House Insurance & Commerce Committee Part 1
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1738
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1738”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2033
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “bring you House Bill 2033 today. This is a bill to amend the Telecommunications Regul…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB768
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “run a Senate bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is Senate Bill 768 of”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2021
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “you committee is representing Nichols here to present house bill 2021 representing”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2138
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB2138”
|
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
Motion at the proper time, Mr. Chairman. Is there anyone in the audience that want to speak for or against the bill? Do you recognize all your motion? Do pass, Mr. Chairman. As amended. As amended. Okay. All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations, Senator. And thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. Thank you, Representative Hobbs. Representative Ingram, do you recognize to present your bill? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
0:45
Thank you, Committee. House Bill 1738 deals with Act 833 money. and this was a great piece of legislation that based on population money goes back to the 75 counties and then each county has an interlocal agreement to disperse the money as the county sees fit hopefully to help rural fire protection. What has happened over the years has been we have had inactive fire departments
that are not eligible for the money but are unwilling to vote to change the interlocal agreement, and so the money continues to build up in a surplus. So what this legislation does is strictly keep the Act 833 money as it is, but at the end of the year, if it's a surplus, it will go back to the counties, and I think we've got it where the judge or the quorum court can disperse the funds.
It does not help our rural areas fight fires if dollars meant for that are sitting in a bank in the state capital because they can't come to agreement with the inactive fire departments. We have in support of this the Municipal League. We have Chris Velines here with the Association of Counties that's in support of this,
and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Okay. Any questions from the committee?
Speaker 11
2:20
Anybody? Ruffin Hyde, you recognize? I just wanted to
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
2:23
ask a small question, and I appreciate you bringing this. This is really a good piece of legislation. And, you know, speaking of that 833 money, doesn't that come from insurance premium tax? Isn't that the source of all that money that funds all our volunteer fire departments? Yes, sir. Thanks a lot. I
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
2:41
appreciate that. Motion at the proper time,
Mr. Chairman. Okay. Representative Carman, recognize for a question.
Speaker 17
2:51
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, I can hear one question about this. It says that the
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
2:57
county judge will make the determination of an inactive. Tell me, give me a little bit of idea. Is there someplace else in the law that it really describes what inactive is? Yes,
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
3:11
sir. Under the Act 833 regulations, define what the law is regarding inactive fire departments. Thank you very much.
Bustin Hyde, do you recognize for your motion? Motion do pass, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to speak for or against the bill?
Okay. Did you sign up, sir? No. But you want to speak for it? your name okay come to the end of the table and
Roger Smith
Unverified
3:54
identify yourself and who you represent sir you have 30 seconds I don't need but 30 seconds mr. chairman my
name is Roger Smith I represent the State Firefighters Association and the State Fire Chiefs Association there are we support this bill because it will help clean up some situations in some counties where money is simply lying there where it isn't used, it'll get that money distributed to the departments that remain in those counties. This is very important money to those departments. They need it. And we fully support Mr. Hyde's efforts in this case. Thank you very much. You are right. Thank you.
Speaker 31
4:28
I guess that's the reason it's gotten such a good reception here, because Representative
Speaker 27
4:36
Hyde's works. Okay. Have you done the motion? Okay. All in
favor, We'll let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations. Representative Engelman, you passed the bill.
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
4:47
Mr. Chairman, committee, I appreciate your courtesy. Thank you. Okay.
Without objection, do you want to run that bill?
Sure. Okay. Objection, we're going to
Speaker 44
5:17
run a Senate bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is Senate Bill 768 of
Senator Hutchinson. you what this does, this is kind of a consumer protection bill. When an insurance agent does
consulting, he's a licensed consultant as well as a licensed insurance agent, he has the opportunity to collect two fees. Really, we only want to try to collect one fee. In In other words, if he does consulting with someone, builds an insurance program, there's generally a fee for that that he charges on the front end. If that person comes back and buys the products that he suggests from him,
this bill allows him to refund those fees for consulting without it being called a rebate. and that's the bottom line right there that allows him to refund that consulting fee in lieu of the commission he makes on the insurance products I'll be glad to take any questions if there are any any
questions from the committee members is there anyone in the audience who won't speak for or against the bill what is the pledge
of the committee okay we have a motion do pass all in favor let it be known
Speaker 27
6:53
by saying aye aye opposed congratulations you passed your bill thank
you committee is representing Nichols here to present house bill 2021 representing
Vines are you ready to present 2033 yes
Speaker 27
7:17
sir Okay. Do we have an amendment? Okay.
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
8:27
YEAH. YEAH. I MEAN, WE HAVE PEOPLE SIGN IT. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. Thank you.
power. I appreciate you all delaying your efforts. It caused you a lot of inconvenience to accommodate those folks. And I just want to tell you that I thank you and I know that they thank you. A motion
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
8:51
to adopt Mr. Chairman. Okay. Can I explain it? Just explain what the amendment does. And I appreciate that Chairman and Representative Hyde. The amendment before you is the culmination of negotiation with various municipalities throughout the state to make sure no toes are stepped over or stepped
on or anything. So all this does is expand this to exclude the program to exclude those municipalities that it might affect. It does nothing really to the bill. We just wanted to make sure we were user-friendly, for lack of a better term, and appreciate a good vote on the adoption of the amendment. Okay. Anybody want to speak against
it, the amendment, or for it? All in favor, let it
Speaker 24
9:36
be known by saying aye. Okay. Amendment adopted.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
9:40
All right. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Committee. We
bring you House Bill 2033 today. This is a bill to amend the Telecommunications Regulatory Reform Act of 1997. Initially, it was a simple, basic bill, but it's all bills. bills. It's grown and expanded, and we've tried to address a lot of the concerns. May not have all of them addressed, but I think this is a good start, and we're headed in
the right direction. I'll speak briefly to the bill, and then I have various witnesses and interested parties, I think, that want to come to the table and testify and share their accounts of what this bill actually does. In its most basic and briefest form, This bill addresses the use of usage of government dollars in attempts to prohibit them from competing in private industry. We don't want or are trying to avoid the use of any of the federal stimulus monies or dollars
to enter into competition with our private telecom industries. With this amendment, it does not affect anything currently being done. And if you're in any municipality that's in whatever telecom-type business right now, it does not affect them whatsoever. I think with this amendment, we've taken care of and strengthened that language so that they're not affected. You might ask, what's the reason for this? In a 2010 survey, the state of Arkansas has been considered the most competitive market for broadband services in the country.
We've heard that stat thrown around, but it is well documented. What this bill does not do, it does not affect state government, the Department of Information Services. We amended their language, and that is in this amendment we adopted today and a previous amendment. Also, it does not affect the state's municipal power providers. We adopted the amendments that are contained herein that take care of those folks. it doesn't mandate higher education to purchase any systems
through the state department of information systems there are and potentially are some small issues that we're addressing we're taking care of those hopefully this bill will address those and take care of that as far as any opposition I think there may be some people speak here today but in running the traps We know the governor's office is neutral. They don't have a problem with this bill. So that said, I will yield the floor and take any questions that I can potentially answer.
I've had a question from Canadian members. Representative Carmine, you recognize
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
12:28
for question? Dan Barnett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I read this, and I know it's not specific in this, I'm wondering about the initiative that part of the
UAMS system, the government grant that obviously we're trying to expand broadband and a number of other things throughout the state.
And I would hope that there aren't any unintended consequences. I know that's what you intend, but is there a way in which we could specifically ensure that we're not obviously going to interfere with that? Thank you, Representative.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
13:11
There is no intention in this bill to have any consequence whatsoever on those issues that we've talked about with higher ed and we continue to talk with.
And we've asked if there are specific instances like that to be brought. And if there are, we will definitely take care of them, amend the bill further to address those. As it is currently, there's no intention or there's no
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
13:38
language in there that affects that, as we see it. Well, and again, the interpretation, I think, is the important one. But you are and will have it amended in the Senate to exclude any reference
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
13:51
or potential possibility. If it comes, we'll make every intention.
There's no hidden motive here to handicap or offend anyone. I mean, we'll take the necessary steps. Well, I don't mind the offense.
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
14:03
I just want to make sure we don't do anything to slow down the implementation of that system across our state. I agree. It has so many positive impacts for both the medical but also a lot of communities that would finally have access that currently do not have. I agree with you. Thank you very much.
Speaker 74
14:29
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Hyde kind of
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
14:35
referred to this early on the amendment, But I do, I guess my question would be, obviously there are 15 municipal-powered electric companies in the state, and they've all been involved in the process of the language of this bill. And I just want to be sure that you can say this morning that those municipalities are all happy
and they feel like that their needs have been met and that the language is a lot of their language that they've been helpful and tried to interject in this
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
15:11
bill. Is that correct? It is. I can't speak to anybody's level of happiness, but every bit of language and feedback is in these amendments, and I believe I can say that they've all approved it. And the language in this amendment is their language. Okay. Thank you.
