Insurance & Commerce - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (15)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1837
Act 919
· 7 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…AND INFORMATION CONCERNING STATE-SPONSORED LIFE INSURANCE. HB1837 McCollum TO EXPAND ACCESS TO ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS THAT…”
|
TO EXPAND ACCESS TO ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS THAT ALLOW MORE SMALL BUSINESSES TO BAND TOGETHER … | McCollum | Notification that HB1837 is now Act 919 |
|
SB252
Act 878
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB252 K. Hammer TO PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR TREATMENT O…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR TREATMENT OF PEDIATRIC AUTOIMMUNE NEUROPSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS ASSOCIATED WITH STREPTOCOCCAL … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB252 is now Act 878 |
|
SB520
Act 994
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB 520”
|
TO CLARIFY THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT'S REGULATORY AND ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY CONCERNING PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGERS; AND … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB520 is now Act 994 |
|
HB1894
Act 922
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1894 House TO PROVIDE ARKANSAS NATIONAL GUARD MEMBERS ACCESS AND…”
|
TO PROVIDE ARKANSAS NATIONAL GUARD MEMBERS ACCESS AND INFORMATION CONCERNING STATE-SPONSORED LIFE INSURANCE. | House | Notification that HB1894 is now Act 922 |
|
HB1943
Act 1030
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB 1943”
|
TO AMEND THE PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT; AND TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "PERSONAL INFORMATION" … | Cavenaugh | Notification that HB1943 is now Act 1030 |
|
HB1835
· 2 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…GATION AND REIMBURSEMENT FOR MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BENEFITS. HB1835 Dotson TO PLACE RESTRICTIONS ON THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTM…”
|
TO PLACE RESTRICTIONS ON THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT WHEN OPERATING THE ARKANSAS HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETPLACE; … | Dotson | Sine Die adjournment |
|
HB1839
Act 1053
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB 1839”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE PREPAID MOBILE DEVICE PROTECTION ACT. | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1839 is now Act 1053 |
|
HB1958
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1958 Eaves TO AMEND THE CREDIT REPAIR SERVICES ORGANIZATION ACT…”
|
TO AMEND THE CREDIT REPAIR SERVICES ORGANIZATION ACT OF 2017. | Eaves | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB462
· 2 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…SYCHIATRIC SYNDROME. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB462 K. Hammer TO REQUIRE FIRE PROTECTION COVERAGE IN FORCE BEFO…”
|
TO REQUIRE FIRE PROTECTION COVERAGE IN FORCE BEFORE THE CLOSING OF A LOAN FOR A … | K. Hammer | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB473
· 2 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…FORE THE CLOSING OF A LOAN FOR A MORTGAGE OR DEED OF TRUST. SB473 T. Garner TO ESTABLISH THE "ARKANSAS TELEPHONE PRIVACY PROT…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE "ARKANSAS TELEPHONE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT". | T. Garner | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB566
· 2 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…ERS TO RELY UPON CALLER IDENTIFICATION SERVICE INFORMATION. SB566 Rapert CONCERNING AN INSURER'S RIGHT TO SUBROGATION AND REI…”
|
CONCERNING AN INSURER'S RIGHT TO SUBROGATION AND REIMBURSEMENT FOR MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BENEFITS. | Rapert | Sine Die adjournment |
|
HB1499
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TITUTIONS ALLOWED TO SERVE AS DEPOSITORIES OF PUBLIC FUNDS. HB1499 Maddox TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PUBLICATION OF NOTIC…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICE REQUIRED FOR A STATUTORY FORECLOSURE. | Maddox | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB257
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IZATION ACT OF 2017. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB257 K. Hammer TO INCLUDE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS INSURED BY THE…”
|
TO INCLUDE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS INSURED BY THE NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION AS INSTITUTIONS ALLOWED TO … | K. Hammer | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB312
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…liott TO MODIFY THE STATUTES CONCERNING RISK-BASED CAPITAL. SB312 B. Ballinger TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING THE PROFESSIONAL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING THE PROFESSIONAL BAIL BOND COMPANY AND PROFESSIONAL BAIL BONDSMAN LICENSING … | B. Ballinger | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB502
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…as 'Members and Staff Only'. FOR A STATUTORY FORECLOSURE. SB502 Elliott TO MODIFY THE STATUTES CONCERNING RISK-BASED CAPITA…”
|
TO MODIFY THE STATUTES CONCERNING RISK-BASED CAPITAL. | Elliott | Sine Die adjournment |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 9, 2026
Without objection, we're going to suspend the rules to be able to hear Senate Bill 520 with an amendment, House Bill 1943 with an amendment, House Bill 1839. And these are three bills that actually have been assigned but did not make the calendar for this morning. So without objection, so ordered, we will take those up. So that puts us in a position to be able to hear bills that are on the agenda, as well as these three bills.
For the purposes of the staff, now that we're at cleanup time for the calendar, been informed Senator Hammer that we can defer Senate Bill 462. That's taken off. We already have some other deferred bills. And so if there's anyone that knows any of these members that have bills on the calendar that you are here to support, but they're not here to present, you need to reach out to them and please tell them to contact us
because this is really the last meeting that we probably expect to have much done. We could do a meeting at the call of the chair to handle anything that is a surprise that's needed to handle for the House. I want to make that statement, but I want to make sure that people have an opportunity to hear their bills. So with that said, we're ready to begin business. Any question from the membership, from any of the committee members? I assume we're not doing anything too controversial? I'm not aware of it.
