positions and we'll let you answer questions and make, make any comments you'd like. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Amy Fetcher, executive director of APES. Good morning, Ashley Gallagher, deputy director of operations for APRs. Philip Norton, IT director for A. Thank you. Proceed. So the packet you have in front of you just gives a summary and a timeline of our RFP process for the linear solutions contract. Uh, we started it back in, uh, May and June, we worked and consulted with OSP as well as DIS along the way. Um, I believe the question was why did we not use the map process. It's because we didn't have any information on how to run a map process and we didn't have That, um, in our discussions along the way. So we did follow the traditional RFP method uh that is on the website at the time, um, also we did consider costs as 30%. We opened every one of the bids that we had 3 companies apply. We opened all three of them, and we did consider costs and with that, I'll take any questions. Go with. Representative, what law do you recommend? I'm sorry I was letting members ask questions first, but there's none. Um, I think that, that was my question, uh, Tuesday was, was cost at the 30% mark and was all Qualified vendors looked at because that's one of the things that, that rule does, it throws out. Everybody's not a top 3. And because of that, sometimes those other folks have a valid proposal that is actually cheaper, so I want to make sure that we wasn't throwing any bidders out. And when I looked at the agenda Tuesday, there were 6 contracts that were new. 34 of the 6 were university-driven and 2 were agencies, so. I picked you guys to find out that answer. So thank you for that. Thank you for the opportunity to explain. Center Hickey you're recognized. So just to make sure, and I, you all, you know, we've had some conversations about this because, of course, this is, uh, comes from the motion that we made where we, uh, rescinded the contract and Uh, but if you'd, if you're already in the process, or excuse me, we rescinded the rule. So if you were already in the process, we were going to allow you to use that. So, let me go back to the 30%. I just want to make sure that we put this out there. So all vendors, as you said, they, they were opened and you did give them their, their weighted average for a minimum of the 30%. Is that correct? So they were, they did get whatever their score was, and they got, they got the weight of that, uh, to make sure that we did that according to the statute itself, because again, I'm going with the thing that the rule was wrong, didn't match the statute. Uh, so I want to make sure that we are actually following that statute. Yes, sir, we did. OK. Thank you. OK, seeing no more questions, thank you all for being here. Uh, center hammer. I'd make a motion that The papers, uh, portion of the report be approved, Mr. Chairman. have a motion to have 22 on favor. I opposed in his past. Thank you. Last report is uh personnel sent to Brian Davis, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, the personnel committee met Wednesday, October 16th, and approved or reviewed the items listed on the report as items 1 through 7. It should be noted that the committee approved only the recruitment incentive part of the request for item 1C as the agency and OPM requested to pull, um, the other half of the request. I'll take any questions and move for adoption of the report at the proper time. Thank you. I hope you're not disappointed there's not any questions, so uh with that I'll take a second all in favor I. Opposed report is past members next up we have uh review communications, some that require, uh, motions if you'll look at, uh, H3. Uh, Arkansas public employers retirement system, uh, we have 3 different things. It's, it's, it's. Not required for testimony unless somebody has a question. If not, we can batch A, B, and C, and I would take a motion. A motion to prove second all in favor. I. posed that is batched our next step is, uh, 5 is Arkansas teacher retirement system. Do we have any questions on that? Not seeing any, I'll take a motion. Motion to approve with the second on paper I. I suppose that his past that's down to 7. A we have the Arkansas Economic Development Commission division of rural Services. Seeing no questions, I have a motion. Motion to approve 2, 2nd all in favor. I. That is pro our next one on 7B does uh require presentation report we'd ask, uh is it commissioner McLean, if you'd like to come up. We just Right to have you, anybody you want to bring up with you, you're welcome to come to the table. Thank you all for being here today. Please identify yourself. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Alan McLean, Insurance commissioner. Booth rant general counsel, Arkansas insurance department. Jay Quinley, director of legislative affairs for the Department of Commerce. Thank you. You're recognized to give you a report, Mr. Sher. I'm gonna defer to General Counsel Booth to, to give you the report. Thank you, Senator Rice, um, as the members know, uh, the insurance department is working on a rule related to pharmacy dispensing costs or fees, um, we have over the last week, worked on a bulletin. That supplies or requires the PBMs and health plans to supply us with various amounts of data so that we can analyze to determine whether or not dispensing fees are feasible in terms of cost and in terms of how the health plans have to execute or um paying drug costs and what those fees amount to, so I've been working with our actuary, the last week and the bulletin, um, is finished. It will be. I've got a few tweaks that I'm going to make tonight. So, um, I think either tonight or tomorrow I will send that bulletin around to members so they will be able to look at that and see what we're wanting to request data on in our analysis and so, uh, that's my report. I promise executive committee, uh, representing Wardlaw, I think Senator Gilmore and some others that the insurance department would supply a copy of the bulletin as soon as we're finished. I'm almost finished. Uh, it will take me a few hours to Make a few edits and I will send that to the members for them to review. OK, thank you. uh, Central Hammer you recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Sher. Just based on the comment you just made, Booth. So, The The report that you're going to put out the bulletin that you're gonna put out. Do you have you completed all the work with the actuary to determine what the fiscal impact is going to be across the board whether to private plans or Medicaid or any of the other plans or is that still an ongoing process that's gonna come after the ball tennis we have, this will not apply to Medicaid, OK? So it will not apply to various health plans, um, uh, that we're going to carve out, but yes, we've looked at cost and, um, I will send to, uh, interested members. Copy of the Bolton, uh, again, I just finished it and I've had about a week to do it and, um, I, I'm, I'm happy with it. I know everybody's got some concerns about cost and, uh, I would just ask for you to read this and, and, and you, I'll be glad to ask questions or answer questions. I just need to make a few edits tonight, so I will send that around tomorrow. OK, but what I, what I was asking is I, I got the interpretation from what you said, maybe I misinterpreted what you said, that the actuaries. Still in the process of providing data as to what the real financial impact is going to be, or are they complete and that's gonna be reflected in your report, we, we have, we have an estimated idea of what the cost impact is going to be, um, and so, um. Uh, this is more of, uh, the bulletin will request the health plans to supply us with some statistical information related to, um, their drug cost and their drug reimbursements over the prior calendar year so that we can evaluate that. Checks and balances to it then. OK, thank you. And if I might chime in, Senator Hammer, the cost to PBMs and plans and networks will be zero if the PBMs are providing a reasonable reimbursement rate in accordance with the law. That's correct. That's a very good point. Um, the commissioner is going to review, um, under the bulletin, um, the health plan's current reimbursements and um and determine whether or not um the plan already. Currently provides fair and reasonable reimbursement. So if they do, we will not require any cost additional. And that's provided the PBMs don't try to make up for it some other method in around. OK, thank you. Senator Irvin, you recognized? Thank you. Just to follow up, you said you were that that you, that it would carve out Medicaid, but the rule affects Medicaid. You're talking about the actuarial service is not going to look at the Medicaid. The rule will not apply to Medicaid, traditional Medicaid. Now private option, which is a private will this rule would apply to those problems, yeah, Medicaid is affected you're right, absolutely, but I'm talking about traditional pure Medicaid. It's not understood. So, but I, I want to make sure that I understood like the Actuarial services that you're looking at are for all the different aspects that are going to be affected. OK. OK, so that, that, and then second question is, I understand this is like where is this posted? Did you create a, a separate page where this is posted for public comment. The rule, the rule is up on the website, but the bulletin is not yet up on the website because I have not finished it. I've got to go back to the office. This has really been pushed on me real quick, so, um, I'm about finished. I just need a few more hours and then I'll upload it to the website. I will distribute it to, uh, Singer Irvin you and, and whoever's been interested in this issue for sure and you have the ability to send out emails, is that correct to your license holders, so I might make the suggestion that you could send that this out to your, your life. Independent insurance agents and plans and stuff like that. I appreciate that. Thank you. Central Bo you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just listening, it, it feels like there's a Mr. Rand, it feels like there's a lot of emphasis on this possibly increasing costs, but I know personally this legislature has shared some egregious overpayments. So when you're putting out your