Representative Lovell, you're recognized for
question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Vines, back to Representative Carnine's question earlier. Let me give you a little history of this. I happen to be the president of the Arkansas Telephone Association. We passed this in 1997. But would you not agree that paragraph 4 on page 2 would address the issue of an entity that could buy services and provide to their people in the municipality from the private company?
Yes. Thank you, and actually this does not change the requirements or the language within the 1997 Act except for the expansion of services that have grown and been established since then, correct? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Rean, do you recognize the question?
Representative Tommy Wren
Unverified
16:46
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lovell got the first question answered for me.
Mr. Vines, Representative Vines, the only other question that I have of you is, this bill in no way is trying to not allow an entity such as UAMS to use those stimulus funds to connect to their different networks. Is that correct? No. But this bill does prohibit them from using that money, those stimulus monies, and that network to compete on the open market with these.
Private industry. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Representative Weston,
do you recognize the question? I have a motion at the proper time. Okay. Any more questions from committee members? We have a couple of people that signed up to speak against the bill.
Speaker 27
17:49
What's the first person? Alan Sugg. Okay. And who else? Okay.
Speaker 34
18:02
Is that President Sugg, you're recognized to sit at
Speaker 24
18:12
speak against the bill and identify your guests. Okay. Thank you. I'm Alan Sugg, President of the
Speaker 92
18:27
University of Arkansas System. And I've been the president of the University of Arkansas system for 21 years when I had
the great opportunity to come back to Arkansas to be the president, and I was president of Texas A&M University of Corpus Christi for 12 years, so I've been before a lot of committees, and this is the most unusual testimony that I have ever given before a committee. And I hate to even be up here to say I'm against the bill, because I'm really not against the bill. So I don't know how many people have been up here and say you're against the bill and say that you're not against the bill. Well, you're not the first. But it's unique with me because I don't usually do that. I'm either for something or against something.
But I do believe, and Representative Carnine kind of brought this up, I believe that there's some language in the bill that might cause some unintended consequences. And really I would hope that the bill could be amended so that there's not those unintended consequences. And let me give you just a little quick overview of what we're talking about. It goes back to year 2006, citizens of Arkansas overwhelmingly passed a $150 million bond issue referendum for construction, renovation, and the creation of a broadband network to tie all of higher education together, all the four-year universities together.
And that was kind of a unique situation because I don't know when all the four-year universities, UAMS, and the Division of Agriculture have all come together and agreed on something that needed to be done for this state and is very, very important for the future. of Arkansas, but we did. And of course that bond issue overwhelmingly passed. And now the Arkansas is now in place. The universities are all connected. And it's just amazing of what's happening in terms of we're connected to each other.
We're also connected to the National Lambda Rail. So it makes us connected to all major universities, research universities, nationally, internationally, institutes and many, many other benefits, and it's working really well. Now when we saw this bill, another very significant thing, and you all have talked about this, UAMS and 210 received a $104 million federal grant to connect UAMS with medical, many medical institutions throughout the state, and also money was provided to connect the two-year
universities with ARON. And so when we have all this network in place, we will have the very best higher education network, broadband network in the nation, without a question. And we hired Mike Aviati to head up this program, and he's doing a wonderful job. And the network, the ARRA network, is governed by the presidents and chancers of the four-year universities, and the president of the University of Arkansas System Services is the chair. Now, we have never, ever, ever intended to be in competition with private enterprise.
We don't think that's right. We should not do that. When we saw the bill, though, that we think there's some language in the bill that somebody can interpret in future years that Aron has overstepped its boundaries in terms of doing what we're doing today. And when we felt this way, we contacted Len Pitcock, who is here today. He's from Cox Communications. And he graciously sat down with us, and we talked about this. And he told us, and just as Representative Wren has told us today, that there is no intent for Aron to be harmed or the medical network to be harmed.
But I have concern that there may be some unintended consequences. And we like Cox. We like AT&T. We like Verizon. We do a lot of business with them. We want to have a good relationship with them. But we think it's very, very important that Aron continues to exist as it is, and we think there, as I said, there might be some unintended consequences. So what we would hope is, and Representative Vines has said this, that the bill could be amended so that there are not those unintended consequences. and I thank you very much. And let me ask on Dan Rahn, who is the Chancellor, of course,
Speaker 97
22:45
UAMS, to make a couple of remarks. Dan Rahn Thank you, Dr. Sugg, Mr. Chair,
Speaker 98
22:53
and committee members. This Broadband Technologies Opportunity Program grant that's euphemistically referred to as BTOP is a Department of Commerce grant to expand broadband capacity statewide to over 400 sites for the purpose of providing linkages for education to improve the efficiency of our ability to deliver education around the state and also to remove geography as
a barrier to health care. And the medical side of it, which I'll talk to, involves connecting hospitals, mental health centers, community health centers, area health education centers, health departments around the state so that geography doesn't determine access to health care. The grant is being used to lease bandwidth from commercial providers and to purchase
hardware for both ends that will build on the existing distance health programs that are being used for high-risk obstetrical services, stroke, and is a fundamental building block for the trauma network statewide. And again, we just are certainly very committed to not competing with for-profit business, with private business, but doing our, carrying out our responsibilities to address health
issues statewide in the best possible way for the citizenry. So that's just in brief what the intent is of the medical side of this. The educational side and the approach to the broadband leasing of fiber and the relationship with industry can probably
Speaker 97
24:47
be best described by Mike. Thank you, Dr. Rahm. Mr. Chairman, committee members,
Speaker 102
24:52
like Dr. Sugg, I'm here not to speak against the bill.
I just want to provide some clarification. It came to my attention that there were some people that thought that perhaps RON was trying to compete with our commercial partners. Can't happen. We've all got to be working together to make this happen in Arkansas. It's extremely important. Research and education networks have a very clear mission, that is research and education. And RON was conceived and deployed and is being utilized to do just that, support research and education. The BTOP opportunity came to us, and we were very pleased to be able to follow the lead
of UAMS and be involved. To add our two-year campuses, we're talking about now workforce development, we're talking about education, we're talking about being able to extend our research. So the simple fact is RON does not compete with our commercial partners under any circumstance. We want very much more dialogue with our commercial partners as best we can, and I'm basically room or control for R.I., so anyone that has any questioning point in time will be more than happy to answer them. Thank you, sir. Okay.
I have a question. It appears that you are not against the bill. Am I correct?
Speaker 92
26:10
Well. Yes. Sort of. We think there could be some language put in the bill. There could be some amendments. We'd
make it very clear that R.I.
Speaker 92
26:21
What language are you looking for? Well, I've got the language, but we sent it to Lynn, but I don't think Lynn thought that this was – they believe honestly, sincerely that Lynn believes, the telecommunications folks believe that this bill does not impact Aron,
and it does not impact. But I think it's in the interpretation. The devil's in the detail, you know. And today, everybody may agree that this doesn't, but two years from now, Somebody may bring this up and say, look, let me show you this. Do you realize that y'all are not following state law? And that's happened more than once, too, you know, in the history of the state of Arkansas. So you want to add some language? We want to do, yes, sir.
We would like to. Well, yes, sir. Okay. Representative
Lovell, you recognize. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess to make a comment to that, I think given the time frame that we're in,
and it would be very difficult to go back and figure out what language to add and amend the bill and then bring it back. But I wanted to, Dr. Sugg, I wanted to kind of address what you were talking about, Aron. Yes, sir. You said there was a bond issue out there that provided the building of that network. Yes, sir. Are you aware that ARON, as administrators, have contacted most, if not all, of the telecommunications providers
Speaker 78
27:46
within the state and let them bid on a gap within that network?
Speaker 110
27:52
Yes, sir. Matt? Yes, sir. That's part of the BTOF, looking for
Speaker 74
28:00
the fiber for the two-year colleges. My point is that Auron is not
building a network of its own due to there's no need for duplication of services when the telecommunications companies have it out there already. So the fact that Auron goes to these telecommunications providers and asks them to bid on a portion of a network
that would complete the network for the universities and UAMS and the medical facilities. To me, that proves that this bill does not allow competition with the private companies, but it also uses the private companies' facilities to provide the network for all around. Well, sir, the
Speaker 102
28:51
decision to go out for RFP to get the IRUs, the fiber, was based upon
the amount of money and the best use of the money from the federal program. It would have been impossible to build out the fiber, and we definitely want to work with our commercial partners here in Arkansas. So we were able to connect more of our two-year campuses in this
model than we would have been before. Well, I think a point is made, and the point I wanted to make is that the private telecommunications companies, the cable companies and all, are willing to provide the network at a least cost to Auron,
and therefore there's really no need of having that separate network without those people. So we appreciate
Speaker 78
29:38
the answers, and thank you, Mr. Chair. Who's next? Representative Keene, you're recognized for a
question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
29:54
if you already answered it. So what assurances can you give that you won't be competing?