If we are, in a typical fashion, if it is too controversial, it probably won't make it anyway. So I'm not aware of that. the first
one up let's just go with the top of the calendar we have to concur in a house amendment senate bill 252 senator hammer do you have anything you want to
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:58
say i'll make a motion to concur the house amendment on
senate bill 252 all right i have a motion have a second all in favor say aye aye all opposed the amendment is concurred to
handled that thank you anyone here to represent senator garner on 473 or 475 senate bill 566 by the way has been withdrawn and sent to interim study i'm going to come back just just know i'm going to come back uh house bill 1835 here a little bit later. Representative House, I think you're here for House Bill 1894. I'd be happy to recognize
Speaker 7
2:45
you for presentation, sir. Colonel Wood up, lawyer
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
2:52
for the Guard. Former State Representative. State Representative Douglas House, Colonel Jeff Wood from the Guard. 1894 is really some cleanup language. In other states, all the other states have a National Guard Association that has been offering small life insurance policy since right after World War II.
We know for sure, maybe even before that. And because of some legal questions about who's in charge, all of the states are adopting this statute to make sure that everybody understands that this is a program sponsored by the Adjutant General, and the Adjutant General delegates the paperwork. It's real important to our soldiers because even though soldiers are covered by servicemen's group life insurance,
there is a delay in the event of a death other than on active duty, and these policies get the money to the family within 24 hours so that they can make funeral arrangements, so they can take care of those kinds of things that have to be taken care of with an immediate death. And that's what this bill does. And with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'll turn it over to Colonel Wood, give you a little bit more details if you need them. That's great. Thank you, Representative House. Just state your name and who you represent for the record, sir. Colonel Jeff. Need to punch
Speaker 10
4:16
your. Colonel Jeff Wood, Arkansas National Guard. And I would start out by saying I can speak on the bill. I'm not here to speak for or against it. It's not one of our agency bills that went through the process. But with that said, I would just to kind of add what he said. This is somewhat unique insurance. It does pay. It doesn't have the war exemption that you normally see in other insurances, and it pays on any type of death. Where we see this come up a lot is if we have a soldier, unfortunately, that commits suicide, or, you know, we have an, you know, automobile accident, this goes up to $50,000, and it pays within 24 hours, because like most governments
are, SGLI and other insurances take a while to process. The government always pays, just sometimes it takes a while, so this money really helps that family during that period. Be happy to answer any
other questions. Well, I actually had the opportunity to visit with some other folks with the Guard
and hear from them on this. And definitely very, very supportive. Obviously, when it comes to state, when you say state-sponsored life insurance program, we had some questions about that representative house. Just to clarify, I really couldn't see why we needed to do anything,
but I've heard that there's some issues there with the way it's been handled. And it could change from person to person if you don't have the clarity, is what I was advised. So with that, I obviously have no really objections at all. I just want to understand the process, and so I've had some conversations. Is there any questions from the members on this? Seeing no questions, is there anyone like to speak for or against this bill? Seeing
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
5:50
none, Representative House, do you have anything else? Yes, sir, and just another added feature.
Remember that all of our soldiers are paid through the federal government with federal monies, yet money may be deducted from those paychecks to pay for this insurance by statute, by congressional law. And so when people start saying, wait a minute, who's this association? They're not part of the state. We make it clear that the Adjutant General is the sponsor of this and it works out much better. Thank you so much for your understanding and your questioning. All right. I have a motion due pass
from Senator Teague. I have a second from Senator Irvin.
All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. So, Representative House, have you arranged for anybody to carry it on the floor? If not, I can carry it on the floor. I can do that. All
right. Happy to do that. Thanks for
coming. Appreciate your time. All right. Thank you, sir. Yes. Yes. Members, we're now down to House Bill 1837,
7, and Senator Bledsoe, Vice Chair, has advised me that she will run this
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
7:22
for Representative McCullum. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. House Bill 1837 is a good bill.
It came out of the House 92 to 0. It's about small business health plans and leveling the playing field with large businesses. I have with me Nick Staley from Opportunity Solution Projects to explain the bill. Thank you, sir. If you just state your name and who
you represent for the record. This is House Bill 1837, Senator. Sir, you're recognized. Thank you. I'm Nick Staley with Opportunity Solutions Project. Nick, I didn't recognize you
Speaker 18
7:57
with your beard, man. It's good to see you again.
Thanks. Good to see you. Okay, so. Try it again.
Speaker 18
8:24
Okay, there it is. Great. I think I inadvertently killed your mic. I apologize. So, basically, association health plans allow small businesses to band together to purchase insurance like a single larger employer.
And there have been some new federal regulations that have sort of expanded access to those and made it easier for people to begin to operate those. There's several changes, and to the best of my knowledge, we're not actually actively blocking any of this in Arkansas, but we want to get it in code.
