House Insurance & Commerce Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (4)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB251
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB251”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB313
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB313”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2138
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2138”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB305
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB305”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
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 5, 2026
Representative Williams, Chairman Williams, you are recognized to present your
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
0:10
bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
0:18
out for my bill. What bill are you talking about, Mr. Chairman? Senate Bill 251. Mr. Chairman, this is a code revision bill simply to make
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
0:35
stylistic changes to Title 19 of the code,
which is the public finance section of the code. This bill removes some inadvertent, or actually replaced some inadvertent removals from that statute. It clears up some obsolete language, and it corrects some names of some agencies. And with that, I'd
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
0:53
be happy to answer any questions. Are there
any questions from the committee? Is there anyone in the audience that want
to speak for or against the bill? What's the pleasure of the committee?
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:12
Representative Hyde, do you recognize for? I'm still trying to get a question. Oh, I'm sorry. I am so sorry. This is
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
1:24
Senator Madison's bill, 251. Yes, sir. Well, it's code revision bill. She and Senator Johnson and Representative Edwards and I
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:32
serve on code revision. Can you help me with Title 19 of 1987? Tell me what we're doing
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
1:37
here real quick. Sure. That's the public finance title of the code. In Section 1, we inadvertently removed Office of Economic Tax and Policy of the Legislative Bureau.
We're adding that back. Section 2, we're correcting the fund name, the fund account name. It should be Arkansas Economic Development Commission as opposed to Department of Economic Development Commission. Department of Economic Development, I'm sorry. And in Section 3, we're again correcting the fund account name and the name of other entities and making just stylistic changes. For example, you see Department of Workforce Education, a fund account. Remember last session, we changed that to Department of Career Education. So we're moving workforce and adding career.
That's throughout Section 3. Section 4, we're deleting obsolete references in the code that are no longer necessary. Representative, you said that
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
2:29
you had inadvertently taken some stuff out you had to put back in. So has this already been run once this year and now you're correcting a mistake in what you already ran? Or is it several years back we made a mistake?
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
2:42
These are mistakes from previous sessions. We've not made any mistakes
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
2:46
in this session. Let me get this right.
You've been working with Senator Madison down there on the other end. You haven't made any
Speaker 20
2:56
mistakes yet. Not yet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative
Viviano, you recognize a motion at the proper time. Okay. Is there anybody in August that wants to speak for against the bill? Representative Beavion, you recognize for your motion. Motion to pass. Okay.
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, Representative Reeves, you passed your bill. It's my understanding that you want to hit
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
3:36
your quota today. You have another bill, right? I'd like to run
Senate Bill 313, which is another code revision
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
3:45
commission bill. You're recognized to present your bill. Again, members, a simple code revision bill to take care of corrections needed to make the code read properly. Section 1 properly subdivides the statute and makes some stylistic changes.
Section 2 makes a technical correction. Section 3 is simple stylistic changes. Section 4, we amend it to add the language. This subchapter is really the only language we are amending. We add and delete language in Section 5, similar to Section 4, which is the term this subchapter. Section 6, the same thing, we amend and add certain languages. Section 8, we properly divide the section and make some stylistic changes.
Section 9, we make grammatical changes. Section 10, we add and delete language to make the code clear. Section 11, again, a change for style and clarification. Section 12, we delete obsolete language that has been implied or repealed. Section 13, we clarify language in the code. And that's all that this simple code revision bill does. Happy
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
5:00
to take questions if I can answer them.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
5:04
Mr. Hyde, do you recognize the question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Williams, I'm trying to understand here on the first page. That was pretty quick. I guess all this pertains to designers, I guess, architects and interior designers. That's correct. Title 17, of course, is the Professional Occupation and Businesses section. Well, not being an attorney, I haven't memorized what the sections of the code are,
so you'll have to draw me a map. And that's okay. So can you tell me that the American Institute of Architects, Arkansas Division, have they reviewed this and they put their stamp of approval and said, we're all for this, this is good? And my next question is going to be the Interior
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
5:55
Designers Organization. Honestly, I cannot tell you that because I don't know if they were consulted. These changes are changes done to make the code read better, not to have any impact on substantive legislation.
These are just stylistic changes. For example, the first sentence, this chapter shall not be construed to prevent. That's just changed this chapter, does not. So we're changing shall not to a does not. Simple code language changes, not changing to any meanings of any words. It's really to help us lawyers. Help us understand the code better. Representative Woods, you're recognized.
Speaker 40
6:39
Okay. Representative Rice, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Williams, I didn't know you were going to run this today. I was looking at bills about 1 o'clock this morning and highlighted one. On Section 12, acupuncturist, I realize you're saying this is from legislation of the last session Were you striking as a doctor of healing arts? Yes, sir. Is there anything with acupuncturists that had anything to input on that,
or is that strictly already done and just correcting?
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
7:13
Well, that is already done, and we had passed an act in 2009 that basically impliedly
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
7:17
repealed that, so now it's obsolete. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Any further questions? Representative Peer,
Chair
Unverified
7:23
you should recognize for question. Is this bringing up some of the stuff we traveled
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
7:32
over last year right at the last time on this acupuncture and all this good stuff that we did last year that we got in a big mess over?