Speaker 92
30:03
I can give my word. I mean, in a way, I kind of think we're dealing with a problem that does not exist. I mean, in all honesty, if we do go outside what our responsibilities are, and if we do start competing with private industries, well, then I would think a bill would be very appropriate to be done. But quite frankly, you know, there is a board of the board is the four-year universities and colleges, and they would have to approve any competition within for to compete with private entities.
I don't think that will happen, but if it does happen, well, then we know that we're going to be right back here facing another bill. But at the same time, I'm not saying we don't need the bill. I just wish we felt better about the wording so that higher education could continue to do what we're doing today. And in fact, the telecoms said they like ARON, they like what UAMS is doing, and they applaud what we're doing, but they just want to be sure that we don't compete with them in the
future. Okay. And so. That's a good answer.
But I'm going to go back to something you said
earlier. You said what happens two years from now somebody waives the bill and said unintended consequences. Now what happens three years from now when you've given us your word and you're no longer here? That's a
Speaker 102
31:36
good question. That's an excellent question, sir, and let me attempt an answer here. Research and education networks, particularly ARON, have absolutely no interest.
And I'm not retiring this year. I've already retired twice. I plan to be here in Arkansas for a while. But the idea is it's not within the mission to compete with our commercial partners. And that's written, and it's
Speaker 97
31:59
got to be that way, and the board is very clear. Might I just
ask a question, Dr. Ron, again? One second. I'm sorry, then I'll
Speaker 123
32:08
recognize you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Motion
Speaker 125
32:13
to limit debate, five minutes. Okay. Proper motion.
Speaker 98
32:16
I don't know the technicalities of it, but I view UAMS as a public university to be a governmental entity.
And I'm not sure what it means that UAMS cannot indirectly provide voice, data, broadband, or video services when we're doing that in distance health right now. Sir, I'm sorry to interrupt you. We have a motion on the floor.
I'm sorry. Okay. All in favor of limiting the debate by five minutes, there being no one saying aye. Okay. Opposed? Motion carries. Dr. Watson.
Speaker 97
32:53
Well, I would just repeat what I asked, which is that we are providing distance health
Speaker 98
33:03
services over the telehealth network right now that does involve video services. It involves data. It involves voice. And it involves the use of a broadband network. And I just I'm not really sure what it means to be unable to do that indirectly or directly.
And I just would want to be very certain that what we're now doing, which is and it's the expansion of what we're now doing that we envision using the infrastructure and the methodology used to date is what we want to be able to continue for the benefit of the
Speaker 131
33:43
citizens. That's all. Representative Murdoch, do you
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
33:55
still have a question? Yes, sir. Thank you, Chairman. Dr. Ron, that's specifically what I kind of want to go to because there's specifically
some other legislation that's currently going on that supports that outreach or that ability to do what you're talking about. So are you telling me, if I'm hearing in your testimony, that you feel that there's possibly be a threat to the telemedicine, the component that gets out now to the rural AHECs and community health centers that are in
Speaker 134
34:25
the network, that we're threatening that possibility? MR. Our attorneys have
Speaker 125
34:30
interpreted that that could well be the case, although an unintended
Speaker 92
34:41
that fair? Dr. Seuss? MR. Yes, sir. is room for misinterpretation of what this list says and that it would, could, could possibly limit the telemedicine network and also the ARRN network. So follow up,
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
34:57
if I may. So then there's some language that can be put in this to possibly, yeah, to eliminate that issue because that's a very detrimental part of this if
that's a possibility. And I think that possibility needs to be Thank
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
35:26
you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's kind of an interesting dance we're having here because it's, you know, everybody agrees that no one's trying to step on anybody else's toes, and we keep talking in general terms that there might be a problem as interpreted by some attorneys down the road.
And, you know, nothing's foolproof, and we, in fact, have a time limitation. So, you know, I'd just like to put out there that I, for one, am completely satisfied if the sponsor assures us that if time allows him, that he'll try and install some comforting language as it goes the other side. But I, for one, who am probably the reason that it's such a time constraint now, because at the 11th hour I asked for this to be held at the request of several cities across the state,
and the telecommunication people from the very smallest in the state to the very largest all together agreed to hang on and spend the weekend. We were in teleconferences at last Thursday night at nearly 10 o'clock. So they've been most agreeable. They've really tried to work to these things. And there's just no doubt in my mind that their intentions are good and they're right on for the business community and that they're not going to injure UAMS in their efforts. And I certainly have no doubt in my mind that you all are not trying to develop a new business unit to sell Internet.
So, you know, the problem is so noted, I guess, for my purposes anyways. and I have confidence in and I'm getting to the question I'm getting to it I promise it's going to be wouldn't you agree but I'd like to push this through I'm hoping somebody's going to agree actually I hope 10 other people on this committee are going to agree is that we can rely with some confidence especially in the vagueness we're doing here we're talking about here that if a problem
arises it's going to be dealt with fairly and responsibly by the General Assembly by the telecommunication industry and certainly by the folks at the UA system. And I appreciate you taking the time and I understand the seriousness of your concern by coming down here today. Wouldn't everybody agree? Somebody nod their head. Thank you. Good question.
Alright, your time is up. Thank you. Is there anybody who want to speak for the bill? Okay. Okay.
Speaker 27
37:59
Thank you, President Mr. Chairman, I'm Lynn Pitcock. I'm with Cox
Speaker 146
38:10
Communications, and I have drawn, unfortunately, the short straw of representing the telecommunications industry here today because my name was brought up earlier. Let me assure you that this is a bill that the entire telecommunications industry has worked with many, many entities with. I think you'll hear from, if I can speak quickly, from some other entities today that we've gone out of our way to address the concerns that have been brought to us.
To be quite honest with you, we have too much to lose for the networks that were just mentioned here a minute ago going away. We don't want any unintended consequences. Our concern is that the business that we're doing with these entities right now could be somehow turned around for our own product to be used to take our own customers. We believe everybody that sits up here and says that's not the intent, and they have no intention of doing that. We just want to make sure that there's some language in place that does that. Yes, we've addressed DIS's concerns.
Yes, we've addressed the concerns of the municipal power providers. Higher Ed gave us some language yesterday. To be quite honest with you, we think they're just the opposite of what we were trying to do. Not only did it not address our concerns, it reversed what we were trying to do and opened the door even larger. We commit that we will continue to work with higher ed to address their concerns. So with that, I know time is limited, so let me let some others who might
Speaker 141
39:33
want to speak on behalf of the bill. Anybody else want to speak for Bill?
Speaker 23
39:39
Okay. You recognize? State your name and who you represent. Thank
Bill Phillips
Unverified
39:46
you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bill Phillips, and I represent the Arkansas Municipal Power Association, and I am probably the fly in the orbit that slowed this bill down earlier, and I apologize for that. But thank you, Representative Vines, for your graciousness in working with us. We are absolutely pleased with the amendment that you had adopted today. It takes care of all of the municipal power association cities, and we just want to say
Speaker 33
40:14
that we are in support of the bill. Okay. Thank
you. Any questions? Okay. Anybody else want to speak? Okay. Representative
Westland, you're recognized. Motion do pass as
amended. Okay. Anybody want to speak for against the motion? Okay. All right. All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
40:44
Congratulations. You passed the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman of the Committee. And before I exit, just as a matter of privilege, could I move House Bill 1841 from deferred back to active for Friday on your agenda? Sure. Thank
you. Without objection, I'm willing to present House Bill 2138. Y'all get comfortable.
Unknown speaker
41:47
Here are now several, thank you. That's fine.
Speaker 169
42:17
Okay, in the interest of time, we need to kind of keep
things calm in the chamber here. Thank
you, ladies and gentlemen. Where's the amendment? Chairman
Allen, you are recognized to run your bill. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.
Speaker 40
42:52
I'm looking for a copy of the amendment.
Teresa O'Keehan
Unverified
43:03
him his. All right. You're recognized to run your bill. Recognized to explain your amendment. Okay. Let's go over there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment speaks for itself. The main thrust of the amendment is that we had some substitutions with mainly being the person to present it. So there was a change from the sponsorship and the language down there speaks
Teresa O'Keehan
Unverified
43:35
for itself. All right. What's the committee's pleasure for the amendment, Mr. Riverson-Woods?