Speaker 26
8:55
one of the things that that this does is it allows access
Speaker 18
9:00
to people who are in different industries but previously they couldn't do that another thing that it does is it in some cases
can allow across state lines and then sole proprietors and married owners it's a big problem for small business owners everywhere but also in arkansas who are trying to purchase insurance because you often get stuck on the more expensive individual market. And the prices we think are probably going to be in the neighborhood of up to $10,000 per year cheaper for families versus the individual market and nearly $3,000 versus the small group market. So that's basically what this does. It just makes sure we codify the fact that people have access to these. And
it's just really about making sure that these smaller businesses have access to better pricing that the bigger employers do. Members, do you have
any questions on House Bill 1837? Senator Teague, don't we have these small
Senator Larry Teague
Unverified
10:07
multiple employee trusts now and nobody's using them? Yes, they do
Speaker 18
10:12
exist. And that is, I think, part of the reason for the federal rule is to
make it a little bit easier to take advantage of those. Right now, well, up until the rule took effect, there were a lot of regulations on them. For instance, I'll just give you one example that I mentioned earlier. If you were a sole proprietor or if you're running it, let's say you're running a business with your spouse, you weren't allowed to join one of those. Well, Well, that's, I mean, if you think about it, it's, think about most of the small business owners you know. That's most of them. And so a lot of people just didn't have access to it before the rule. The other thing is you had to be in the same industry.
This, if people come in, there are a couple of pathways and it gets a little complicated. But if you come in under the new pathway, you, at that
Senator Larry Teague
Unverified
11:00
point, can be in different industries in your association. And so does Blue Cross or some other insurance company underwrite
Speaker 18
11:11
it? So it can be either way. It can be fully insured where they're underwriting it. It can also be self-insured, and there are reasonable solvency requirements contained in here as well based on the federal standards. So that's effectively what's going on. Usually if they're self-insured,
Speaker 26
11:26
they're going to have some sort of reinsurance. And does your company sell these? No. What is your help me understand why you're here? Sure. So I'm with Opportunity Solutions
Speaker 18
11:37
Project. We're a C4. We're a non-profit, and, you know, we're just working on actually getting these reforms implemented
Speaker 26
11:43
in the states. And have the multiple employer things worked anywhere? Yeah, so there are, they've worked. So, first of all, they've worked, MIWA's have worked well since
Speaker 18
11:54
the 1970s, with very few exceptions. They've worked pretty well.
And so what this really does is it just expands access to those to make it a little bit easier to start them and
make use of them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Any further questions? Commissioner Kerr, any input from the department on this particular bill? If you just shake your head yes or no, I'm cool with that. No problems. All right. Seeing no objections to that and no further questions. Anyone that would like to speak for or against this bill?
Seeing none. Senator, are you closed? All right. members take a motion on house bill 1837 i have a motion i have a motion do pass with a second uh all those favor say aye all those opposed no the bill passes thank you i know we're at the end if we could muster at least a grunt from somebody it'd be all right Now, I'm just going to say, I'm just going to say, if you don't, unless you're hollering, no, no, no, we're going to go, okay?
All right. Just to keep everybody tracking on cleaning the calendar, I've been advised that Senator Garner is deferring Senate Bill 473 and 475. He's not going to be running, so we're going to move that to the deferred list. So we actually have taken care of everything else. I haven't heard from Representative Eves. Has anybody heard from him? Or maybe we can get a message from him before we adjourn here. If anybody knows him, wants to talk to him a little bit,
it would be nice to get some information. With that, I want to move to, and for those that have just arrived at the table, we have actually got three bills that the committee does have, the bills on that were signed that we needed to spin rules to go ahead and take them up. And so, staff, have you already passed those out? Are they in the packets? Okay. If you would, let's just take a moment and let you get all three of the bills and the amendments, if you would. Senate Bill 520, which is Senator
Hammer. I'm understanding is that we have more consensus on an amendment on 520. And so I'm getting a yes from the governor's office as well. So we're going to pass that out. Need to adopt an amendment. And Senator Elliott, just so you're telling you, House Bill 1943, this is the one dealing with cyber security. After we passed it out here yesterday, they had another issue on it.
So I told them it'd be fine. We'll bring it back for an amendment. And so that's agreed to with the Attorney General's office and stakeholders. And then we have Representative Johnson. And I apologize. I was trying to call you Maddox while I go up. Yes, you guys, from a distance, you favor just a little bit. so representative johnson actually has a sounds to me like a very necessary bill that we need to
take up here in a moment too so i'm going to take just a moment let everybody get settled and then we'll get into these we've got plenty of time senator hammer if you want to go ahead and begin to take your position we're going to take yours up first. Mr. Chairman, motion will we adopt the amendment? I have a motion and a second to adopt amendment to Senate Bill 520. All in favor say aye. All
opposed, no. Is that the gun thing? Yeah. All opposed, no. The amendment is adopted. Senator Hammer, do you want to have a brief explanation on the amendment? Yes, sir. The bill as amended. Yes, sir. On the amendment, correct, Mr. Chair? On the bill as amended, just let us
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
16:09
know what changed. The only thing that has changed is, in working with the governor's office, it has done two things. The 1050 is not in there, number one.
Number two, it did add in there some stronger language that the insurance commissioner's office wanted to give them a bigger stick to pound on the PBMs in order to try to hold them in check. And on that point, if I could, Mr. Chair, briefly let John speak to that one particular point, and then I'll close. Okay. Please state your name and who you represent for
John Vinson
Unverified
16:43
the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is John Vinson, and I represent the Arkansas Pharmacists Association.
And the piece that Senator Hammer is referring to is on page two of the amendment, near the bottom of the page, where it talks about page 9 from the bill, lines 17 through 19. It is additional language around the previous testimony that you had heard from a pharmacist, Brittany Sanders, from West Little Rock about clawbacks that have been placed in that have circumvented the MAC law previously. And this language is just stronger to put out in black and white
that that applies to effective rate reimbursement methodologies, including generic effective rates, brand effective rates, and direct and indirect remuneration fees. I know those are terms of art, but essentially they're just new terminology that claws back dollars from pharmacies. All right. Senator Chesterfield has
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
17:44
thank you for taking my call. This is the most amended amended bill, and I'm wondering, with this, are you getting anything for a pharmacist?