What's going on here, right here at
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
7:44
the last minute? Well, actually, it's not the last minute. I'm not sure from the, when you say last minute, last section, I think there's some things done. This is cleaning up what we did last term. Last term we made amendments and changes to that section of the code. We did not delete this obsolete reference. So we've gone back, fixed that, and this just deletes what we intended to do last session.
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
8:13
Follow-up, Representative Pierce. Yes, you said lawyer stuff. Well, let me not. I was actually somewhat of a joke.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
8:19
I've got to think about lawyers. It's either they're pitching or catching. You know, I mean, that's why they got jobs. No, I understand. And that was really done as a joke. These corrections really are to make the code read correct. In 2009, we passed a statute
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
8:32
that basically deleted this language, yet we left this reference in. So we need to delete this language. Are you taking it back out after we put it in last year? Is that what you're saying?
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
8:44
Say it again, though? Are we putting it back in after we took it out last year? No, you took it out last year, but we didn't take it out here. We repealed a section of the code
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
8:59
last session, but we didn't repeal this portion. How long? Okay, so we're just back to where
Speaker 54
9:04
we was this time last year on basically the same
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
9:07
bill. No, not at all. This is not substantive at all. This is consistent with what you did last term. We're just making what you did last term read clear.
All we're taking out is as a doctor of healing arts, because that's what was intended to be repealed last session. Representative Rice, do you reckon I ask a question? Mr. Williams, just to
Speaker 55
9:29
clarify what Representative Pierce is saying, this is striking language that was voted out last time and getting it out of there, where the only way it can be put back in is if there's a law brought back next session. That's said perfectly, Mr. Rice.
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
9:47
I appreciate it. Thank you. Sorry for not
being clear. Any further questions from the committee? Is there anybody in the audience that want to speak for
or against the bill? What's the pleasure of the committee? Okay. You recognize my motion, Representative Woods? Thank you, Mr.
Chair. I'd like to make a motion. Do pass. Okay.
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?
Congratulations, Representative Williams. You passed your bill. Thank you, Chairman Allen. Thank you, Committee. Is
Speaker 62
10:35
Senator Hutchison in the House, or did he leave? All
right. You recognize. Present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe there's
an amendment that needs to be handed out. What kind of ink
Speaker 62
11:01
With the chair's permission, I'd... Sure.
You recognize Senator Hutchison, I'm sorry, I'd like
Speaker 62
11:07
to have Gene Eagle with ADFA join me and Randy Zook with the State Chamber
of Commerce, if that's okay? That's fine. Please let your guests
Gene Eagle
Unverified
11:18
identify themselves and tell us who they represent. Gene Eagle,
Speaker 73
11:23
Vice President for the Arkansas Development Finance Authority. Randy Zook, the Arkansas State Chamber of
Speaker 62
11:31
Commerce and Associated Industries of Arkansas. Great. Okay. This amendment simply adjusts the funding mechanism to pay for the proposed
issue. The state chamber looked at it and had some suggestions on how it could be more equitable to employers who have a good track record of not having claims filed against them, and I certainly want to do that, so this amendment reflects that change. And I appreciate a good vote on the amendment. We have
a motion to adopt the amendment by Representative Rice. All in favor of the
adoption, let it be known by saying aye. Amendment adopted. Please present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 62
12:09
And as you all are aware, there's about a $338 million, $340 million debt that the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund owes to the federal government. There's been some changes that are working their way through the House. They may have passed the House floor, I'm not sure, but they did. That helps reform the system so that hopefully we won't get in this situation again. and if Randy wants to talk about what all got us here, he can,
but the bottom line is we owe this money to the federal government. Currently, if we do nothing, the federal government is going to impose a pretty significant tax on, additional tax on the employers of this state until that money is paid back. And they charge interest. They charge over 4% in interest on that debt that we owe. This bill is simply an option. It grants the governor the ability, if he so desires,
and if the market suggests that he should call a special election and we'd issue bonds to pay off that federal government. It'd be a refinancing. I'm not keen on debt. I don't like going into debt, but this is a refinancing. We owe the debt. The debt's out there. This is refinancing at what would be a lower interest rate. Current interest rate market, and it could change, obviously, but currently we've had underwriters look and say that we'd save close to $25 million
in just interest savings alone if the state did their own bond issue. Now, again, interest rates can change, and that's why we leave it to the discretion of the governor to call. There are protections in the bill that would not allow the bonds to be issued unless there are savings, unless the interest rates that we'd be paying is less than what the federal government would be charging us. It would also grant legislative council oversight and review on the issue.
Currently, President Obama has proposed in his budget a deferment, a two-year deferment on paying this debt back. If that should happen, then obviously the immediacy of this type of a bill would go away. However, I'm not real optimistic that it will happen. The Republican House of Representatives is pretty dead set on cutting the deficit, and you don't do that by deferring billions of dollars in debt owed to you by the state.
So I don't think that's probably going to happen. And this gives us some tool to respond as a state as opposed to just having those terms dictated to us by the federal government. And I'll let Mr. Zook and Mr. Eagle, if they choose to, have any comments open up for them, and then we'll take questions if there are any. This is not a general obligation of the state, by the way. This is a special revenue. So it would not be a general obligation of the state of Arkansas.