All right. We have a motion to adopt the amendment without objection. What's the pleasure of the committee? All
in favor by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? All right. Representative Allen,
you're recognized to run your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm adopted. Thank you. I'm going to be fairly brief. I'm going to hit on five points. One of the things that House Bill 2138 does, this bill allows the Insurance Department to protect Arkansas policy hold by having jurisdiction
over the insurance companies and agencies which sell insurance in the state of Arkansas. This bill would also ensure that the Insurance Department would continue to be able to protect the citizens of the state of Arkansas. This is a consumer protection bill which would provide the department authority to enforce federal health care. Without this enabling legislation, individual and small group health insurance companies will be regulated by the federal government rather than continue to be regulated by the Arkansas Insurance Department.
The greatest practical effect of that is that when Arkansas has a problem with health insurance, Instead of allowing the insurance department to investigate and look into their complaint, Arkansas will have to contact the Federal Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C. This bill requires filing and prior department approval of all individual health insurance policies. The bill provides standards by which the department can review individual policies.
The bill also established the health benefits exchange for Arkansans, which provides an alternative source of health insurance, the current health insurance market will continue with the addition of their change. The bill established a structure for the exchange and is based upon the current CHIP structure. The exchange will provide insurance to many Arkansans who are currently without health insurance. It will also provide consumers of a choice between the exchange and the existing health insurance market. At this time I am
going to recognize Mr. Jay Bradford without objection from the committee to explain the bill. Commissioner
Bradford is here to introduce yourself please. Yes
Speaker 178
46:01
sir, Mr. Chairman, I'm Jay Bradford. I'm the Commissioner of Insurance for your state. If I could take a moment to go back to the amendment that the Chairman presented a while ago and you adopted. That's It's an amendment that several people on this committee requested, rightfully so, that says
that if this court action in the United States federal courts, if it holds in any form that this is not constitutional, this legislation would go away, as would the federal affordable health care insurance. So that should be made clear to, I mean, to everyone that we are trying to hold a place in Arkansas to protect Arkansans. The federal bill is a work in progress.
We don't know what will develop over this period of time. You've got the court action. You've got the United States Congress that are going to make changes in it. But what we are attempting to do in this legislation is to keep Arkansans where they can come to the insurance department and seek solutions to problems, then we would have the jurisdiction to do so. The opposite is that it goes to health and human services.
The option is ours to keep this for our kids. It's here. Health and human services, they don't have an issue of regulating our people. They are happy to step forward and do that. But you are the governing body here. We work for you. We respond to you and to your constituents. We just want to continue to do so. Statistically, we had well over 1,000 complaints on health insurance in our department last year. We opened that many files for people.
We won some. We lost some. We helped a lot of people. We straightened out misunderstandings. We don't want to send those people to D.C. for these type of solutions. And so that's it. It's not a debate about the federal affordable health. It's not that. that's not in that's in the United States Congress hands and I would respect anybody's ability to disagree with it but we don't want to throw our constituents our people who we care
about into that type of system if we don't have to and we don't have
Teresa O'Keehan
Unverified
48:38
to if we pass this legislation we'll be happy to answer
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
48:42
any questions any questions from the committee MR. Representative Murdoch, please. MR. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. And thank you, Representative Allen and Commissioner Bradford for explaining this because myself and I'm sure my colleagues have had lots of inquiries, if you will, inquiries about the
position and what we are attempting to legislate and pass here. And just to rehash, this is a bill that will allow Arkansas to take care of Arkansas versus Washington taking care of Arkansas per se. That is correct. That's correct. Okay. So that still gives us the authority and the control to take care of our own business. That is correct. And that's what people want. Another thing, if I may, and it gives us those choices as part of that.
There are some choices, exchange and some other things that are a part of that that's still at this level. versus the Washington level. Correct. The last thing is that this is not about the debate on affordable health care. That's still in Washington. They're doing that, and that's not what we're dealing with. Now, and even if the court case, whatever the court does, then that nullifies what we're doing now. That's the language that's been added by amendment. So we're not taking the control away.
We're not letting Washington control it, but we're doing what we must do as a state to take care of our
Speaker 44
50:08
own business. Correct. Thank you. Representative Viviano,
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for missing most of this presentation. As you know, it's a busy time running a lot
of bills different directions. If we wait, if we wait, is there not potential? there could be a tremendous amount of change in what's going on in the federal system.
And if we go ahead and implement this, could we not end up costing us a lot more time and effort and expense, not
really knowing where the federal mandate is going to ultimately come? If, in fact, it
does come. I'm going to ask John to answer that
Speaker 44
50:53
question, if that's okay with you. Sir, you're recognized to
John Morris
Unverified
50:56
answer the question. Please introduce yourself. My name is John Morris. I'm general counsel for the Arkansas Insurance Department. That is a good question, Representative. The chairman handed out the federal act to the members before the presentation began
that is pertinent as to the timing involved. And it provides that the Department of Health and Human Services will actually make their decision whether or not to preempt the state on January of 2013, which actually will be before this body goes back into session, its next session. And so because of the timing of the Federal Act and the need for something to be done
before January of 2013, it is the Department's opinion, at least, that this cannot wait until the next session that actually, even though it isn't going to go ñ the exchange itself will not go into effect on 2014, the decision as to whether or not Health and Human Services will preempt the state and take over the health market in a state will actually be done in January of 2013, making it necessary to do something this session. MR. I want to follow up, Ms. Representative Bibiana.
Teresa O'Keehan
Unverified
52:12
MR. I appreciate that timing. Do you agree this may be the most
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
52:16
important issue facing our country and maybe our state or at least in the top two
John Morris
Unverified
52:25
or three? I think that health care is absolutely an important issue for our country and our state. I think that as far as this bill, though, this bill is just a small piece of the overall debate. All we're looking to do is increase our oversight of health insurance currently that we do right now
and then allow for the state to dictate the structure of how the exchange, if in fact an exchange will exist in this state, how that exchange will be structured. I understand. Again, do you
feel like this is one of the top issues facing our state and their country? Not that it is. It's one of the top
Speaker 195
53:07
issues. I'm not so sure I understand exactly are you talking about this bill this bill here or the federal bill this bill
there's an impact where I'm going because the explanation was the reason we're doing this now is because we're on a timeline a deadline and my point is if that's the case I believe that most people in this body would be willing to come back if necessary to debate this in detail and having more information from the federal government at a time that makes us, allows us to make much more
informed, intelligent decisions. MR. You're correct.
And this will not preclude them from coming back talking about it,
Representative Viviano. MR. Okay. And do you feel there's a
need to pass this today? MR. There's an urgency that we must act on this. If we don't be prepared for it, then we don't want Washington coming in telling us how to run our health care program in the state
of Arkansas. And right now what this legislation is going to do, this is just enabling legislation.
And I think that we need to be prepared to have
something in place. I appreciate that. I'm worried about the impact if we move forward and there is a substantial change at the federal level
what the ultimate cost and time, what the expense will be to the state of Arkansas.
I don't believe it's going to be in the state cost if it is at
Speaker 203
54:48
all, it's all federal. Representative, the bill actually specifically provides that there will be no general state
John Morris
Unverified
54:53
funds used for the exchange. The idea is that the exchange should be self-sufficient, that at least initially there's federal dollars that are being given to help get things structured and organized at the planning stages. But as far as general funds from the state general revenue, the bill specifically provides that there will not be any dollars used from that. I appreciate that, but I
come from a background of health care.
And, in fact, I'm co-sponsoring one of the bills for the Information Technology Office here. I believe very strongly in the implementation of electronic health records because ultimately I believe that's part of the solution. It doesn't matter what type of health care reform that we ultimately implement. But to say that there's not going to be any additional cost, I have never, ever, in the countries I've traveled and working with health care in virtually every state in the country, that I've worked with the government, federal government, it always costs money.
It always costs a lot of money, and this has a propensity to cost a lot of money. So I just caution us to proceed very carefully, very methodically, and think about what we're doing, especially when there's several still unknowns at the federal level. That's all the questions I have. Representative Westerman, you're recognized
for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is somewhat similar to Representative Viviano's on the cost, but I guess it was answered that there wasn't any cost. But my question is how many state employees and how much time will be required between now and January
Speaker 178
56:51
answer that? Thank you. At this point in time, the interim committee's personnel and the budget committee that approved
the appropriation that would allow us to spend the federal grant money, we have four employees that are contracted only to the extent that the federal grant money is there. They are, that is a provision provided by the legislature. It's in the statute, and they know that when the money goes that they go, and they take the positions based on that caveat. So there could be more that add, but that will have to go through your process.