I'm sorry, ma'am. Are you getting anything
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
17:59
for our pharmacists? Yes, ma'am. In fact, John, or if the chairman would allow, and if the commissioner or somebody from the insurance company wanted to come, I think that would be a good thing to identify. You're welcome. I'd
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
18:11
rather hear from the pharmacists themselves. That's
John Vinson
Unverified
18:14
fine. That's fine. Okay. Okay. Thank you for the question, Senator. So there are some provisions. Mostly the bill, to your point, is a PBM and health insurance transparency and regulatory bill. I'm sorry, John, if you'll suspend for a moment.
Yes, sir. I'll suspend as well. It's just a need, I think. She doesn't have a question. It is a
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
18:33
need. So I don't have to ask another question after this, if
Senator Testafield will agree, because I'm wondering that same thing. So just give us a summary. What was the problem we were solving, and what have we done to solve it? Just do those two things. And then, that's two things. Yeah. Yes, just define it and give us a summary, and who's better off and who's not, and that kind of thing. That's all I want, Mr. Joe, just to do that.
All right. So I don't
John Vinson
Unverified
19:02
have to ask another question. Thank you, John Vinson with the Arkansas Pharmacy Association. So the bill, as amended, I don't think is going to solve all the problems, and, you know, they're multifaceted, as everybody in the room knows. But there will be increased transparency for the taxpayers and for patients and consumers because it still includes prohibition of spread pricing. It still includes rebate transparency to the insurance commissioner.
That's not FOI-able, but to the state. So you can see that negotiations with the Arkansas Works Programs. it um you know on below cost reimbursement there is a prohibited act even though the the dispensing fee is not factored in which is a big deal for the pharmacies to be able to operate but it does define a below cost reimbursement less than the ingredient side of the drug as a prohibited act which allows the insurance commissioner to act immediately without an
appeals process you know because they can look up on a list and see exactly what it is right It's a published national average, so it does help on the ingredient side of the drug, just not for operations for a pharmacy to safely and effectively operate. And it does do some loophole closure still on defining what a maximum allowable cost is with a 30-day appeal on if it's below their acquisition cost. So it does still do some things. It's just not nearly as powerful, I think, as what it was before
pharmacies to be able to safely and effectively operate. We have had really positive conversations with the staff from the governor's office and from other members that have been involved in this, and this will not be the end of what we need to do. It'll only be the beginning to try to solve all the issues that are still facing us. Does that answer your question? Senator Chesterfield. Thank you. I take back
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
20:58
my time. Are you taking back your time?
I'm concerned because I'm seeing people driven out of business. And I need to know, is this going to be helpful, not just to you who are representative, but to some of these people in the audience with these white coats on? I need to hear from you,
if I could, with the permission of the chair. Yes, Senator Chesterfield, but I can tell you absolutely that what's happening in this bill is helping to bring more transparency and to help them to try to solve the problem.
The problem is that a lot of what needs to be adjusted absolutely is just unreachable at this particular point. And so there's a number of things that are happening that you will see happen, I believe, once we get out of session related to the Medicaid system as well. I have general consensus that it's time to do a deep dive and look at how the PBMs are interacting on the Medicaid system so that we can begin to find out if we might be like Kentucky and Ohio and find that we can save millions of dollars more by not having to deal with one of the worst actors in the country on our Medicaid program.
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
22:20
And that's about as much as I want to say on that. Well, Senator, if I may,
I'm concerned because it's outside of the session. Well, the— Will you have the authority outside of the session? We will have this. I'm co-chair of audit, and so we are going to utilize audit to be able to do that. And at any particular time, if they find cause, the Medicaid system could make a change. And, of course, the review probably would come through ALC at some point. But having had a discussion with all those parties concerned, I've had a discussion with leadership in the Senate.
I had actually copied that as well to leadership in the House and had a conversation with the audit staff as well as the governor personally. And I had no one that objected to us taking a further look at that. So that being said, I'm like you. I wish that I could settle this now, but what happens is this dispensing fee had the potential to cause us extreme stress in our current program with Arkansas Works and all of that because, unfortunately, the PBMs are wielding more power than even the insurance companies.
And so we're trying to come at this from all angles, and so I hope that's helpful. I'm going to recognize you, ma'am, and if you would, keep your comments to less than a minute. Absolutely.
Brittany Sanders
Unverified
23:41
Yes, my name is Brittany Sanders. I'm co-owner of the pharmacy at Wellington and the bill, as it's written, does absolutely help
Speaker 62
23:47
community pharmacy. It tightens up the back end because right now it doesn't matter how much we're getting on the front end if they're taking all of it away on the back end. And this tightens up that back end language to prohibit that take away, that take back.
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
24:02
Thank you so much, and thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Senator Hamler, thank you for
your diligence on this issue, because a lesser person would have just said to hit with it. But I thank you for your tenacity. Yes.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
24:19
Just a clarification about something you said, and maybe I should be asking the pharmacist folks, but I heard you talk about, you know, when we're away from here, we have commitments to make sure we're watchdogging and still making sure if we need to change something.
I totally get that from you as being a part of the legislative body. Are you saying the governor is committed to that
process as well? I've discussed my intent to
call for an audit of all PBM contracts related to Medicaid, and that includes the passes, and anything having to do with the state of Arkansas in which a PBM is active with that. And this is premised on the fact that they have absolutely found fault in Ohio. They found fault in Kentucky.