Okay. Any questions? Representative Pierce, you recognize the question? Senator, would you
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
15:25
explain this bond issue just a little bit better than, you know, get it down to my
Speaker 54
15:29
terms where I can understand what we're going to do here with these bonds I heard you say special call session for this and that's going to cost us some money a little bit but the savings sounds like it's going to outweigh that by a whole lot so would you just bring it down
Speaker 62
15:42
Sure, it would be a special election it would have to be voted on by the people of Arkansas and the governor would have the authority if this bill passes
to call that election at his discretion It would cost money to do the election, but that would be factored into the total savings, as you mentioned, and if it justifies and saves the state money through interest rate savings that are sufficient enough not only to pay also the cost of the election, then I would hope he would do it, and I think he will. I'll let Mr. Eagle. He may be able
Speaker 83
16:16
to get into the finer. Okay, thank you.
Gene Eagle
Unverified
16:20
Just one thing is that we have to vote on the pledge of the assessment that's used to repay the debt. What are you talking about pledge now? Run that back. The Constitution doesn't allow the state or city of Canada. The state's going to back it up, that's what you're saying. No, we're not going to back it up. It's only going to be a revenue bond, but we still have to vote on using the assessment to repay the debt. The assessment is going to be paid by the businesses here in Arkansas. We still have to vote on it, even though it's not a general obligation,
because we're pledging that assessment to repay the bonds. That's all I wanted to clear up.
Speaker 85
16:56
Why wouldn't we go ahead and pass the assessment right now, still waiting? Is there something in there while we're not doing that,
Speaker 62
17:05
the part that requires voter approval is the issuance of the bonds. We could increase the assessment right now, but unless there's a mechanism to pay the federal government off through the bonds, and all we'd be doing is raising taxes on our employers, and we don't want to do that unless it's in the same time we're decreasing a greater tax that the federal government is going to impose.
So I think they have to go hand in hand. And so the ballot will include the special revenue bond issue plus the increased assessment. And if it's voted successfully by the electorate, then the assessment will be applied. but at the same time the federal government's debt will be repaid and their assessment will be voided. There won't be any need for it. So this is one of
Speaker 85
17:53
these deals where you may not want to vote for it,
but it's better to vote for it than
Speaker 62
18:00
what you get for it. That's exactly right. I do not like having to do this, but if we do nothing, the consequences are far worse than this. Thank you. I appreciate it. That's all, Mr.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
18:15
Chair. Vice President Hyatt, do you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I'm relying on memory here, and so forgive me if I'm wrong, but maybe Mr. Zook can step in here. I thought I asked about this bill to one of the representatives from the State Chamber a week ago,
and I thought their response was that this had turned out that it wasn't as attractive as you all thought it was when you first started working on it and that this may, in fact, cost more than just going the other way and raising the rates and paying it off. Am I wrong on this, Mr. Zook, as the state fully supports this, y'all's bill, and this is going to save
Speaker 73
18:53
money? Yes. The important thing, as Senator Hutchinson has said, is that this will put us in position to have a choice to make.
The governor will make the decision, and hopefully at the behest of Arkansas employers who will, if it's appropriate and if the math works, will come to the governor and say the best way to handle this is to go ahead and issue bonds, pay off the balance, and then begin to replenish the trust fund at a more rapid rate than we can do on just pay-as-you-go. So there is an interest rate spread of about a little over 2% right now between what the feds are charging us for this balance or will charge ultimately
and the current market rates. So there's going to be a window of opportunity here, and the business community will need to make an assessment as to whether or not it's smart to try to jump through that window, pay off the balance owed to the Department of Labor, and then begin to replenish the trust fund and pay back the bonds at the same time. So this is simply to put us in the state in position to make a smart decision or to decide, gee, we don't want to do that, it's not going to make sense, and move on.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
20:05
So you're just trying to keep an option or make an additional option available in how we handle this. Yes, exactly right. Did the governor ask you for this option, or he fully supports this piece of legislation? I'm not in a
Speaker 92
20:16
position to speak for the governor. I certainly wouldn't presume to do that. but they certainly have not pushed back on it. Have you visited with the governor's
Speaker 83
20:23
office and they fully support this legislation? I have visited with the governor's office. He didn't ask me
Speaker 62
20:28
to do it, but Texas did this, by the way, and has paid it off. I have spoken to the governor. He supports it fully as an option.
Again, just like Randy said, he's not sure that he'll do it, but he certainly supports having that arrow in his arsenal of weapons to respond to this. Thank
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
20:48
you. Then, BVL, do you recognize for a question? Motion for immediate consideration. That's a proper motion.
All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Opposed? It passes. Is there a motion to pass the bill? I need a motion, I need a motion, okay, motion do pass, all in favor, let me say aye, opposed?
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Congratulations, pass the bill.
Unknown speaker
21:38
Next is House Bill 2138. Thank you.
