Insurance & Commerce- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (13)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB520
Act 994
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…VIDERS AND SPOOFING PROVIDERS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB520 K. Hammer TO CLARIFY THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT'S REGUL…”
|
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 |
|
HB1027
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE AGREEMENT. HB1027 Rye TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR ADEQUATE…”
|
TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION REIMBURSEMENT UNTIL AN INSURED'S DAMAGED … | Rye | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1068
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1068 Evans TO REPEAL THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE A COVENANT NOT TO CO…”
|
TO REPEAL THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE AGREEMENT. | Evans | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1103
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NAGER LICENSURE ACT. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1103 Sullivan TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS HEALTHCARE TRANSPARENCY INI…”
|
TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS HEALTHCARE TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE ACT OF 2015; AND TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS … | Sullivan | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1271
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1271 Rushing TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE APPROVAL OF A REAL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE APPROVAL OF A REAL ESTATE LICENSING COURSE BY THE … | Rushing | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1410
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…. HB1510 Lowery TO ESTABLISH THE "ANY WILLING PARTNER LAW". HB1410 Gazaway TO CLARIFY THE OBLIGATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL LANDLORDS…”
|
TO CLARIFY THE OBLIGATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL LANDLORDS AND RESIDENTIAL TENANTS; AND TO REQUIRE MINIMUM HABITABILITY … | Gazaway | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1704
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OGNIZED BY THE CHAIR REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1704 Gazaway TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS STATE CONSUMER JUSTICE EN…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS STATE CONSUMER JUSTICE ENFORCEMENT ACT; AND TO REGULATE STANDARD-FORM CONTRACTS. | Gazaway | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1924
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ABILITY STANDARDS FOR TENANTS OF RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY. HB1924 Dotson CONCERNING ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION; TO REQUI…”
|
CONCERNING ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION; TO REQUIRE A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A TWO-YEAR REAL ESTATE … | Dotson | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1986
Act 1074
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1986 Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW PROHIBITING SPOOFING; TO AMEND THE L…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW PROHIBITING SPOOFING; TO AMEND THE LAW REGULATING TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS AND … | Penzo | Notification that HB1986 is now Act 1074 |
|
SB551
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB551 J. English TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RESTRICTIVE COVENANT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE TERMINATION OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIVE … | J. English | Sine Die adjournment |
|
HB1273
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TE LICENSING COURSE BY THE ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION. HB1273 Pilkington TO REQUIRE THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIFE AND…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE STATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE BOARD TO REVIEW THE … | Pilkington | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1462
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…REVIEW THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF RIDESHARING APPLICATIONS. HB1462 Gazaway CONCERNING DAMAGES IN A CIVIL ACTION INVOLVING A DE…”
|
CONCERNING DAMAGES IN A CIVIL ACTION INVOLVING A DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICE. | Gazaway | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1510
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1510 Lowery TO ESTABLISH THE "ANY WILLING PARTNER LAW".”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE "ANY WILLING PARTNER LAW". | Lowery | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
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
Speaker 1
0:00
Chair Cesar Quorum, thank you very much, members, for being so prompt and being here. First item of business is Senate Bill 520, Representative Gray. You're recognized to present
Speaker 2
0:11
the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we've had this
John Benson
Unverified
0:24
bill in the Senate for quite a while, and I believe it's had three amendments to it, maybe two.
I can't remember as we've gone through it. I can tell you that the biggest point of contention that I have heard from the members was regarding the dispensing fee, and that was amended out in the last amendment, so that's no longer in the bill. So let me tell you what the bill currently does. So it has a loophole closure from the previous MAC law. The definition of maximum allowable cost is updated to include all drugs. It allows for 30 days instead of 7 on appeals in the NEWMAC law for below-ingredient cost claims.