And we have found that some of those states have decided to totally do away with the utilization of the PBM and manage that internally within their state. They've saved millions of dollars and have had a great return on that. And so I think it's our due diligence. It seems almost dereliction of duty not to take that step when you found other states that have absolutely realized that the PBMs were charging them for their services.
They were undercutting their reimbursement to the pharmacies and showing a different number on what we paid for. And so this relates to all of their internal accounting, which has not been accountable. And so what's happening, I believe, is that with the introduction of the regulation, now we're finding ways to try to tighten that up. And we're getting some help from the federal folks as well. Everybody seems to understand this is problematic. So it's a matter of we don't want to hurt everyone until we're able to actually focus on handling the issue.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
26:12
And are the pharmacists, were all of you guys a part of the,
like, legislators, pharmacists, insurance, whoever was supposed to be a part of this conversation? Everybody is aware that we could, if we need to, take action going forward without a legislative session and have a place to. The action would be is a thorough
audit. Okay. All right. And obviously, at that point, if there is reason and cause, then we can go forward. Now, I don't know if the governor's representative has had as much discussion as I've had with the governor.
I don't know that for sure. But my understanding is that the governor understands that's my intent, and I've made that publicly. And I keep getting, you know, agreement. No pauses, no objections to that. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Hammer. Yes,
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
27:01
sir. Are there any more questions? Otherwise, I'm
Senator Larry Teague
Unverified
27:05
ready to close when you are. Seeing no more questions. Is there anyone that would like
to speak for or against the amendment? Seeing none, I have a motion to do. I would like to make a
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
27:17
closing statement, Mr. Chair, if I may.
Really, I would. Okay. Thank you. Because I want to speak to Senator Elliott and to Senator Chesterfield's comments and concerns. Within a week, I'm going to file an interim study that will come back to this committee, of which I'm not a member, but I'm going to send it, because I think part of the challenge we have is twice now we've had to deal with PBMs on the fly for more or less because we've had to come into a special session and we had to come into this, and it's like drinking out of a fire hose. I have jumped into it, but I think one of the things that's going to help us all is better understand the process
and bring people before a committee to testify in public on a longer period of time instead of having to drink. One of the things, too, includes I think it would be good to send a waiver to CMS and say we want to know what our options are other than having to use a PBM, maybe something along the lines of what we do with EBRX. I think that would be a good thing to explore and put CMS in a position as we negotiate other waivers. And so those are two commitments I have because as long as we can keep the pressure on, increase the tools in the toolbox for the commissioner to use and pound their heads,
I think at least we can move this thing forward and score some points eventually. So I appreciate you all. time. I know it's been a real pain in the rear. It's been an educational process for me, and I really appreciate the committee's tolerance.
Thank you. Thank you. I have a motion on the floor. Do pass from Senator Chesterfield. Second from Senator Elliott. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The bill passes. I just want to ask the members to be supportive of Senator Hammer today when we ask to suspend the rules to go ahead and vote this. He has to get
it out into the House. So I'd appreciate y'all doing that. Thank you, Senator, and everyone involved. No, we don't. I've got just, we've got a couple more and then we'll be done. You should have before you House Bill 1943. And Senator Teague, I actually want to ask you to run this amendment. And this is simply an agreed to amendment from the Attorney General's office to House Bill 1943. Yes, I appreciate you doing this. I agreed to carry this on the floor
and you have an amendment here. They didn't have to do that, but apparently they did add me as a sponsor, but it's got language here that deals with agreements from the Attorney General related to some biometric data that is involved in the reporting. This does keep the 45-day requirement, which is the essence of our discussion previously. So I'm going to recognize Senator Teague, and I've got a motion from myself here to adopt the amendment.
Second. Second from Senator Bledsoe. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. So, Senator, do
you have any comments at all on 1943? Mr. Chairman, we added G, which is any
Senator Larry Teague
Unverified
30:24
other unique biological characteristics of an individual, if the characteristics are used by the owner. And we did some stuff about the Attorney General in the back. Okay. I'd be happy to answer any questions. My
understanding is I've heard from the industry.
I'm not had anybody object now to the bill in its current form. Is there anybody that would like to speak for or against this bill as amended? Seeing none, I have a motion due pass from Senator Chesterfield. I have a second from Senator Teague. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The bill passes. Mr. Johnson, Representative Johnson, if you would present to us House Bill 1839.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
31:14
Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee members, Representative Lee Johnson. I've also heard from Representative Eves, and I'm prepared to run his bill, too, if you'll accommodate me on that after I run 1839. Thank you. So House Bill 1839 does one thing in a fairly straightforward manner. What it does is it makes it against the law for a person other than a family member, and we define that in the bill as pretty loosely. So family member can mean a parent, grandparent, temporary guardian, fictive kin, which is defined as someone that is not blood kin or kin by marriage, but could be considered, you know, acting in the traditional family role.
It prevents anyone other than those people from purchasing a minor, a prepaid cell phone. This was a constituent-driven issue for me. So I had a parent in my district who has a teenage daughter, and she's doing all the right things for her child. She's monitoring her cell phone use, looking at her apps, seeing who she's communicating with, taking her phone away at night so that she's not texting in the middle of the night. And she caught her young teenage daughter with a prepaid phone that had been provided to her by someone without her consent or knowledge.