memo or you gonna give some direction on how we can prevent. Some prescriptions being paid at thousands of dollars versus, you know, hundreds of dollars at, at different outlets. I mean, is that, that going to be part of the review as well to to get both sides in line, not just we're just gonna raise this one. We're, we're also gonna potentially look at lowering this one. Yes, we'll be fair about that. Thank you. Center hammer you recognize. The second now. Has, has it gone up for public comment or educate me on on this being a rules it out for public comment now. The public hearing for the PBM Rule 128 is set for public comment and hearing on Tuesday next week. We intend to keep the record open, um, until the end of November for comments from um If interested stakeholders until the end of November. The hearing is next Tuesday. I have not received any comments yet. Um, so the public comment period will last until about the end of November. So we've not yet gotten any of that yet done or or received yet. The reason is because I know Senator Hill's committee will be looking at, they'll come through rules and just trying to get the timing in my mind as far as when, when the door will close so we can move forward with. meetings, we should be able to get that done by the end of the year. OK, thank you. Saying no more questions. Thank you gentlemen for being here and presenting your report. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members next up, uh, Adam, uh, number 10 requires, uh, presentation and uh from DHS who we have here today I give that. I believe Secretary Putnam called me earlier in the week and said she wouldn't be able to be here, but. Thank you all for being here. Please state your name you recognize to give you a report. M D Eubanks, deputy secretary operations and Budget DHS. Uh, Janet Mann, deputy secretary, and Medicaid director of programs, DHS. OK. Yeah, good morning. Um, this is the Alf letter that we send every month. We, um, have been working with Myers and Soffer and completed the cost report in January of 2024. We then, um, moved with approval on the appendix K rates. After that, we have done cost reporting and after the cost report was done, we submitted a new rate for approval at CMS that was approved and implemented on 9/1. It was retroactive back to July 1 of 2024. and we did, um, process all claims between July 1 and August 31 were reprocessed and adjustment made and those payments were made on October 4th of 2024. In addition, To that, we do disclose, um, any closures or any intent to sell or change of ownerships, we had two, intent to sell that sale that were given to us on 9/10 of 2024 that would have a date of expected sale of 1031, and we are monitoring those to see if those, um, we get the paperwork for the change of ownership. OK, that everything you've got. Yes, sir, before I take question, I, I will, uh, make a note, uh, Secretary Putnam had called me. She made mistakenly made a, uh, something that was stated in the last meeting that the retroactive payments had gone out and, and I've learned and she contacted me later. They had not gone out and then, uh, there was some, uh, figures that came out that wasn't right. So, uh, please let her know as I've told her, I appreciate her. Get not only back to me to let me know, uh, but also get with the, uh, entities that uh needed to have correct information, so I appreciate that. Uh, first up I've got Central Charlene fight and you recognize him. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. I was uh wondering if you could share with us the facilities that you mentioned to facilities that, uh, plan to sell some clothes. They're planning to sell and they are Celine senior living communities and then Mount, um, Carmel Community in Benton. And with their intent be to remain open under new ownership. That is our belief. We've not had any indication that they are planning to close. Thank you. Center Hammer recognized. Thank you on that subject right there, you said, you said Mount Carmel, they're not closing, they're just gonna stop taking Medicaid patients or. No, sir, we received an intent to sell. So when one owner sells to another owner, we do a change of ownership. We do, we have to do, um, paperwork and rate review with under new ownership. And so I'm not aware that the Medicaid is, is changing there. What's the date on that, if you don't mind the expected sale was 1031. So we are anticipating the change of ownership. Paperwork soon. OK. And you don't have a record of any other. These are the only two floating around there. So since they got the retroactive payment, it seems like it's stabilized, um, across the industry or are you at liberty to give an interpretation of that? We have not received any additional intent to sell or in notice of closure. OK, thank you. And I take it those names are not proprietary that you can't give them out evidently. That's. Public Yes, sir. OK. Not seeing any more, we thank you for your report and, uh, You think is Members not seeing any other business, we are adjourned. Keep in mind next council meeting will be compressed and have budget in with it so watch your calendars. Thank you.