Representative Allen Kerr
Unverified
22:09
Chairman Allen, you are recognized to run House Bill 2138. If
guests, please. Mr. Chairman, thank you and members. I'm Fred Allen, State Representative, District 33, and I'm going
to allow my guests to identify themselves. Mr. Chairman, Jay
Speaker 50
22:49
Bradford, Department of Insurance. John Morris, Department of Insurance. Without objection, I'm going to
ask the insurance Representative Hyde, you're recognized. I'd like to make a motion
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
23:04
that we limit debate to 10 minutes each side, Mr. Chairman. That is a proper motion.
Speaker 49
23:14
What's the pleasure of the committee? All in
favor of the motion? Let's hear your motion. I would extend it to each side. Okay. Mr. Vice Chairman, we've heard this bill twice. And the prevailing arguments will pretty much be the same.
And I don't think anything has changed on the other side. So I would
like for you to consider the motion that we delimit the debate to ten minutes on both sides, which is
Speaker 117
24:01
a proper motion. It's non-debatable. Okay. Non-debatable. Representative Pierce. It's non-debatable. Yeah, it's non-debatable. We
Speaker 108
24:06
have to, unless there's a substitute motion. Substitute motion, I'll leave. Okay, so you.
Glenn Gallis
Unverified
24:15
There you go. That's what I'm going to do. All right. The motion on the floor at the moment is a substitute motion for 15 minutes per side. Pleasure to the committee. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Speaker 55
24:33
Aye. all opposed okay eyes have it you have
Speaker 118
24:41
15 minutes per side I'm going to ask the
insurance commission to to speak on the bill all right
Speaker 120
24:52
mr. Bradford you recognized all right thank you mr. chairman both of you and we've we've We've been in, as the chairman says, sponsor says, that we've been in here a couple of times now. And, you know, I want you to just be assured that this bill allows us to study. It's a federally funded study that doesn't have any state money in it.
And we will eventually, after a great amount of study, and we're going to have private subcontractors that are going to help us. There will be Fortune 500 companies that will respond to our RFP. And in the end, we'll be right back here at this table recommending to you all what we think is best for Arkansans. Now, one thing I think almost everybody would have to agree, hopefully, is that we want the regulatory function for Arkansans here in Arkansas.
The federal government has given us that option to decide that we want to take care of our people. The federal government does not hesitate to step forward and regulate the health care for our Kansans. Frankly, the conservatives in the United States Congress insisted that the states have the option to regulate the insurance companies that are in the exchange, and the conduct
of the agents, and the conduct of the insurance companies. That's what conservatives wanted to be sure would happen. Now, that's what I want to be sure happens. I may not be here, but you will have an Arkansas commissioner that will be responsive to this body and to your constituents. So all this political drama is about the federal bill that is a work in progress, and I don't
have anything to do with that. I ran for Congress. I didn't make it. So you have representatives in the Congress that will eventually decide what the bottom line is going to be over the next period of time. But what we have to do to take care of our people is just frankly we've got to demonstrate that we can do the planning process and come up with a product that will work for our Kamsans
and then we'll be here taking care of the people that we all care about. So, the cloudless of that being some type of a, you know, that you're voting for some type of a federal takeover, this is
Speaker 116
28:04
a handover. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to keep
Glenn Gallis
Unverified
28:13
our comments to ourselves and please keep order in the chamber.
These people are here to present their bill. We want to give
Chair
Unverified
28:21
them every courtesy. Thank you. Without
objection, Mr. Chair and members, I would like for Representative Buddy Lovell to come down and make a comment at this time as part of our presentation. Representative Lovell, you're
Chair
Unverified
28:35
recognized to speak for the bill.
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
28:48
I was going to wait until the
Speaker 108
29:01
end, but that's fine. Representative Lovell, you're recognized to speak for the bill. You've got 11 minutes.
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
29:06
It won't take that long, but I appreciate being recognized and given the opportunity to come down here and speak. I want to make some things pretty clear as to how the health care issue goes.
What we're being asked here today is to vote yes on an Arkansas health plan. If we vote no, then we have turned it over to the federal government to run our health plan. The amendment was put on this bill last Friday that says if the Supreme Court rules or Congress changes, then it will not go into effect. But if we don't do anything between now and January 1, 2013, then the feds are going to take it over anyway.
There's 15 states that have filed a lawsuit against this, and all 15 of those are doing the exchanges right now just in case the lawsuit fails. if this amendment that we put in it voids the plan we're asking to do today and so it would not be a question but the only time that it can be changed after we leave here probably Friday of this week the only time it can be changed
is January 2013 the health care laws say that if we don't make progress prior to then january the first of that year then we will be taken over by the feds now we've got a fiscal session next year but it is against the law for something like this to be discussed in fiscal session so you cannot address it the only other way that you could do it is address it if the
governor would call a special session for that purpose and i can tell you that the governor is not inclined to call a special session to talk about something that we've had plenty opportunity to take to do something with but we're not doing our business and leave it with a final thought the people that are coming back which I am not one of in 2013 will be saddled with the fact that the feds
are running our health care plan And then you will have to answer. And during the elections of next year, I mean, this has become a big election issue, but during the election next year, you're going to hear that Arkansas has done nothing. They're not going to do anything until the session in 2013, which in the law it says that we have to have it done, And at least it changes everything set up prior to January the 1st, 2013.