It will have to go through your interim committees for an appropriation and also for personnel. That would be, and likewise, any state money, there's no state money appropriated for this at this point in time, And any state money that's going to be spent here will have to be appropriated by this body. There's no flexibility there to be able to do that. And so we have to come back to your committee structure, your budget committee, personnel committee, all of that.
I guess what I'm saying, you're in control of those issues, the interim committees and the legislature in control of those issues. I can't step out there. And I have been warned also by your governor that he
doesn't want any state money in this deal right on the front. So no
Speaker 195
58:27
appropriations have been approved. Are there any appropriation bills out there? Yes, sir.
Speaker 178
58:32
The interim peer committee, their structure where they can approve an interim appropriation for federal grants
because they come at all times of the year. And so there is an appropriation for the planning grants, and we've added those four employees to pursue that plan. And it's going to involve, I don't want to bore you off this, but it's going to involve a tremendous amount of public input that eventually we'll get to the end of it, and we'll come out here to you all and say this is what we're going to recommend. And there again, the legislature and the budget will have total control
of that. So to be clear, there's only four employees involved or impacted by this act?
Speaker 178
59:11
All of which are 100% funded by the grant, which is
a federal grant. There are
Speaker 178
59:18
no outside services that will be contracted? Yes, there will be, but it's all grant money. Yes, we're doing the RFPs on independent companies to do the technology and the planning grants and all that. That's all within the federal funds that are appropriated, and quite frankly, we have a contract with Health and Human Services where we meet benchmarks to have to report in.
Also, we put through your process here, and I think there's other legislation that's out here that is going to require even more reports from your department on the progress of this. There's going to be plenty of control and safeguards. We don't mind that at all. It's sure a priority for all that. All
right, Ms. Westerman. Representative Rice, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
1:00:13
Some of my questions have been answered, but just let me touch on Mr. Morris
who made a statement, something referred to the legislature would not be back in session in time to deal with this if we didn't deal with it this time. And we do have a fiscal session coming up next January, Albeit the caution not to open up for other things, but this is extraordinary, and we live in extraordinary times. We see from day to day, and I just wanted to point that out,
that legislature would be back down there scheduled to next January. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Rice.
Representative Woods, you recognize for a question?
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:00:51
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to just make a
few quick comments. It's one of the reasons why I ran for office was because I enjoy policy. Campaigning's okay. But I enjoy what we're doing right now. And I think it's fair that I need to go on record and just tell the audience here a little bit of how we got the bill to where it's at now. Representative Woods, if you're going to speak
for the bill, we probably need to do that at that proper time.
Speaker 15
1:01:21
Well, I think he's going to do like rubbed in a hat. I would just like to make a few
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:01:28
comments, and then I'll ask a question. But what I do want on the record for everyone to know here is that my district, a lot of people in my district, my constituents have asked, like other representatives I've heard on the committee, is to pause, pause. And, you know, I represent my district, and if they want me to pause, I'll pause.
But I do want, on the record, for everybody to know here, that Jay Bradford has amended the bill for me personally nine times since January. And I've represented the insurance companies because in my previous life I had an insurance license. And, Jay, I think it's the right thing to do is for me to thank you, and I think it's fair, and I think the audience needs to know what great lengths you've gone to. Representative Allen, you brought an amendment this morning. to, or we talked about an amendment yesterday, the audience needs to know this too, that
you attached an amendment this morning saying that this exchange will cease to exist once this, once this, if the federal law is ruled unconstitutional. And I said, I said, this is great. Can you just put in there if it, if it gets repealed as well so we don't have to wait for the judges? And you said yes. So we've amended it 10 times, for a total of 10 times since January. So I think it's fair for the audience to know you're not the enemy and that you've done a good job to get us where we are here today.
But I do just want to say my question is Congress, as slow and as pathetic as they are, on the federal level, where are we? Are we 45 days out? When's the line in the sand where we have to have an exchange? when's the is
Speaker 195
1:03:20
it 12 or 15 there's not a specific timetable what we have done
Speaker 178
1:03:26
they have asked us to do we have filed this is a pending legislation
Speaker 195
1:03:32
that we have certainly didn't say it's passing and it's not the filing form as you say I appreciate that we're working with everybody So what will probably happen if we can't make progress, then they'll stop their
Speaker 178
1:03:49
wheels in up there. Because the facts are that 13 date is a really hard date. You've got to be having everything in place at that point in time.
You can't say in January of 14, because it's an administrative issue. You've got to be able to issue a policy on your constituents January 14th. So you've got to move it, you know, this way. So, and the other thing, you know, it's the fact that they're gearing up to regulate Arkansas.
Representative Tommy Wren
Unverified
1:04:19
I mean, they're gearing up to do that. If we don't, they're going to do that. Jay, I'll just make this
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:04:26
quick comment, Mr. Chair. I'll make it real brief, is that, you know, a lot of constituents have asked me to pause.
And so I've done a lot of research on different states that already have an exchange, and we need one in Arkansas, whether it's private or public-private. And I would hope that even if we pause today or waited or if it gets repealed on the federal level or if we go forward, we do need a privately-ran or public-private exchange to where people in Arkansas can go online like Indiana, and they can type in, here's how much money I got. The only money I got for a premium that I've got budgeted, what can I get for it?
And it's incredible. So I would just hope that regardless if we don't move forward today, if it gets repealed on the federal level, that hopefully one day we can have a private exchange or public-private exchange. Wouldn't you agree?
Speaker 178
1:05:26
that that could very likely be what we end up with with all the federal flux going on, that we would have a private buyer's exchange, which is strictly a totally
free enterprise. Private companies are there, agents deal with them. There's one in Utah. You mentioned Indiana, Governor Daniels, who is adamantly against the federal process, has gotten his people together, starting their exchange there. same thing in Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio, all of those are states that have filed suit against the Fed issue, but they're in process of putting their exchange in. And so that's really all we're really talking about, is to get it ready for our people.
Speaker 223
1:06:08
And it could be, in the long run, a private buyer's exchange. And that's good
for competition. It's good for your
Representative Tommy Wren
Unverified
1:06:20
constituents. Representative Rand, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Allen, I've got three questions in there for you. Do you agree that our job as legislators are to protect and serve the citizens and our districts and the people of Arkansas?
I agree with you. And Chairman Allen, don't you, by passing this legislation, you know, our job is to pass legislation, policy laws that protect our people, correct? Correct. And don't you think that we're setting what we're telling the federal government is not that we agree with Obamacare or that we agree with their policies, but that we are going to set this exchange up to protect our citizens and the people of Arkansas?
I agree with you. So this in no way says that we agree with federal policy or federal law, but that we are going to set this exchange up to protect the citizens of Arkansas in case this law
Speaker 39
1:07:22
is not repealed. That is correct. Thank you. Thank you, Representative
Wren. Representative Hyde, you're recognized for a question. I'll wait. All right. Representative Hyde passes.
Representative King, you're recognized for a question. How
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:07:47
much federal government money are we getting to help implement this? Would you say a million
Speaker 195
1:07:55
dollars or something like that? I've gotten three grants. One plan grant for a million dollars to plan the exchange. The second is for... Can I ask
Speaker 178
1:08:07
all of it, but a lot of it has been contracted to be spent.
and then we have, you know, I'm not prepared to tell you how much is obligated, but I'd say probably half of it is. And we have others, too, other grants. Should I respond? Sure, yes. Okay. The second is the rate review grant, which is in the process of developing. That's a million-dollar grant. That's two employees I told
Speaker 195
1:08:37
you about earlier. that is a we will have the authority
Speaker 178
1:08:44
if we keep it to review the rights of the insurance companies we have to have the apparatus to do so to be sure that they do not make an inordinate amount of profit if they do it returns back to their policy holders and so that is an issue there that we wouldn't want to do here in Arkansas but there again it could go to the feds. So, and then the third grant is a little under $500,000 is for an ombudsman and that is a representative funded to represent the public and their interests.
We already do that through our own systems that we have, you know, but that's on this federal health care stuff. So those are the three, just $2.5 million that we have now in process. And we're, by explanation, we have a timetable that we've agreed to, that we're going to have to hit certain benchmarks to keep it. So
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:09:44
if this process stops, what's your future plans going forward with spending the
Speaker 195
1:09:52
rest of this grant money? Well, what we'll have to do is that money is earmarked for these projects, and has been
Speaker 178
1:10:01
authorized through your system, you know, the appropriation and the jobs and all that. So they would go forward
Speaker 195
1:10:07
and then it would stop. Now, to be totally candid with you, there's going to be further grants to continue this process, which we wouldn't be eligible for, if we're not going to be able to regulate it here. So we would
Speaker 178
1:10:23
go through this grant process. It's a contract. It's got benchmarks, and then it would stop at that point in time, wouldn't run out.