And it allows declination of all drugs if below-ingredient cost. Required rebate reporting by PBMs of payments received from drug manufacturers. This was actually something that we had in the last PBM bill in the special session. We just put one little sentence in there allowing the insurance commissioner to promulgate rules around it. It's kind of my understanding that they felt like that wasn't quite enough, So we're specifying it and giving a little more teeth to that so they can promulgate those rules. It'll have PBM and health plan transparency.
Quarterly reporting will go to the insurance commissioner. Any payments received by the PBM or health insurer from drug manufacturers will be reported in aggregate. And then that aggregate amount of rebates passed on to the patient at the point of sale will be included. The amount paid back to the PBM from the health plan. The amount of rebates paid to pharmacies from the PBM. It's not FOIA eligible. It's kept proprietary, and that was one of the concerns with the insurance companies is that it's proprietary information, so it would be just that the insurance commissioner and the insurance department could see that information.
Spread pricing by PBMs would be prohibited, and that was, it's my understanding that a majority of the state-sponsored plans are not doing spread pricing anymore, so they've kind of gone away from that model to some degree, and that was the biggest thing we were fighting when we started this in 2015 but we just want to make sure that it remains that way and prohibition of reimbursement to a pharmacy on ingredient cost of a drug below a national average of drug purchase price so pay or reimburse a pharmacy or pharmacist for the ingredient drug
product component of pharmacist services less the national average drug acquisition cost or if the national average or they call that nadac is unavailable the wholesale acquisition cost And then also loophole closure in the PBM Licensure Act, which is what we did in special session last year on retroactive payment reductions to pharmacies. So it would prohibit clawbacks on reimbursement to pharmacies for generic effective rates, direct and indirect fees, brand effective rates, or others. And so what you'll hear is that a pharmacy got on a, so upon adjudication, they'll transmit and they'll come back.
So they'll, they get paid $20 on a drug. they paid eighteen dollars for that drug so they two dollars which you could consider is two dollars in dispensing fee or profit whatever you want to call that two dollars in either monthly quarterly or yearly the pbms can then claw back the money but they don't claw it back on a per prescription basis they claw it back in an aggregate basis and they don't so the pharmacists don't know if that two dollars was taken back or ten cents of it was taken back or nothing so not they don't get any
information on a per prescription basis. So it's kind of been a way around some of our MAC laws that we've had that we enacted in 15, where we said you had to at least pay the acquisition cost. So now they pay the acquisition cost and then do a clawback at the end, and it's not specific to per prescription. And then defined in state law that these provisions do not apply to managed care Medicaid programs. These provisions do apply. I read that wrong. I was sitting there thinking, Wait, that's not right. But just making sure that these provisions do apply to the passes as well.
So what they apply to is they'll apply to the passes and they'll apply to the fully insured plans such as Arkansas Works and commercial plans. But this does not apply to ERISA. We established that all the other times we've done this insurance with the Insurance Commission as well. So this does not touch ERISA. I know
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
4:34
that's a lot of information. I'd be glad to
Speaker 1
4:39
take any questions. Thank you, Representative Gray. Members, are there any questions? Representative Pilkington. Thank you.