And I just urge you to do what's right, because by this time next year, then it's going to be real plain that we have voted no to Arkansas taking care of the health system and yes to let the federal government, and you can call it Obamacare if you'd like. But that's what it'll be if we don't take an opportunity to vote it out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Allen, are
Glenn Gallis
Unverified
32:34
you willing to take questions from the committee at this part
of your time? Not at this time. Mr. Chairman, I will relinquish my spot and let the opposition come
Speaker 108
32:51
to the end of the table without objection. All right. Thank you, sir. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, because our time is limited in all fairness, what I'm going to do is if you have spoken in the last meeting against the bill, we are going to take those who did not get an opportunity
Speaker 134
33:14
to speak against the bills to make sure we are all in fairness.
one on the list would be Glenn
Glenn Gallis
Unverified
33:34
Gallis. If you would introduce yourself, sir, and you're recognized. Glenn Gallis, my
Speaker 135
33:43
name is Glenn Gallis, and I'm a small businessman from Hot Springs, Arkansas, and I thank you for the opportunity to address this matter.
You know, as a small businessman, I have a definite invested interest in making sure that my business survives, as well as small businesses all across Arkansas. One of the biggest dangers to business is when you increase the cost of overhead. One of these things that part of this process is being able to mandate health insurance and, more importantly, mandate health insurance costs to the businesses. And even though there is tax credits being assigned to this bill, the tax credits will not overcome the burden of administrating
and making sure that we have insurance provided. A couple of things I'd like to address. While everyone is telling me that we have this deadline to go on, and I'll quote from Section 1321, a state that elects to operate an exchange must adopt the federal standards or a state law implementing them by January 1st, 2014. Not 2013, 2014. I mean, this is according to the very bill that we're doing. We're not talking about a deadline of 2013.
And yet we're being asked to implement a law that we don't know what it's supposed to do. We don't know what's in it. All we're asking is sort of like a businessman asking, yeah, I want you to start a restaurant and serve food. You're not going to tell me what kind of food. You're not going to tell me how to cook it. You're just going to say, I have to build a business plan to do so. I think as legislators, that's fundamentally wrong to pass a piece of legislation that we don't know exactly what it's going to do, nor is there a deadline that has to be met. The second thing I'd like to point out is that of the states that have implemented the exchanges
for Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and California, most of these doors have, as a matter of fact, in California, who was the earliest established exchange, stopped having an exchange and one of the biggest arguments against the exchange was that uh it opened the door for cherry picking and if we think what's happened across four states is not going to happen in arkansas we are fooling ourselves um last but not least and because i do i do want to give other people the time i want to remind you know our friends here and i speak this out
of respect and out of kindness is we remember what happened to a sitting senator who decided that she would go against the will of Arkansans and vote the way of health care. You're opening yourself to that same opportunity today to remember for the people who allowed this exchange to take place when we didn't need it, when we didn't know what the cost was, and we certainly have the opportunity to make right and proper arguments for that. Point, follow up to the chairman. Yes, sir.
Speaker 136
36:30
He's talking about a campaign situation. It had nothing to do with the
Glenn Gallis
Unverified
36:33
bill. All right. Mr. Gallus, as we relinquish the chair. All right. To speak for the bill, Ray Hanley. Mr. Hanley, you've got about seven minutes. Thank you,
Speaker 140
36:57
Mr. Chairman. I hope I don't need seven minutes.
By way of introduction, I am with the Foundation for Medical Care. now. But more relevant, until last September, I was working for Hewlett-Packard and representing them nationwide on building these insurance exchange offerings. And I would tell you that to tell you that these are going to be a public-private effort. I'm sure Jay would tell you he's not going to build and run this without a lot of private vendor help from the technology community.
The California example that was used a while ago, I'm very familiar with that. This was done about 12 years ago. It was a voluntary effort in Northern California. They never had more than 150,000 people in it. The insurance companies were allowed to sell both within the exchange and out, and it collapsed simply because it had so small market share. So that's really not a fair example about the exchange.
Now, if you look at the states that have done this already, that already operate, Massachusetts, Utah, we don't need to talk about Massachusetts. Utah, which is probably the reddest state in the land, they rolled this out a year ago because they wanted it done the way they needed it done in Utah. If you look at Indiana, Governor Mitch Daniels, very conservative governor, by all accounts running for president, Indiana is going to have one of these by executive order on his part.
He said, I'm not going to let the feds do it. We're going to do it for Indiana. And, you know, again, coming from the technology business, which I was in for eight years before I came to the current job, The best analogy I've seen on these exchanges is they are for insurance what Travelocity was for plane tickets. We're all used to and appreciate the technology that lets us go online and buy a plane ticket.
Well, as complicated as airfares are, I think you'll agree that pales by comparison to how complicated insurance is. done right, this will let the consumer log on, shop for insurance, do comparisons, see what has the benefits they want, what has the best cost. And frankly, even if it wasn't for health reform, this insurance exchange would be good for Arkansas, it would be good for the consumer to be able to have this tool to make good
decisions on purchasing insurance for their families. And I think as far as the dates, I know somebody said it in 2014. Actually, you've got to have this ready to go in 2013. You cannot wait until 2014. If you do, it's going to be long done for you. Okay, sir. If you wouldn't
Speaker 140
40:08
you've got time. And the last thing I would say is I've known Jay Bradford for 25 years, and I promise you you would much rather have him in charge of this
Speaker 108
40:19
than you would the folks in D.C. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. To speak against the bill, Larry Campbell. I'll be heard. Okay. Thank you, sir. Ginger Johnson. You would take the chair at the end of the table and introduce yourself, please. You're recognized to speak against the bill.