And then the employees would, by contract, they would no longer be employees in the state of Arkansas. So you
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:10:37
are saying if this process stops, it would hurt the possibilities of future grants from the federal government? Is that what you're saying? It would be an
Speaker 229
1:10:44
admission that we're not going to be the regulator. The problem I
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:10:48
have is, you know, we sit around here and we always talk about the federal government. We act like we're getting money from some rich uncle or somewhere, and it's not coming from people of Arkansas, which it is. And so that's the problem I always have looking at the federal government, because we just always want more money from the federal government.
We act like it's just not coming
Speaker 230
1:11:06
from us. We've all had those thoughts. Can I
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:11:11
ask another quick question? Yes, sir. Go right ahead. What changes, if you had to make a guess, I mean, and are you communicating with
Speaker 231
1:11:19
our federal people about what to stop and what you want changed, I
Speaker 195
1:11:24
mean, while they're re-debating the health
Speaker 178
1:11:27
care bill? Well, yes. Good question. The National Association of Assurance Commissioners is very, very active in trying to represent the interests of the people we are supposed to be responsible for.
And so we do have a great flow back and forth to the health and human services. Sometimes they listen, sometimes they don't. But it is a broad-based group of states. Some states don't agree with the federal health issue, but they all agree that we have got to do things to make it work better, one of which is the agents. The feds will cut the agents out of the rate-making process, and we are adamantly against that because we think that those people are going to be necessary to help the people understand
their options and all that. The feds don't want that. We want that. We know it's
Speaker 195
1:12:21
important. If the companies could do without it,
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:12:24
they'd already done it. Has there been anything out of your agency that you've listed a top ten things you like
Speaker 195
1:12:32
and a top ten things you don't like to advise?
Speaker 178
1:12:36
Well, I've really kind of been more just, you know, I kind of, it's more up to the mechanics of it. Certainly we're expressing ourselves. In fact, I'm the chairman of a committee,
Speaker 195
1:12:46
a national committee, that will address issues like that. But really, I've been focusing on basically being sure that we can keep this process here with home people.
Speaker 178
1:12:57
I think that's my first line to represent the interests of our constituents
Speaker 195
1:13:01
here, is to be sure we keep this process here. It's going to change. It should change. And it will change. And we may not recognize it in 2014. We may not recognize it. I think President Woods has a valid point. I think there will be an exchange. I think there will be an exchange. It may be totally private, which is fine. But I'm just trying to keep up with representing our folks here to be sure that we'll be able to do that.
That's our mission at your department. Is
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:13:35
there anybody up there advocating pushing this date back that states
Speaker 195
1:13:39
have to comply? Yes. Does it have a chance to pass? Yes. I think there's going to be – it's going to be slowed down, I believe. Just from reading what I read,
Speaker 178
1:13:51
and we all read same things basically, you know, because of the balance in D.C. that there's going to – it'll probably slow down. And, again, we may not recognize it in 14
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
1:14:04
If this does not go forward, are we going to advocate that that date be pushed back
Speaker 180
1:14:12
as a state? the governor? It's out of our hands at this point in time. You've got our United States Congress.
Speaker 117
1:14:17
Yeah, if this does not go through, are we going to advocate that
Speaker 180
1:14:23
that date be pushed back? I don't know. As
Speaker 195
1:14:25
an individual, I certainly might do it, but if this doesn't go through and we lose the right to regulate it,
Speaker 233
1:14:32
we've lost our voice as far as the regulation of this line.
That's the bottom line. Representative Viviano,
you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rappert, I believe ultimately we have to address this issue. There's no question about that. However, how
Speaker 104
1:14:54
many states have exchanges fully implemented today? I'm going to tell you
Speaker 195
1:14:59
this off the top of my head, okay? You've got Massachusetts, we're all familiar with that.
It's been about the third or fourth year. And
Speaker 178
1:15:11
you have Utah that has an exchange. California now has an exchange. It's principally the private part of
Speaker 195
1:15:19
it. Florida is in the process also. And I'm probably missing other states. Now, there are a lot of states that are committed to it, just like Governor Mr. Daniels up in Indiana. They're doing their exchange.
And I may have a partial list here. Did I say Alabama, Oklahoma, Ohio are all implementing those changes? Now, they're not operational now. Those are
Speaker 178
1:15:49
commitments. And there's a lot more. I'll say this. I'm talking too much, I know,
Speaker 195
1:15:55
but you do need to know this. The governors who are filing suit against the federal plan are telling their commissioners to take care of their people.
Be sure we have home rule. There's many governors that are adamantly against. In fact, Governor Daniels, who's running for president, is adamantly against. So that's kind of inside information.
Mr. Bradford, are you familiar with, for a number of years now, even before the federal Obamacare, what do you want to call
it, came into place, that there has been attempts to implement various states' health care exchanges, some private, some public partnerships?
Speaker 195
1:16:43
Yes. There are several private exchanges, Mr. Bibiano, that are in existence. And some of them are quite interested in bidding for ours, you know, when it gets to
Speaker 35
1:16:56
that point in time. Have you talked to any private companies about
Speaker 195
1:17:01
partnership on this exchange? Yes, they have solicited us because we know that we're going to have these proposals, you know. And they're like, I can
Speaker 178
1:17:12
say, major Fortune 500 companies are interested in subcontracting the exchange.
Okay. I could tell you that I'd leave somebody out, but we've probably sent out 25 or 30 RFPs for this planning process. It's a major endeavor for private industry to get it back to these things. It is a major endeavor. I've been fortunate to be
involved in several of those. So let's talk about the appropriation. You said you were unsure that we would have to appropriate the money. If we get further along, what are we talking about?
Speaker 195
1:17:47
talking about? $5, $10, $15, $500 million? No, no, no. To me it's a lot of money, a
Speaker 178
1:17:56
million dollars is a million amount of money, but it's nothing like that. And as Mr. Morris said earlier, it's
Speaker 195
1:18:03
supposed to be self-sustaining when it gets in business, all right? That's the game plan. There will probably be more grant money available to get us ready. We'll We'll have to apply for it, and we'll have to qualify for it.
We can't qualify for it if we don't have this legislation, but that's
the, you know. Mr. Murphy, you said you were familiar with some of the private exchanges being established, say, in California example. Do you have any idea what that cost? No, I'm sorry. I don't. I can sure we'll pull it back to you. A lot closer to $500 million than $1 million. Yeah. So there's some real costs here, some real costs that, again, I'm in favor of this direction, But I'm concerned when we haven't already formulated any private partnerships,
which is integral to this process. In fact, it will probably define success or not, in my opinion. And we haven't gone down that road yet. I would caution us to proceed very slowly on this. The other thing is if we decide to go forward and we establish this exchange and then the government comes in and the federal government does their thing
and maybe they set some
different standards or requirements, we've made this investment. What do we do at
Speaker 180
1:19:33
that stage? Well, that's a forward view that we're kind of estimating what
Speaker 195
1:19:38
would happen, but I think as previously discussed, a private exchange would be self-sustaining. There would be a fee structure there for the people who are using the benefits of the exchange, and that would come out of their premium contribution for their insurance.
Those entities, as you all know, exist in other venues. And so, you know, that would be a possible outcome of this. That's the thing about it is we all know that it's in the
Speaker 178
1:20:11
hands of the federal Congress and the federal courts, and it's hard to predict exactly what will happen there. But I can tell you this. Y'all are not going to
Speaker 195
1:20:21
let us get state money about this. from the governors right down to this body right here.
I'm not going to be able to sit out here and advocate that
Speaker 35
1:20:35
and get away with it. You know that. On the states that have implemented this, do you have an
Speaker 195
1:20:43
idea of an implementation if they were on time on budget? Everybody's in the early times of this process. And it's really designed. And, you know, I don't really have an answer for the legislature about what's going to end up because it's really a true study, and we're enlisting to people in Arkansas
and trying to make it work for our captains. So I could guess what will happen, and I will tell you this, that probably after we do all this process, it will be some type of quasi-entity, like our CHIP program is now that's operated with a bunch of directors outside of the state and outside of state funding and all that. That would make a lot of sense to me. I'm fast-forwarding, but I'm just kind of one-offing on that issue there.
Our legislation is based around the CHIP program. It follows that because that's
Speaker 233
1:21:37
already in place here in the state of Arkansas. That one works real well. It works real well. You
said we were going to contract with third parties to help build the implementation plan.
Speaker 104
1:21:50
Have those discussions begun? We've got
Speaker 195
1:21:54
some RFPs that we're putting out, and that's part of our requirements of our grant. We have to do that because they're paying for it. And so it's actually out of our hands as far as our purchasing laws.