And so when I found out about that issue, I could see that this was a potential problem for people looking to take advantage of our youth. And so as a parent, I was concerned enough to try to model a bill that would now make this against the law to try to do this. And so it makes it a civil penalty right now with a fine, and it would apply to anyone providing a phone, giving money to someone for a phone,
or refilling a prepaid cell phone card. And I'd be happy to try to answer any questions about that.
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
33:05
Senator Chesterfield. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Johnson. How would
one determine whether or not the money I would give to my niece and
nephew is going to be used to purchase a phone? How do you determine intent? So it's a good
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
33:22
question. I think that would be something that the law, and, you know, this is something I worked with the Attorney General's office on,
trying to form a bill that would address the issue, and they've been supportive in this process. And I think it would be up to the attorneys involved if issue was raised. So I think that the process would be you as a parent would have to say, hey, I think this person gave my child money to buy a phone. And then it would be up to the process to determine was their intent there or not. But as an aunt or uncle, I think you would be included in fictive kin. So I think as an aunt or uncle, if you're a parent and your son or daughter's aunt or uncle
purchasing a phone and you're okay with that, that would not be
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
34:04
a problem. I'm not talking about the purchase of. Correct. I'm talking about the intent of when I give a person a Christmas present who is not a relative, but someone whom I know, and they use that card to purchase a phone, how would you determine intent? Is the AG's office here? They are not here with me today, no. That's my concern because you are saying that you're going to determine what my intent was if I give someone that I know because I've got lots of God children and I give them a, they can use it, it costs $19.99 for a prepaid phone.
So if I give them a
$50 gift card and they use it to purchase a phone, how do
Speaker 74
34:51
you determine my intent? Representative Johnson, just a moment. Uh, on page two, on page
two, line 20, a person that violates this chapter or who knowingly, knowingly is going to be the term that would be spoken to likely by the attorney general, uh, representative Johnson. And I think knowingly is if you know we've had bills that we've had even in our technical corrections,
which made sure that to update the statute for knowingly. Knowingly is that they knew that what they were doing was going to lead and result in the purchase of the prohibited items. So the key is it come down to somebody knowingly. Is that
not correct, Mr. Johnson? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think that is correct. Well, I
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
35:41
hope both of you gentlemen are correct, because I'd like to see a legal definition of knowingly.
But as we're getting late in the session, and you guys want to do this, I won't stand in your way. Because I think that's very, I think it's a slippery slope. Yeah. So, anyway. But so good to
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
36:03
meet you, Mr. Johnson. Yes, and Senator, if I might respond, I agree. This was a bill that initially started broader, and we worked on it quite a bit in the committee process. I got a lot of feedback back and forth in committee down on that end. There was a lot of discussion generated.
You know, as when you're doing anything in this process, there are details that sometimes are difficult to get exactly right. But the intent of this bill is to try to protect against predators. And I don't think anyone in a family circle would look upon a grandparent giving money and see if it's done with the right intent. I don't think people are going to be looking to try to catch you in a got you moment. I think it's more about providing a venue as a parent so that if someone is inappropriately approaching your child with this phone,
you now have an outlet to say this is wrong. And under current statute, we don't have any outlet for a parent to say, you shouldn't
do this for my child. Just
for the purposes, since we are on record, Senator Chesterfield, since you've mentioned this, legal definition, the word knowingly in law means consciously or with knowledge or complete understanding of the facts or circumstances an individual is deemed to have acted knowingly in regard to a material element of an offense when two things happen. If the element involves the nature of his or her conduct or the circumstances attendant thereto,
he or she is aware that the conduct is of such nature that a row's circumstances exist, and if the element relates to a result of the person's conduct, et cetera, et cetera. Well, that's helpful, Mr.
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
37:42
Chair. Okay. Thank you. That is very helpful, and I understand the intent now of the knowingly, and I hope that we are able to use this in the right way, but I hope we also don't run into a slippery slope where someone gets angry with a family member and then they say, I didn't know you bought this phone.
So that's a concern that I have. I'm going to go along with you, Bill, but my concern is very, very great in this area. Thank you. In both ways, both for the kids as well as for making sure that we don't get into family situations situations where they fall out and then they use it to hurt each other. So thank you. Yes, Senator, I appreciate your concerns and thank
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
38:24
you for your comments. You're welcome. I'd be
happy to take any other questions. And
on that, and those are great concerns, there is an exemption for those
family members into the bill. So any further questions? Anyone that would like to speak for against the bill in the audience? Seeing none, are you close for your bill, sir? I am, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I have a motion from Senator Bledsoe. Do pass. I have a second from the chair. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The bill passes. Thank you, sir. All right. Now we're getting close, members. We've taken care of all bills that we knew that were pending out here,
that were off agenda that we have taken up. And you mentioned that you would present for Representative Eves. Yes, Mr. Chairman. That is on the agenda. That is House Bill 1958,
1958. Thankfully, it is not even
a full page. Hopefully it's brief. You're recognized to present House Bill 1958. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
39:37
As I understand it, this is a transparency bill designed to clearly identify when a consumer repair organization is approaching a consumer about a consumer repair issue. So it creates the clause that says you have to clearly state in your correspondence that this is what it's in regard to. And I believe at the bottom of the bill you can see the line that it's requiring to be placed in that correspondence. And again, I'd be happy to try to answer any questions.
All right. I was just checking there. Do we have anybody that's prepared to speak for or against this bill? I thought that might be the case. And so, before we do that, members, any questions for Representative Johnson on this bill right now? What is he trying to do? Representative Johnson, could you summarize in one statement right now, again, what you're trying to accomplish in the bill?