Ginger Johnson
Unverified
40:53
Hello, my name is Ginger Johnson, and I would just like to take the opportunity to thank you so much for passing the unemployment trust bill. I'm a small business owner here in Arkansas. I have eight restaurants. I employ approximately 500 employees. We are absolutely covered up. Paperwork, insurance, taxes. is, I'm just telling you, this is terrible for the small business owner. We already operate on a lean margin, and I don't know about you guys, but if you've ever run a business, you
understand operating on a lean margin. We are sinking in taxes, paperwork, insurance, and I would just like to ask you to vote no for this bill. We need some common sense, responsibility for the, people need to take responsibility for themselves and not expect their employers to do everything for them so I appreciate no on 21 38 thank you mr.
chairman yes sir without objection I would like to use our last
Glenn Gallis
Unverified
42:01
four minutes to close all right you're recognized
not taking questions. All right. I apologize. Mr. Chairman and members, on last Friday I
appealed to my colleagues to pass this bill. This bill is not based on whether you're a
Democrat or a Republican. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle that you're on. This This bill is in the best interest of Arkansans. So I plead with them again today to take a look at this
and to give us a favorable vote on this bill. We have amended this bill not once, not twice, not three, not four, but approximately ten times to satisfy our Republican colleagues. And they still wouldn't vote for the bill, and as of the day, they wanted another amendment.
And I told them that the only way that we will adopt an amendment today is that they would
Speaker 120
43:19
have to support the bill and vote for it. I thought I should address the person who testified against the bill a while ago about the paperwork issue. That's one of the stronger issues about an exchange is the fact that it's automated and So people can go into the exchange and get their quotes, and it'll cut out a tremendous amount of paperwork.
And it'll really help small business people because they're going to be able to put their employees in an exchange with thousands of people there. Thousands of people there, and, you know, the law of numbers, it will spread the cost, and it should broaden the coverage. So, you know, the technology, when we get there, it's going to be quite helpful to the supply business community.
Chair
Unverified
44:11
Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. We're closed. All right. Representative Allen has closed for his bill. How much? Still have 11
Speaker 49
44:24
minutes remaining to speak against the bill. Mr. Greenberg, you're recognized.
Speaker 108
44:42
Please state your name and introduce yourself, please. Please turn on your microphone. Thank you.
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
44:49
My name is Dan Greenberg. I'm a Little Rock attorney, and I'm the president of the Advance Arkansas Institute. But when I speak before legislative committees, I speak only for myself. I'm going to be brief, and I'm going to do my best not just to repeat what's already been said, but I want to make a new point that might shed some light on this whole debate. I have to say that in the debate over this bill, I've heard some of the most unusual and remarkable things I've ever heard people say in committee since I've been observing this body for five years. And I guess that opinion is shared by others.
And, you know, I do believe this is one of the most important votes you're going to cast this session. And on Friday, you probably remember, I said I think people in 2012 are going to notice how the committee votes on this. This was apparently too much for our Surgeon General. He talked just after I did. And he said, I think, to speak candidly, you just got threatened. Well, I'm in favor of being candid, so let me be candid as well. I don't think it's improper or threatening at all to say that some voters notice the choices that you make here. And I think that saying voters notice things is about as threatening. Point on order, please. Can we please talk about the bill?
Sure. Stay on the bill, sir, please. Well, I'd be happy to, but, you know, saying that looking at records is threatening, that's about as threatening as saying the sun's going to rise tomorrow. You know, a couple of weeks ago, I noticed that we were, you know, this is not the first time we've discussed federal health care reform in this House. A couple of weeks ago, we examined one legislator's proposal, an alternative proposal to ease the impact of federal health care reform. And you might recall that Dr. Thompson criticized this effort by saying, if we take premature
action that polarizes the collaborative relationship we have with the federal government, they're not going to be very receptive to helping us. And I'd suggest that statements like Dr. Thompson's, which advise us to be submissive in our relationship to the federal government so that we won't be punished by them, are much more threatening on many
Glenn Gallis
Unverified
46:33
levels. And so, Mr. Greenberg, if you would mind, speak on
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
46:36
this particular bill, not the general health care. Well, all right. I'm going to speak precisely on the bill, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Okay. I would agree with Dr. Thompson when he said, you need to know the facts before you act.
He said that just a few weeks ago, and he advised legislators when he was talking about that bill to do nothing and to hold the bill in committee until the Supreme Court made a decision. And I think that Dr. Thompson's judgment on that question was extremely sound. I think he provided some very sound direction as to what we should
Speaker 37
47:04
be doing with this. Mr. Chairman, again, he is talking about something that Dr. Thompson said on another
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
47:09
bill. Well, he's talking about the health care policy of this
Glenn Gallis
Unverified
47:11
administration, and it's quite relevant. Okay. Mr. Greenberg, if someone's not here to – you can't quote someone else. In other words, you need to go forward and speak on the bill.