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
4:47
Representative Gray, I know the AG's office had some concerns with changing language, especially due with maximum allowables, and I was hoping
you could speak to that and kind of assuage our concerns. Yeah. So the AG's office
John Benson
Unverified
4:59
approached me during session today that it's, so right now we have, I mean, I have no idea, I'm not an attorney, where we are in the process, in the appeals process deals process with the lawsuit that was filed on the original Mac law that we passed in 2015. Um, and it was just a concern that it's possible that by us passing this bill,
it could, uh, hurt the lawsuit that we have in, in process. So what I had told them I would do is go ahead and run it in committee today. And that way if we don't need, if we don't meet again, this is over and done. And for whatever reason I need to, I can hold it on the floor tomorrow while I wait for the solicitor
Brittany Sanders
Unverified
5:42
general to get back with me on that. any follow-up no any additional questions members representative with all the amendments
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
5:52
this still helps those small-town pharmacists and gives them all the protections because I know this has been moving around but this still gives them those protections
John Benson
Unverified
5:59
that they need I think this is huge and I'll tell you why I know they would have liked to have had that dispensing fee and to me this is huge when I think back to 2015 and even 2000 so that would have been 18 when we ran when we had the special meeting it's huge to have the rebate language in here we've been trying to get that for five years four years now five years it's huge to have the spread pricing if I had if I
had said and I think I did say in 2000 I think I said it last year I want to eliminate spread pricing. What I got from most of the members was, no, we're not ready to dictate a business model. We don't want to do that. The clawbacks and the way we're attacking that, that's huge for the pharmacies too. So to me, this is just about as big as any of the other bills we've passed for the
Brittany Sanders
Unverified
6:53
pharmacies already. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions, members. Representative Perry.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
6:58
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You mentioned the ongoing
litigation. You said you're going to hold off on running it tomorrow until you hear? If I need
John Benson
Unverified
7:08
to, yes, I will. What if you don't hear by tomorrow? Then I'll run it. So here's kind of, here's my thinking on it is hopefully I'll hear something back from them. And this bill has been out there now for like three weeks and I'm just now getting they just kind of now came to me and said hey we might have an issue so I think what it comes down to and this will just be talking through it with the AG and with the pharmacy association and with the pharmacists involved is what's more important what we have in litigation right now or that may or may not result in the outcome we want or this
right here that gives you what you want so I think that will be a discussion that I'll have to have with all interested parties is to see what we do moving forward. And it may in the end become, we may decide not to run it in the end. But since we're short on time, I wanted to go ahead and have it on the floor so we
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
8:03
could run it if I got the okay. Okay. Let me just ask about some of these provisions. I know that when we dealt with this issue in the special session,
we were pretty much blazing the trail for a lot of other states. and the provisions that are in this bill that you're presenting today are these things that we just weren't aware of at that time or are they issues that have arisen where PBMs have maybe figured a workaround to what we passed in the special session? I think a little bit of both so
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
8:34
they're like the rebate language you know we kind of we put something in there that the insurance commissioner
John Benson
Unverified
8:40
could promulgate rules around it but didn't really specify anything
So this is just giving them a little bit more direction and teeth to do that. So that one, we should have done a little bit better, or I should have done a little bit better in special session. As far as, like, the clawbacks, that's gotten worse since we first started running this legislation in 2015. It's gotten much worse. I've got pharmacists getting $60,000, $100,000, $150,000 quarterly clawbacks that they have no idea what prescriptions those even pertain to. They don't have a formulary to show them. I'm going to call it a formulary. That's not a good thing to use in the pharmacy world, but there's no validation.
They have no idea where that's coming from or how that number came to be. So that's gotten worse. And then also closing up that MAC law, we knew they'd find ways
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
9:26
around what we did in 15. So this is a little of both. Some of it's
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
9:34
new and some of it's just shoring up how they've gotten around us. Okay. And looking at the title, I know it refers to regulatory authority of the insurance department. Have we done anything in this to grant the insurance department some additional regulatory authority to be able to promulgate rules if other unanticipated variations come?
Speaker 27
9:53
Or is that something that just always has to
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
9:58
be done through statute? It's my understanding that anything that we haven't given them direct authority to promulgate would have to come back to us legislatively. Okay. to essentially direct them to promulgate rules okay members any additional questions come on
John Benson
Unverified
10:12
and if you don't mind i'll let john benson with the pharmacy association attest and answer that a little bit better than i
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
10:17
absolutely and if you'll just identify yourself with the record yeah thank
John Vinson
Unverified
10:24
you mr chair my name is john benson i'm the chief operating officer for the
arkansas pharmacists association and the pbm licensure law as it is today does give the insurance commissioner broad rulemaking authority but it's still a question of how you know to what extent will they use that authority without directive from the legislature still an unknown at this point okay members any any
Speaker 1
10:49
questions for representative correct gray or for the witness at the end of the table yes representative Pilkington thank
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
10:57
you this is for the farms
Association, did you or did you not make a deal with Senator Caldwell and Senator Hammer that you would not support the birth control bill in order for them to support the PBM
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
11:11
bill and get this out of public health? I'm going to rule that question out of order. That's not really germane to the, it's not germane to this bill. So I'll give you an opportunity
to maybe figure a way to rephrase that while I call on Representative Ferguson.