It's going to be with DFMA purchasing. They're going to make the final cut on that, which is fine. You know, it's not...
Representative Benignano, if you don't mind... One
more question. Okay. One more final question. And I think the pressure here is the federal timeline, and I appreciate that. Do you ever learn the federal government to move back their time frames? Oh, to
Speaker 195
1:22:30
move it back? It moves off as slow as not as a viewpoint, the federal government. It moves very, very slow. I think it's possible, sure, with the, you know, I've already alluded to the political
atmosphere in the United States Congress, there's going to be changes
Speaker 233
1:22:44
made, of course. Okay. Thank you. And probably so. Rightfully so. All right. Members, we want to –
committee, we want to try to make sure that we've got time for the audience to speak for and against. We've got about seven people signed up. I'm going to go ahead and recognize Representative Carnine, but please keep that in mind as we move forward. Recognize for a question, Representative. Thank you,
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
1:23:11
Mr. Chair, and I noticed that you made that announcement of being short
and concise when I was about ready to speak, and I appreciate that comment. Let me ask a question, Mr. Bradford, and again, let me say to you I appreciate all the effort that you've put behind this and a lot of others. If I have heard correctly, you currently have the ability over the next 10 to 11 months to continue the planning on this. Is that not correct? Yes.
Those are original grants, of course. Okay. And then on that basis, if you have that time, and there will be other grants of which you would, And we could say, through legislative counsel, that certainly the planning ought to continue. Is that not correct? I would
Speaker 195
1:24:08
hope that the council would support that,
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
1:24:12
yes. Okay. Saying all of that, you know, I'm a little bit caught in between.
Number one, I'm not favorable toward the federal legislation on the Health Act. My family has a deep interest in the medical area with two doctors that are son and son-in-law. They both said it's bad. Now, that's their opinion. On the other hand, I see some real advantages as state rights for us to plan and continue this planning to have an exchange to offer better prices and costs and everything and control it.
So I'm very much on the state's rights side. But sometimes I hesitate, but I'm going to say that Representative Rice is correct. This is something that we could take up in the next session and really look at it and maybe have a clearer look. I'm not negative on what you have here, not at all. I don't even want people to say that because I'm very favorable toward getting an exchange started at state level.
I do not want the feds to do this. So I think from what you've said and confirmed that we can continue this planning, I would suggest on that basis that we could take this up at a different date. Am I off base on
Speaker 195
1:25:43
this? That's a very legitimate position, Representative Carlin, But the timing is we're going to have to be better prepared early to be able to prove that we can do this here in Arkansas.
And I hate to say this, but I'm really concerned that we could get something in the budget session. I mean, you let one thing on, you know how that works. But I'm not speaking for that, but I really think it is important for our kids just to let us pass this legislation that it never is to go forward and also has an escape clause on it if the federal courts hold against it.
That way we can continue our planning and continue to get the funding part of the plan and be prepared to step forward rather than let the health and human services. I'm going to yield in
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
1:26:52
view this, and I know that you have the background and experience to be able to answer this, but don't you agree that sometimes the last week of the session you're trying to deal with one of the biggest issues we've got in this state?
and to try to do that without time to really consider all the implications is really of concern. Would you agree that that is one of the issues we really have to think about? Do you just
Speaker 179
1:27:20
want to wrestle no? That's hard for me, you
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
1:27:25
know. Well, I mean, again, isn't that really one of your experiences of the similar type of thing? So I say that, and I'm really at this stage. I'm not negative toward this at all, but I just am concerned that we're trying to make a decision much too quick.
All right. I just wanted to take a second and caution the audience to kind of keep your elation or otherwise kind of in check. We're trying to be respectful of everybody in here. Representative Murdoch, you are recognized for a
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:28:03
question. Thank you. Thank you. Again, quick statement here, end question. What we're debating here, Representative Allen, is I'm hearing us debate the federal legislation. We really need to talk about
this bill. Is that correct? That's correct. With this bill, and we're hearing lots of hypotheticals about the federal legislation, what may happen. We agree with all of those control points and those things that Representative Bibiano has brought up, Representative Woods. We agree with that, correct? The things that we're worried about. What we as legislators are charged to do is handle what we can control. At this point, what's under our purview is what you're presenting today. That is correct.
No one is against or trying to rush a process. We are federally, if you will, mandated and going to be federally to some degree mandated by what happens in Washington. That is correct. At this particular point, we can control certain things. And the only thing we're trying to do is put ourselves in line. Representative Woods added several very important amendments with Commissioner Bradford that protected some of the things that we were worried about in terms of having the ability to repeal.
Correct. Based upon what Washington does again, right? Right. So we have ourselves in line for if Washington does something to, you know, for if the courts repeal this for us to be out of this. My point is I hear us being worried about the time frames. We didn't create these time frames. We just have to abide by these time frames. And I think it's good leadership that we, even though we may not agree with the time frames, that we have ourselves a plan in place that we're putting in place with this legislation
that says this is where we need to be today. Not that it's perfect for what the feds may do, but we have to be prepared. And if we don't do anything, then we're going to be caught out there January 2013, and as we hypothetically talk about an interim session or a next session or can the federal government wait, why would we do that? Why would we wait when we have control? Last thing, remember this. Upon the plains of hesitation drifted the bones of countless millions
Who upon the threshold of victory sat and waited And waited, they died Let's don't wait, let's take care of the things we must take care of now We have the proper legislation
to help us if it's repealed Would you agree? I agree with you And I really don't want to mention this But back several years ago We waited in the state of Arkansas and everybody in this room know what happened in 1957 because we waited and we did not do what was right.
And we should not have to repeat that again because we have an opportunity to do what's right and to follow the federal guidelines. All
Speaker 169
1:31:10
right. That all being said, not seeing any more questions from the committee. please let's try to get let's try to get to the those who want to speak against the bill Mr. Paul Calvert
Speaker 78
1:31:32
still here Representative Hyde you're recognized thank you Mr. Chairman Mr. Chairman I move limit debate 15
minutes each side please All right. Motion's been made. It was a pleasure to committee. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed?
Teresa O'Keehan
Unverified
1:32:00
Motion carries. We're going to limit debate
to 15 minutes per side, for and against.
All right, sir, you're recognized. If you wouldn't mind giving your name and affiliation, if any. If you would push the
Paul Calvert
Unverified
1:32:27
little green light there. My name is Paul Calvert. Yes, sir. I'm from Faulkner County. I am here to promote liberty and justice. It's not an organization. It's just a cause. All right. I'm not an expert on current practices in health care law. However, I am a student of Fourth Amendment law. As I study the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
I read that people are entitled to security in their papers.
Teresa O'Keehan
Unverified
1:32:52
Sir, I'm sorry. We need you to speak on the bill. This is relevant to the
Paul Calvert
Unverified
1:32:58
bill. In 30 seconds, you'll see so. All right. I believe that this applies to people who own insurance companies as well as everybody else. As I read the law, in order for a government official to demand access to papers owned by the private sector, they must first establish probable cause that some law has been broken. As I understand the proposed bill, and I've read a lot of it,
it requires privately owned businesses to submit their papers to a government agency without the agency first being required to establish probable cause of wrongdoing. So I think it's unconstitutional from that standpoint.
Teresa O'Keehan
Unverified
1:33:37
And I will take questions. I'm sorry, are you speaking on House Bill 2138? Yes, sir. Okay. Is that your total testimony? Yes, sir. I will take questions if there are any.
Are there any questions from the committee? All right. Thank
Speaker 259
1:34:02
you, Mr. Calvert. We appreciate your testimony. All right. Speaking
Chair
Unverified
1:34:17
for the bill, Herb Sanderson. I'm
Speaker 261
1:34:22
sorry, did you turn your microphone on, please? I'm Herb Sanderson, the Associate State
Speaker 262
1:34:27
Director for AARP Arkansas for Advocacy.
AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan social welfare organization with a membership that helps people 50-plus have independence, choice, and control in ways that are beneficial and affordable to them and the society as a whole. AARP does not endorse candidates for public office or make contributions to either political campaigns or candidates. We do take positions on issues of interest to our members. This is why I am here today to comment on House Bill 2138, and we have several members
of AARP Arkansas in the audience today who are familiar with this issue. House Bill 2138 is a consumer protection bill to ensure that Arkansas's health exchange is run by Arkansas, not by the federal government. We want to keep the administration of the exchange in Arkansas for Arkansas consumers administered by Arkansans. If Arkansas does not set up an exchange, the federal government will set up and run the
exchange. This would not be in the best interest of our members. We have concerns about waiting in terms of would this be an issue germane in a special session? Would it achieve a threshold of two-thirds votes? Would there be time left? How would the federal government view this in that they are committed to the implementation of it? Regulating insurance has long been a state responsibility. AARP believes Arkansas, with insight and feedback from Arkansas consumers and Arkansas consumer
advocates, is positioned advantageously to develop its own exchange. The Department of Insurance has demonstrated a long record of service to our members by effectively managing the senior health insurance program AARP Arkansas has worked with the administrations of both Governor Huckabee and Governor Beebe on the senior health insurance program we are confident the Arkansas Insurance Department will do an equally good job operating the state health insurance exchange if something needs attention we know where to find the
commissioner we can get a meeting with the governor our members know how to to find the Arkansas Insurance Department. They know how to talk to employees there. We do not want to have to deal with federal bureaucrats. On behalf of our members, we ask that you support this legislation and keep the state health insurance exchange in Arkansas managed by Arkansans. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay.