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
47:21
All right. Well, this bill is going to transform the doctor-patient relationship. In my view, it's not going to transform it in a good way. But what's true is that the 20 people on this committee have had very little time to think about what this bill would do. The public has had even less. On Friday, we were told by someone else who advocated for the bill that looking at the bill anymore would be, to use his own words, a waste of time. And if that's the case, then every single interim study that we have here is a waste of time. And I can't imagine a more worthwhile thing to do than to look at something that the rest of us had five days to look at
to study this bill and to make sure that this radical transformation of our health care system is appropriately considered and instead of being hectored to install this thing nearly two years before we're required to. Let me say just a few words about what Commissioner Bradford said. Okay, you've got eight minutes. Okay, I'm going to be done in about two minutes. Commissioner Bradford said that we want the regulatory function here in Arkansas. I think he's absolutely right, but this bill is going to create a new regulatory body that's ultimately going to be under the control of the federal government.
And I am concerned about some of the representation I've heard by legislators here. We just heard that we got an amendment on this bill that says this exchange is going to vanish if it gets voided by the Supreme Court. That's not the case. The Supreme Court decides a year from now that federal health care reform is unconstitutional. This exchange is still going to be around. You can take a look at the amendment. You can see that. We were told that it's illegal to look at the bill in fiscal session rather than now. It's certainly not illegal to look
at the exchange bill a year from now. It's only illegal if we don't decide to do it. If the Arkansas General Assembly decides to take a look at the bill, it has every right to do so during the fiscal session. And we were also told by another advocate for the bill that we've got to be ready to go on January 1, 2013. That ain't right either. Take a look at the legislation. The legislation says we've got to be on track. All that's required is for us to pass some kind of law and for us to meet the judgment. We've got to be on track. I just think taking the time to look at the successes and failures of other states can't help but to help us build something better.
When I was a kid in school, there was always a big rush to turn in your test so you could go out and play on the playground, turn in the test as soon as possible. This is not like that. If we do this faster than we need to, we don't get extra credit. it. We don't get extra playground time. If this committee sends this thing out today, all we get is a big pile of lost opportunities. And Arkansas can do better, and I'm confident that if we take a little more time, we will do better. I hope that this committee appreciates the role that you all have as legislators. I know that some people have said it's a waste of time to look at this thing anymore. I think
that is disrespectful to the legislative process. I think it's disrespectful to the process of interim study, and I think that the whole role of the legislature is to make policy and to oversee policy instead of being railroaded and rushed into this deal. I think there's plenty of time to look at it, and it's clear to me that we are far ahead even of many other states right now. We have
plenty of time to look at this during interim study. Thanks very much for your time. Mr. Greenberg, we
Speaker 108
50:26
have a couple of questions if you're willing to take them. Yeah. Representative Viviano, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
50:34
We've had a lot of testimony about dates here, and I'm a little confused. I appreciate your
Speaker 108
50:39
comment about clarifying that. By the way, just to note, you get five minutes. Okay. In what year do we
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
50:45
have to be self-sustaining in exchange? Do you know that? If I told you 2015, would you believe that? Yeah, I
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
50:54
think that that's right. All we have to do by 2013
is show progress. And showing progress could be just a series of committee meetings deciding what we're going
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
51:02
to do. Okay. Okay. You know, we've seen, we've had some experience with exchanges that are currently up and operating,
which were referenced earlier in the California Exchange. Based on your research, would you say those have been successful, had
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
51:14
issues with them? Depends which state you're talking about. I mean, some have been
Speaker 50
51:21
more successful than others. Okay. Are you familiar with the Pioneer Institute? Somewhat. Somewhat research firm.
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
51:27
So if I showed you a report called, they just released this. this in March, and it's titled Fixing the Massachusetts Health Exchange.
Would that kind of tell you that perhaps there's problems with these exchanges?
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
51:41
Oh, I think that there's no doubt that Massachusetts has been shown in its exchange to have just a number
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
51:47
of serious problems, yes. In fact, and this is one of my major concerns of us trying to push this through real quickly without some opportunity in the interim study and have an opportunity to analyze this completely because I do believe there's an approach to an exchange on a private basis. But in that report, they said they have failed to achieve affordability
and choice for health care coverage for many residents in Massachusetts. In my understanding from the test line of water, Mr. Chairman, yes, sir,
Speaker 37
52:16
this is not about Massachusetts, nor is it about whether or not we should do an interim study. And that sounds like a proper question. Mr. Greenberg, do you think it's important that the state of Arkansas does due diligence on other
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
52:30
states that have already been through this experience before we embark on this mission? I think it's absolutely crucial.
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
52:38
And I would add that some people have said that we face a choice between passing this bill today and having the federal government take over. And I simply want to suggest that those advocates are not really being precise in what they tell you because there are clearly many other alternatives
Chair
Unverified
52:53
besides that. But we can learn from that experience, right? Absolutely. And do we know if there's
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
52:59
been – my understanding, it's been stated that we will only use the grant money, and we've signed a contract. So that tells me we've already got federal strings attached to it, right? Mm-hmm.