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
11:29
uh, explain the rebate. Is it just a definition of rebate? What, what is in the bill? I was trying to, I'm sorry. I hadn't read the bill thoroughly before we came up. What is in the bill
John Vinson
Unverified
11:46
about rebates? Explain to me what this will do. Excuse me, John Benson. So on the rebate reporting section, uh, it increases transparency for the PBMs and health plans and pharmacies, if pharmacies actually receive rebates from the manufacturers.
They typically don't unless there's pass-through, and I know you all are aware the Senate at the U.S. Congress is having a finance committee tomorrow to talk about this further, but what it does is it requires quarterly reporting for rebates or any payments that any of those parties receive from manufacturers. They would not be foiable. They would be privately protected by the insurance department and available to the state in any negotiations they have with any state-funded plans. Does that help? Yeah, it does.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
12:30
Thank you. Okay. Representative Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Mr. Vincent, on the follow-up on that question on the rebates, so if it's not for you, we really can't determine the true acquisition cost of a rebate that's paid to the pharmacy if it's not disclosed. Is that correct? So you're
John Vinson
Unverified
12:55
talking about, just to clarify, whenever you talk about rebate, I just want to make sure I understand what you're referring to.
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
13:03
Well, I think there's other rebates that are paid to the pharmacies or pharmacists that are not actually itemized in this, that are not disclosed. Okay, so
John Vinson
Unverified
13:15
what you're asking about, I think what you're asking about, First of all, if it comes from the manufacturer, yes, those would be disclosed by the pharmacies. Same way if a PBM or health insurance company gets a rebate based on the sale of a product from a manufacturer. We also were asked this in the Senate Insurance Commerce Committee about pharmacy rebates through their buying group negotiations.
And those are not disclosed in this legislation. Those are proprietary. But we don't call them rebates. We call them good business practices. So, for example, if you're part of a buying group and you pay your bills on time and you go to a quarterly meeting like the IdeaShare meeting or you send one of your employees to an annual meeting, then you do get further discounts on your buying purchase. But not every pharmacy is in those, and they require you to – they're not guaranteed.
You have to actually do certain conditions to get like a loyalty discount on your purchase price. Okay. Does that answer your question? Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Representative
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
14:25
Ferguson. Thank you. I don't think this is in the bill. I guess I'm trying to figure out if we have it in statute already or if it's in the bill. In terms of the rebates, I know sometimes the PBMs are incentivized to actually put a more expensive drug on the formulary because they get a bigger rebate.
And there's been some talk, I know, at NCOL and other meetings about requiring them to provide the least expensive drug. Is that any part of our legislation already or this? It doesn't go that far
John Vinson
Unverified
14:53
yet, but we hope this first step to the transparency to see that that may be going on, we don't know for sure. We suspect it is. The pharmacies would tell you it absolutely is because we see it every day. But in terms of transparency to the insurance department, they don't see that yet, and that should be something that could be seen with this legislation.
But it doesn't go so far as to prohibit that practice that you're
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
15:18
talking about. So what will the insurance department do with the information when they get it, I
John Vinson
Unverified
15:24
guess is the other question. They have not. Do you want to? Okay. The insurance department has not clarified to me exactly what they will do with it at this point other than to see, you know, financially what the impact is and then have that information available for the state when they negotiate rates with Arkansas Works programs or any other state-funded program
if the state's involved in the discussion. But it might lead to further rule promulgation, to your point, in the future if they see something that they don't really like about the process. But until they have transparency, they haven't been able to tell me exactly
Brittany Sanders
Unverified
16:01
what they'll do yet. Okay, thank you. Members, any additional follow-up? Representative Pilkington,
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
16:09
if you figured out a way to rephrase your inquiry. I do.