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
40:41
Yes, we're trying to create some transparency and communications between consumer repair organizations and the people they're communicating with by creating a statute that says they have to clearly state their intent in a manner that's clear to the person receiving the correspondence. So is
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
40:58
this in response to these people who are selling themselves and fixing folks? Yes,
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
41:03
my understanding is to try to create some clarity in these correspondences so that when people are receiving them, they understand exactly who they're coming from and what's driving that.
Gotcha. Thank you. Okay. Members, with no other questions, I want to go ahead and move to a person that wants to speak against House Bill 1958. Please state your name and who you represent for the record.
Derek Smith
Unverified
41:29
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Derek Smith. I'm an attorney with the Mitchell-Williams Law Firm here in Little Rock, and I represent Lexington Law Group. Your record, Ash? Thank you. Let me begin by telling everyone who Lexington Law Group is.
Lexington Law is a law firm that's focused on representing clients who seek to address problems on their credit reports. Lexington has served clients for many years, and in 2018 alone, its Arkansas clients, including nearly 200 service members, saw the removal of over 90,000 negative items from their credit reports. And what the bill does is actually a bit different than what's been presented. Right now, if a consumer finds an error in a credit report, they have two options to seek to correct it.
they can either call the credit reporting agency or the debt collector directly, or they can hire someone like Lexington Law to do that for them. If the consumer sends a call or reaches out to the reporting agency or the debt collector directly, the debt collector or the agency has to respond within a certain period of time. If a third party, like a law firm, does it, and it is clear that the communication comes from a third party,
the debt collector or the consumer credit reporting agency does not have to respond. So what this bill does is actually provides a way to avoid answering complaints from consumers about items on their credit reports. And because of that, that's why we oppose the bill. We think it's detrimental to consumers and do not think it helps in the way that's been described. Senator Chesfield. I
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
43:25
guess I'm trying to understand this.
Ms. Smith, if someone is stating that this communication is from a credit repair services organization, how is that anti-consumer? Help me with that because you have said that this bill is anti-consumer. I wasn't quite clear
Derek Smith
Unverified
43:45
as to how. So the communications that the bill seeks to address are not communications between a credit repair agency and a consumer. This seeks to address communications between a credit repair agency and a debt collector or a credit reporting agency.
And by putting that disclosure on those communications, the debt collector or the credit reporting agency knows it comes from an attorney as opposed to the consumer directly and doesn't have to respond. Oh, so
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
44:13
legally now, you have to respond to the individual, but you do not have to respond to a representative of the individual. That is correct. And this will exacerbate the problem if that is done. That is correct. Thank you. You're
welcome. Senators, any other question on that?
Senator Larry Teague
Unverified
44:33
Senator Teague, you're recognized. Can I ask Representative Johnson a question? If that's okay, I think it'd be great to have this conversation, yes. So he says you're hurting
the process. You want to comment on that? It's
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
44:48
hard for me to see how clarity and communication hurts any process. So it looks to me like— Well, if they don't have to answer. And, again, I'm reading the bill as you are, Minnie, right now, and I'm trying to understand where in the bill it excludes that—
I think he said it was current law or current practice. Again, I'm trying to understand where you're pointing at in this new statute text that's underlined, how that negates that process. Can Mr. Smith? Yes, sir. Mr. Smith? Sure.
Derek Smith
Unverified
45:22
So the way the practice works now is an attorney who is representing a consumer in a credit dispute, Ghost writes a letter and sends it on behalf of the client.
And because it is known that debt collectors do not have to respond to those letters, they don't identify that it's coming from the third party. By this bill requiring that disclosure and it being printed on every letter, the debt collector or the agency will know it comes from a third party and then will not have to respond. And who
Senator Larry Teague
Unverified
45:58
says that they don't have to respond to a letter from a debt collector?
I think that's federal law. I think it's the Fair Credit Reporting Act. So, but if it's from the attorney or a letter is written and it says this is provided by the Johnson Law Firm, they wouldn't have to respond? That is correct. So, I would guess that if they didn't respond to that, then they'd write a letter by themselves without the, I don't know where that leaves us.
Speaker 83
46:36
Do you have any thoughts, Representative
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
46:40
Johnson? I'm still working through this with you as we talk. And so, I mean, to me, as I read it, it says a credit repair services organization is the one that shall conspicuously label its communication. I'm trying to understand better how we define that and how a third party is defined in a credit
repair services organization. So, Mr. Smith, and I understand where the committee's stumbling a little bit on this
because standing on its own, the language here says a credit repair services organization shall. Would you be able to advise us? Is Lexington Law Firm actually acting
as a credit repair services organization, and that is why they have
Derek Smith
Unverified
47:32
an interest? I think based on the definition, yes. What they do is they represent consumers, individuals that have in their engagement with debt collectors and credit reporting agencies.
So, yes. I mean, look, this bill is being, from what we've been told, is being brought at the behest of debt collectors who don't like receiving these communications from representatives of consumers, believe they're overburdened, and would like not to have to respond. Any other questions from the
Commission Center English? So then I
Senator Jane English
Unverified
48:14
guess my question is, first place, this wouldn't change federal law,
But the other side of it is that who does a person go to if they only can go to the credit reporting thing or to the debt collector and they can't go to a third party for help? I think that's a very good question. Maybe it's
Speaker 118
48:38
a rhetorical question. I think that's why
we oppose the bill. And so I think we've stripped it away enough to determine that really the biggest problem is the federal law,
which is impeding someone from utilizing any counsel in dealing with a debt collector. Is that correct? I think it's more
Derek Smith
Unverified
49:08
a quirk in the federal law, I think. I think the law is written in such a way that it clearly contemplates communications coming from the individual consumer. It does not as clearly contemplate communications coming from a representative of that consumer.