Right. And it looks like to me, if that's the goal, the end goal here is not to be under federal – About two and a half minutes, gentlemen. That perhaps we would look at a third alternative. That would be
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
53:22
up to the state legislature, yes, sir. And that third
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
53:25
alternative could be the fact that we need to actually set up a private exchange funded by private funding. Would you agree with that? Sure. There are
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
53:32
all sorts of alternatives that we'd have. Yes, sir.
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
53:35
Right. And in fact, it would actually serve small businesses and consumers in the state of Arkansas
in a much more competitive fashion. Is that true? I
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
53:42
think it would provide a lot more choice and a lot more freedom if we look at other alternatives. And I think that other states, particularly Utah, have been much more successful. Point
Glenn Gallis
Unverified
53:53
of order. Are those alternatives in this bill? Can I speak to that, Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Make it brief. You
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
54:00
have about a minute and a half. The alternative is between passing this today and having the possibility of looking at other things, Mr. Chairman. All right. So it's on the bill. All right. Well, we've had testimony.
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
54:10
You've got about a minute left. Okay. We've had testimony that this was the right thing to do because we want to set up a free marketplace. And so, actually, that's what I'm recommending. That's exactly what we do. We have no federal strings, not by the mandated health care plan, or by taking the grant money, signing the contract. We send that money back, we cancel the contract, and we go to the private sector in order to establish an insurance exchange. And that would give us the greatest flexibility that we could possibly have in this state.
Speaker 49
54:41
Would you agree? Yes. If you took no action, that would
Chair
Unverified
54:46
certainly be one of your alternatives. Yes. All right. Thank
you. Representative Woods, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to make this brief.
Just real quickly, I just wanted to say that Representative Greenberg, you and I were seatmates for two years. Please speak on the bill. And I wanted to ask you that I personally feel that we do need an insurance exchange, if it's private or public-private.
If this gets out of committee today but doesn't get off the floor tomorrow or whatever, hypothetical, when's the right time for us as a state to do a public-private? I mean, you're talking about voters, so my question is if we were to come back and do something later, when would be the right time? What type of model would the people be okay with that you're communicating with? Oh, I think we'd have plenty of time
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
55:36
to have a series of meetings this year and to do something in the fiscal session just as we did with the lottery.
But I don't know if that's really on the bill, but we certainly have plenty of time to set that up
Glenn Gallis
Unverified
55:49
and certainly plenty of time to study it
Speaker 24
56:00
and get it right. All right. Thank you,
Glenn Gallis
Unverified
56:04
Mr. Duneberg. Time's up. Are you closed? Are you closed? Ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be a pretty important vote. I'm going to ask that anyone who's not on this committee at this time to please remove from the table.
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen of the audience, I'm going to caution you in that this is going to be a very important vote, and we want to be fair, and we need to keep everyone's comments and reactions to themselves. All right. What
Speaker 37
56:37
is the pleasure of the committee? Representative Wilkins. I move do pass as amended
Speaker 164
56:46
well we don't have an amendment today I'm sorry we do hang on
Glenn Gallis
Unverified
56:50
what was the amendment oh yeah okay
Speaker 108
56:56
we haven't adopted the amendment from Friday so do pass we did adopt it but we haven't voted on it yet
Glenn Gallis
Unverified
57:07
so do pass as amended is the motion all in favor of
Speaker 55
57:14
the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? No.
Speaker 167
57:30
Ayes have it. I see two hands. Call the
Speaker 169
57:37
Representative Woods, Representative Lovell, Representative Pierce, Representative King,
Representative Hyde, Representative Word, Representative Carnine, Representative Rice, Representative Barnett, Representative Ingram, Representative Wilkins, Representative Representative Wright? Aye. Representative Viviano? No. Representative Wren?
Representative Wren? Representative Catlett? Aye. Representative Murdock? Aye. Representative Westerman? No. Representative Wardlaw? Yes. Representative Allen? Yes.
Speaker 167
58:36
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That should be Representative Kerr. Okay. Representative Kerr. No. Representative Allen. Yes.
Glenn Gallis
Unverified
58:48
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Let's count it again. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. All right. for House Bill 2138. Ayes 11, nay 7. Congratulations, Mr. Allen. You have passed your bill.
Agenda
Call to Order
SB251
SB313
SB305
HB2138
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Fred Allen Chair
Unverified
Representative Darrin Williams
Unverified
Speaker 3
Representative Mark Biviano
Unverified
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
Speaker 20
Speaker 40
Chair
Unverified
Representative Bobby J. Pierce
Unverified
Speaker 54
Speaker 55
Representative Jon Woods Chair
Unverified
Speaker 62
Speaker 69
Gene Eagle
Unverified
Speaker 73
Speaker 83
Speaker 85
Speaker 65
Speaker 92
Representative Allen Kerr
Unverified
Speaker 108
Speaker 50
Speaker 49
Speaker 117
Glenn Gallis
Unverified
Speaker 118
Speaker 120
Speaker 116
Representative Buddy Lovell
Unverified
Speaker 134
Speaker 135
Speaker 136
Speaker 140
Ginger Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 148
Dan Greenberg
Unverified
Speaker 37
Speaker 24
Speaker 164
Speaker 167
Speaker 169