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
16:16
Tread lightly. Okay, I will. So when I
signed on to be a co-sponsor of this legislation, and I still think it's good legislation, it was in its original form, and it's been watered down a lot. Can you kind of go through the process of why you decided to continuously water down a good piece of legislation that
John Benson
Unverified
16:35
was helping our pharmacist? I would be glad to because every single amendment was mine. We asked that the first thing, as soon as we dropped the bill, there was a 5% additional cost or payment reimbursement for specialty drugs,
and that was the first thing that hit was that there was a lot of pushback on that 5%, so I asked for that to come out fairly immediately. Kind of a long story with this, but that was running Senate committee but then the bill never took up they didn't take a vote on the bill for don't remember like three different times in testimony so it was never engrossed so that particular we had they I think they expunged the vote by which that one passed and then they added another one that dealt with the so my thing was if we're going to go back to NADAC price we're going to try and use NADAC
pricing NADAC only updates every 17 days so our appeals we said that the PBMs had to answer the appeals within seven days. Well, that's not fair because NADAC only updates every 17 days. So I asked to extend it to 30 days on appeals to give the PBMs proper time, um, for NADAC to update itself. And then on the dispensing fee, I was getting a lot of pushback on the dispensing fee because, um, A, they didn't want to set rates like that in statute. B, they thought the amount
was, which it's roughly about 1050 per prescription right now was too high. And there was too much budget uncertainty
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
17:57
when it came to Arkansas Works in the past program. So all of those amendments are things, and I think John will be glad to throw me under the bus with that one, too, but those were all my amendments that I'd ask for on
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
18:13
my bill. Follow? No. Okay. Members, any additional questions? If not, we'll turn to the audience. Is there
Brittany Sanders
Unverified
18:20
anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the bill?
Anyone who wishes to speak for the bill? I believe we have Brittany Sanders. You're recognized. If you will identify yourself for the record, then you're free to present. Thank
Speaker 59
18:46
you. My name is Brittany Sanders. I am co-owner of the pharmacy at Wellington. We are an independent pharmacy in West Little Rock. And since the legislation was passed last year in special session,
the PBMs have changed their practices on how they recoup money from the pharmacies. Previously, there was spread pricing in place, and the legislation from last year helped quiet that. But they have since turned to recouping money from the pharmacies on the back end. For example, if we pay $400 for the cost of a drug, we are reimbursed at the point of sale $420 roughly. So it appears as though we're making $20 on this prescription. We can in good faith dispense it to the patient, knowing that we're not underwater on it. That covers the cost of doing business, paying our employees, paying rent, things of that nature.
Well, months later, the PBM comes back and recoups $380 from us. So we have now been paid $40 for a drug that cost us $400 to get into the pharmacy. So we're underwater, $360 on a single prescription. And this is happening over and over and over again. I have hundreds and hundreds of examples of where that's happening to us since the first of the year. And the PBMs will say that this is done, you have to look at the basket. You can't look at individual claims.
But it is absolutely across the basket. In my little pharmacy, we have a pharmacy services organization that escrows this money for us so that we're not blindsided six months later with a half a million dollar bill. My little pharmacy over the first two and a half months of the year has over $100,000 in this escrow account, which for these PBMs, from those particular PBMs, it's over 50% of the gross profit. So it's not just single prescriptions. It's across the basket where they're hurting us. We can't afford to stay in business when they're taking 50% of the money back from those individual PBMs.
In these past Medicaid, about a month ago, went to a PASS model. And these passes are now using these PBMs to process prescription claims. And the patients that were put into the passes are some of the most vulnerable patients out there. They are mental health patients. And they rely on pharmacies to take care of them, independent pharmacies in rural communities. It's not necessarily CVS, Walgreens, the big guys that are able to take care of them in these smaller communities. The independent pharmacies provide compliance packaging to help with adherence for the patients.