And because that's not contemplated, debt collectors and whomever do not have to respond. That's
simply amazing to me because everyone is entitled to representation. So has there been any litigation on this? None of which I'm aware. Sounds to me like it's ripe for a good lawsuit. Because, I mean, I don't know, like the members have said, I don't know why. And so what you're saying is since there has not been clarity given
and they are acting as if they do not have to respond to anyone other than the individual themselves, that this is now putting, especially since there has been a workaround and that some of these entities trying to help people have ghostwritten their communication. And so what is happening now is they say, we know that you're getting help, so we're going to say we want a clear statement put on there. Is that correct?
Derek Smith
Unverified
50:28
Precisely, Mr. Chair, and it's an effort that I think we're seeing around the country.
It's an effort that has not been successful in any state as of yet, and this would be
the first state to do something like this. Members, any other questions for
Mr. Smith? We're going to go back now to Mr. Smith, to the presenter, And I think that the sponsor has now appeared.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
50:59
And so... If I could recognize Representative Eves and call him to the table, that would be... That would be fine since I'm
in the middle of part of the process of having people speak for or against. Is there anyone else that would like to speak for or against? Seeing none, Representative Eves would be happy for you to join the table here. And Representative Johnson, thank you.
Speaker 121
51:26
Mr. Chairman and committee members, I apologize for throwing Lee into the mix here without knowing what's going on.
I guess he's presented the bill, and without going too far back, I could try to answer any questions you may
have had at this point. Well, it might be helpful to know who actually was supportive of you bringing this bill.
Speaker 121
51:48
The credit collectors, the debt collectors association. Okay. Okay. I think that the, didn't mean to interrupt you, but I think the point is they get inundated with just hundreds and hundreds of these robo-disputes, and it makes it extraordinarily difficult for them to be able to comply with the law and to respond on time and accurately.
And so, you know, when the debt collector contacts or sends out correspondence to someone who owes them money, they have to put language on their letter that signifies where the letter originates from. And this would put the other side of the equation equal. So the credit repair organizations would simply have to put on there that this letter is originating from
a CRO. And I know you
weren't here to have the conversation and hear part of it. Are you aware that apparently they absolutely are ignoring any correspondence that is not from the individual themselves?
You're talking about the debt collectors? That's what was testified to, yes. Yeah, no, I'm not aware of that. It was testified to that this acknowledgment is, from their perspective, a reason to simply ignore based upon the current status of the federal rules. I understand. I'll tell you, if it's great
with the chairman and I respect for my colleague here, I'd like to pull the
Speaker 121
53:06
bill down and take a little further look at it in the future. Okay.
All right. If that's your wish. Yes. I don't think the committee's kind of staggering on this one a little bit. I understand.
My goal is not to put one side
Speaker 121
53:21
of the equation above the other. I want to be equal, and I don't think we're maybe getting there at this point. So I'd like to do a little more research,
talk to these guys a little more. We'll
pull the bill down. It remains on our calendar. Yes, sir. On the chance that if you decide and you talk with folks and there is some reason, we will be at the call of the chair. And this is a House bill, so that means it does have a chance to get heard if we want to do that.
So we'll pull that down. It'll be on the calendar. And we appreciate you allowing us to make sure we're doing the right thing on this one. Absolutely. That's my goal. Thank you. Thank you very much. Members, that takes care of all of the three that we had suspended to be able to hear. The only thing that we have left, and I don't see Representative, is Senator Ballinger or Representative Dotson in the room? they were going to try to have a discussion again on 1835 i do not see them in the room
is there anything else that that you can see well i think that's a great idea what i would want to say if we don't get the opportunity to and that is how grateful i am to teresa and carol for your hard work through this session thank you so much we do appreciate you and members you've worked very hard and I think we've done a good job so thank you for everything all right we're adjourned
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1894 House TO PROVIDE ARKANSAS NATIONAL GUARD MEMBERS ACCESS AND INFORMATION CONCERNING STATE-SPONSORED LIFE INSURANCE.
HB1837 McCollum TO EXPAND ACCESS TO ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS THAT ALLOW MORE SMALL BUSINESSES TO BAND TOGETHER TO PURCHASE INSURANCE.
HB1958 Eaves TO AMEND THE CREDIT REPAIR SERVICES ORGANIZATION ACT OF 2017.
SB 520
HB 1943
HB 1839
SB252 K. Hammer TO PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR TREATMENT OF PEDIATRIC AUTOIMMUNE NEUROPSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS ASSOCIATED WITH STREPTOCOCCAL INFECTION AND PEDIATRIC ACUTE-ONSET NEUROPSYCHIATRIC SYNDROME.
Adjourned
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — INSURANCE & COMMERCE - SENATE, Apr 4, 2019 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Jason Rapert Chair
Unverified
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 7
Representative Douglas House
Unverified
Speaker 10
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
Speaker 18
Speaker 26
Senator Larry Teague
Unverified
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
John Vinson
Unverified
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
Brittany Sanders
Unverified
Speaker 62
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 74
Derek Smith
Unverified
Speaker 83
Senator Jane English
Unverified
Speaker 118
Speaker 121