Speaker 169
1:37:16
Mr. Sanderson has spoken for the bill. Speaking against the bill, Scotty Keller. If you would take the end
of the table and introduce yourself, please. I think it's still on,
Speaker 267
1:37:41
isn't it? Yes, it is. I'm Scotty Keller. I'm from Conway. This is such an important bill to Arkansans,
Yet this bill has not been discussed to the extent it should be, not in the media nor in town hall meetings. It has been initiated in a very hasty manner. On Saturday, this bill was still a shell bill, according to my records, and then turned into a 29-page bill, and then it turned into a 49-page bill. You need to inform your constituents. Talk to them about this bill and how it will affect them. Explore the alternatives. Protect Arkansans. Please, don't pass this now and explain it later. Thank you.
Teresa O'Keehan
Unverified
1:38:24
Thank you, ma'am. Okay, she has spoken against the bill.
For the bill, Elizabeth Burak. Sorry if I butchered your name. Please introduce
Speaker 270
1:38:44
yourself. Elizabeth Burak, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. We are in support of House Bill 2138 because it gives us the tool to design a health care system for and by Arkansans that works best for all citizens and protects consumers of the health care system. We've already heard that federal law gives states a tremendous amount of decision-making ability, especially about how to improve access to care. We need this bill to make and implement these state-level decisions and
And as we've already heard, our concern is if we haven't made sufficient progress and the federal government takes this process over, our concern is that Arkansas consumers, particularly children and families, will not have as great of a seat at the table for those conversations and those decisions. We need a system that addresses our unique circumstances and opportunities here in Arkansas and where consumer voices in Arkansas are heard. We hope you'll support this bill, and thank you very much for your time. Thank you, ma'am.
Speaker 169
1:39:43
She has spoken for the bill. Speaking against the bill, Morris Troglin. Okay. There's one, two. Please introduce
yourself. I am Morris Troglin. I'm a citizen
Speaker 274
1:40:03
of Arkansas, and I would like to speak against the bill. It is a very large bill. It's a very convoluted bill. It will affect us all. It is, if it is a bill for the state, then why is all the information collected sent
to Washington for permission or for control? If you haven't under, haven't read the bill and don't understand it, please don't vote. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chargman has spoken against the bill.
Teresa O'Keehan
Unverified
1:40:32
Speaking for the bill, Bo Ryan or Bo Ryle, I believe. all. Please pronounce your name correctly. Thank you,
Speaker 277
1:40:49
the Arkansas Hospital Association. We represent more than 100 hospitals across our state which employ about 44,000 people across our state. We are supportive of House Bill 2138. We support having a state-based health insurance exchange. We don't want to see it on the federal level We'll come in here and try to establish this. We want to work with the current insurance department, and we support the bill. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, sir. He's spoken for the bill.
Teresa O'Keehan
Unverified
1:41:20
To speak against the bill, Teresa Oakley. Please have a seat and introduce yourself.
Speaker 278
1:41:37
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Teresa O'Keehan, the Arkansas State Director for Americans for
Speaker 279
1:41:42
Prosperity. As many of you know, we're a grassroots organization that focuses on limited government, and we focus on that on the local, state, and federal level.
We believe in educating citizens on the economic impact that state policies have on their pocketbook. I'm here today to speak against House Bill 2138. With the uncertainty in the health care marketplace that the national law has created, combined with the failure of the so far implemented components of the law, the potential financial liabilities that the state will face as a result, the devastating budgetary impacts that the exchange have created in other states, and the overwhelming opposition the people
of Arkansas have to this national law, depending litigation, which will likely overturn much of the substance of the law, now is exactly the wrong time to act. Again, I just would like to say I applaud the committee for adding the amendment to take away the bureaucracy if the national law is overturned. But like Ronald Reagan says, I am more of the opinion that the closest thing to eternal life here on earth is a government bureaucrat.
I also might add our policy expert, Dr. Eric Neelwack, It is his expert opinion. He is the chairman of the U.S. Health Federation Coalition and a senior policy fellow at Americans for Prosperity. It is his opinion that if the state of Arkansas can show reasonable progress towards an exchange creation, that there is no rush that we will be compliant with federal law. In addition, over 700 waivers have been issued by the federal government, So it seems unlikely that there will be a rush to step in and take over control of Arkansas
if we simply apply for a waiver process. I will also mention that this is a budgetary issue that could be dealt with, as many representatives said here today, in the fiscal session of 2012. And let me just give you, for example, if the state Arkansas exchange creates a coverage benefit mandate that does not end up on the National Essential Benefit Package, the state will be responsible for 100% for the full cost of those benefits.
Those are dollars state legislators will have to find. In regards to this bill specifically, let me say this. The structure of the exchange is more of an insurance czar. The program is administered by a board of directors of the Arkansas Health Benefit Exchange, but all of the voting members of that committee are created by the insurance commissioner.
It's a very centralized way to create a program, and we would encourage members to look at diversing and sending out the information among multiple agencies and making sure legislators have a voice on that committee. In other states, such as Massachusetts, citizens get shuffled back and forth between the government bureaucracy and the insurance bureaucracy when they deal with denial of claims. So it's not a perfect system for patients, and representatives should be concerned that their citizens will get bounced back and forth between these creations.
And finally, let me just say this. There's two concerning things. This bill authorizes the turning over of records to the IRS in regards to employers and citizens' health care plans. Now, basically, the IRS will police whether our plans qualify or not qualify, but this bill authorizes the health exchange to turn over those records. And finally, I'd like clarification. That's a second. If you look on a clarification as to whether the exchanges will have power to automatically enroll individuals in the program,
on page 27, the exchange, it says, the exchange can be, if through screening of the application by the exchange, the exchange determines that an individual is eligible for a program, they may enroll that individual in the program. But then on page 38, it says nothing in this chapter shall restrict the choice of a qualified individual to enroll or not enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in the exchange. I think that the committee should look at clarifying that language to make sure
that if a citizen qualifies for an exchange program, they are not automatically enrolled. And with that, I thank the committee for their time. Thank you, Ms. Oakey. All
Speaker 169
1:46:43
right, we've got... All right, ladies and gentlemen, we've pretty much run out of
time. I've got just one more person on the list here,
but we're going to have to recess our committee until this afternoon to 15 minutes upon adjournment of the House session this afternoon. We reconvene in this chamber 15 minutes upon adjournment from the House. We stand adjourned.
Agenda
HB1738
SB768
HB2033
HB2138
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Fred Allen Chair
Unverified
Representative Keith M. Ingram
Unverified
Speaker 11
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
Representative Jonathan Barnett
Unverified
Speaker 17
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
Roger Smith
Unverified
Speaker 31
Speaker 27
Speaker 44
Representative Allen Kerr Chair
Unverified
Speaker 50
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Speaker 24
Speaker 74
Representative Buddy Lovell Chair
Unverified
Representative Tommy Wren
Unverified
Speaker 34
Speaker 92
Speaker 97
Speaker 98
Speaker 102
Speaker 78
Speaker 110
Representative Mark Biviano Chair
Unverified
Speaker 123
Speaker 125
Speaker 131
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
Speaker 134
Speaker 135
Speaker 146
Speaker 141
Speaker 23
Bill Phillips
Unverified
Speaker 33
Representative Bruce Westerman Chair
Unverified
Speaker 154
Speaker 169
Speaker 40
Speaker 174
Teresa O'Keehan
Unverified
Speaker 178
John Morris
Unverified
Speaker 195
Speaker 203
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
Speaker 15
Speaker 223
Speaker 39
Speaker 226
Speaker 229
Speaker 230
Speaker 231
Speaker 180
Speaker 117
Speaker 233
Speaker 104
Speaker 35
Speaker 179
Paul Calvert
Unverified
Speaker 259
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 261
Speaker 262
Speaker 267
Speaker 270
Speaker 274
Speaker 276
Speaker 277
Speaker 278
Speaker 279