They do things like delivery because many of these patients can't get out to get to the pharmacy. Community pharmacies are relied on, particularly in rural communities. And with the actions of the PBMs as they are currently, they will not survive. This legislation helps close that loophole so that the money can't be recouped on the back end on an aggregate basis or a per-claim basis. Thank you for your testimony. any members
Brittany Sanders
Unverified
21:37
any questions for the witness not thank you very much thank you okay turn to the
audience again is there anyone who wishes to speak against the bill anyone else wishing to speak for the bill
Speaker 57
21:56
if not representative gray you are free to close and to make any motion you wish thank you Mr. Chair and
John Benson
Unverified
22:02
I just tell you this is I make it quick but this has just been something ongoing that we've been fighting at least since I've been here and I know when I ran it in 2015 I don't think anybody thought it'd ever pass and because of what a tough issue it's been and we've
come so far and so actually I didn't think we'd run a bill this session and then as we started hearing about the loopholes it's like you know we got to close those loopholes up there's no sense running these law and running the law in 15 and then again in 17 if they're just going to find ways around it. So we may have to continue to shore it up every session. And I hate to say that, but that's just the nature of what this is. And I just wanted to make one other point that I didn't address, but the passes, you know, we do, we have put quite a few people into the passes. I think it's 30, I'm going to say 37,000. I could be off 5,000 with that or 10, but we've put quite
a few people in. And so the, these clawbacks are that much worse for them because these people were traditionally in Medicaid where they didn't have those clawbacks and they were getting a 1050 a nine dollar or 1050 dispensing fee so not only are they not getting that dispensing fee on those beneficiaries but now they're getting they're going to start getting the clawbacks that go with it so we kind of the state we changed their mark their basket so we changed the basket for the pharmacies and so this to me this kind of helps address some of the changes that we've made as well so with that I'm closed and I guess make a motion I hate doing this for
Speaker 1
23:28
That's okay. Representative Lundstrom will take care of you. I'd like to make a motion due pass. Okay. There we have. Okay. We have a motion due pass before us.
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
23:44
Any discussion, members? Representative Lynch. So I got a text message from my local pharmacy, and he's very much in favor of this bill and prevention of the callback, so I'll be
Brittany Sanders
Unverified
23:54
a yes vote on this. Okay. Thank you. Representative Pilkington. Yeah,
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
23:58
so comments I want to make is being the person who created the passes with our
legislation last session, I'm really glad that we're addressing the PBM loophole, and I want to say I appreciate Representative Gray doing this. I just wanted to clarify the question I asked earlier. I'm really disappointed in the Pharmacists Association and certain senators who have used this bill and another bill to go back and forth, and I think it's very dishonest. And while I do not like the way that that happens, I'm still going to be voting yes for this bill, because you should vote on a bill, whether it's good legislation or not,
not making deals in back rooms, and I ask everyone to have
a yes vote on this. Okay, fair enough. Any other discussion,
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
24:45
members? If not, the motion before you is a motion of due pass. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. And, of course, there are none.
Brittany Sanders
Unverified
24:57
So the bill passes. Congratulations. Thank you, Chair and Committee. Okay. Members, we have one other bill, and this is going to seem like deja vu all over again
because you've heard this, but Representative Penzo will give us
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
25:12
a very good explanation, I'm sure, probably one very entertaining. HB, members, order, please. H.P. 1986.
Representative Clint Penzo
Unverified
25:19
I've got a member from the AG's office I'd like to have up here with me, too. Okay,
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
25:27
if he'll just identify himself for the record. Good evening,
Brad Nye
Unverified
25:31
Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Brad Nye. I'm with the
Representative Clint Penzo
Unverified
25:36
Arkansas Attorney General's Office. Okay. Representative Penzo, you're recognized. Okay, H.P. 1986.
This is kind of a cleanup for the previous robocall spoofing bill. Apparently, there was, obviously, with a lot of bills, there's unintended consequences. There are some legitimate reasons for spoofing. Let's say you've got a doctor's office, there's 20 lines, you've got a receptionist at one line, maybe the nurse calls to give you an update and you call back, you'd get the nurse's line.
They want all the numbers to come to show as the receptionist's phone number. So that's one thing this does. clarifies that all telecommunications providers will report to the public service commission and gives the public service commission authority to draft rules to enforce the law. And I'll let Mr. Nye add anything if he's got it, or we can
answer any questions. No, thank you representative. And I just wanted
Brad Nye
Unverified
26:39
to point out as well that the cleanup to this bill does
specify that a telecommunications provider, that if they're in compliance with PSC rules and regulations, it creates a safe harbor for them from some of the penalties that were put into Act 677. And I think with that, that was a wonderful explanation, and
Speaker 1
27:05
Members, any questions? Representative Pilkington. Motion for immediate
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
27:11
consideration. That is a proper motion, and it is not debatable as far as I can see.
So, we have immediate consideration motion before us. All those in favor of immediate consideration signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. No. Okay. Immediate consideration motion is passed. So, now we will need a do pass motion. Motion do pass. Representative Pilkington. Now, immediate consideration does not shut down discussion. We have a motion and the members can discuss if you wish.
oh come on just so you can override immediate consideration y'all want to say something okay we have a motion to do pass before us all those in favor of the motion do pass on 1986 signify by saying aye any opposed say no okay and the bill passes congratulations thank you committee try to send it on quickly members we may have cleanup to do over the next several days so please please Please be watching for announcements that we may call a meeting at the call of the chair.
Thank you very much for being here this afternoon to take care of this business. We are adjourned.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1704 Gazaway TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS STATE CONSUMER JUSTICE ENFORCEMENT ACT;AND TO REGULATE STANDARD-FORM CONTRACTS.
HB1510 Lowery TO ESTABLISH THE "ANY WILLING PARTNER LAW".
HB1410 Gazaway TO CLARIFY THE OBLIGATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL LANDLORDS ANDRESIDENTIAL TENANTS; AND TO REQUIRE MINIMUM HABITABILITY STANDARDS FOR TENANTS OFRESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY.
HB1924 Dotson CONCERNING ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION; TO REQUIRE A FEASIBILITYSTUDY FOR A TWO-YEAR REAL ESTATE LICENSE; TO AMEND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS; AND TO REQUIRESPECIFIC SUBJECTS OF CONTINUING EDUCATION.
SB551 J. English TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS; AND TO AUTHORIZETHE TERMINATION OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.
HB1986 Penzo TO AMEND THE LAW PROHIBITING SPOOFING; TO AMEND THE LAWREGULATING TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS AND SPOOFING PROVIDERS; AND TO DECLAREAN EMERGENCY.
SB520 K. Hammer TO CLARIFY THE STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT'S REGULATORY ANDENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY CONCERNING PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGERS; AND TO MODIFY THE ARKANSASPHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGER LICENSURE ACT.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1103 Sullivan TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS HEALTHCARE TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE ACT OF2015; AND TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS HEALTHCARE TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE FUND.
HB1068 Evans TO REPEAL THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETEAGREEMENT.
HB1027 Rye TO REQUIRE AN INSURER TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR ADEQUATETRANSPORTATION REIMBURSEMENT UNTIL AN INSURED'S DAMAGED MOTOR VEHICLE IS REPAIRED.
Notice: Silence your cell phones. Keep your personal conversations to a minimum. Observe restrictionsdesignating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'.
HB1271 Rushing TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE APPROVAL OF A REAL ESTATELICENSING COURSE BY THE ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — INSURANCE & COMMERCE- HOUSE, Apr 8, 2019 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
John Benson
Unverified
Representative Michelle Gray
Unverified
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
Brittany Sanders
Unverified
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Representative Mark Lowery
Unverified
Speaker 27
John Vinson
Unverified
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
Speaker 59
Speaker 57
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
Representative Clint Penzo
Unverified
Brad Nye
Unverified
Speaker 68