House Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee Part 1
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (9)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1604
· 6 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…Murdoch, I believe you're here to present your bill. It is House Bill 1604. If you will,”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB65
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB65”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1765
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1765”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB296
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB296”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB593
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “is going to be presenting Senate Bill 593, which is the identical bill to the House bill.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1172
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1172”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1881
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1881”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB459
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB459”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB770
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB770”
|
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
Quorum. We'll go ahead and get started. I have a
couple of announcements to make. Ladies and gentlemen, we don't allow posters or signs in the committee rooms, so you're welcome, obviously, to take them outside if you'd like to, or if you'd like to keep them to yourself, that'd be great. We appreciate everyone being here. A couple of announcements. This one's real important. Yarnell's ice cream and bipartisan strategies will have free ice cream
me mention to you as well, we do have a very, very full agenda.
It's continuing to get even more bills on it as they are passed out of the Senate. And there is a possibility that the committee will meet again this afternoon. I just wanted the folks in the audience to be aware of that. We may meet around 2 o'clock, depending upon how well we do with our agenda today. So I wanted you to be aware that we may have a meeting, and we'll make that decision at the end of our meeting this morning as to whether we'll have a meeting this afternoon or not. But I wanted the public to be aware of it.
Speaker 13
1:47
Representative Lee. So have we changed our policy and we're now going
Chair
Unverified
1:58
to run Senate bills? Just making a joke there. Okay. I've been told if you have to explain it.
All right, we are going to run some non-controversial bills for the first 15 minutes
so that we can get some bills out. And I think we have the first one on our list, and
there may be some others, but the first one on our list is Senate Bill 65. Representative Lindsey, you are, I believe, scheduled to run that bill. And Representative Lindsey, I don't think you've been here when we've run non-controversial bills before. We kind of have a rule that, not in the book, but we kind of have a rule that if we get more than a couple of questions,
it's obviously not non-controversial. Well, not non-controversial, therefore we set it aside and put it on the regular agenda. Yes, ma'am, Madam Chair. You're
right. You are recognized to present your bill. Thank
Representative Uvalde Lindsey
Unverified
3:08
you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. In Arkansas today, we've got about 65,000 uninsured kids, and about two-thirds of those are eligible for medical assistance under the Our Kids First Medicaid Part A and Part B programs.
But about 20,000 of those 65,000 kids are falling through the cracks, dropping off the rolls because of what I call necessary, unnecessary red tape. So this bill, Senate Bill 65, is about cutting the red tape in Our Kids First, making sure that our kids get consistent health care, But very quickly and for the sake of brevity, let me just tell you what SB 65 does. First, the bill will improve the re-enrollment process.
By using existing databases available to state government, such as the listing of kids that are eligible for the school lunch program or the Arkansas Better Choice program, several others like that, We can more quickly, as a state, more quickly and more efficiently verify the initial and continuing eligibility of kids for enrollment in Our Kids First. We can quit duplicating our efforts. Quite frankly, we can reduce the paper flow of state government, and we can make state government more effective and efficient.
What that translates into is a saving of funds because we're, quite frankly, more productive. I think that's a good idea, and DHS has agreed to implement these administrative changes to how they do enrollment for our kids first by December 31st of this year. We have Joni Jones, who is the director of DHS Division of County Operations, here to verify that if you would like to ask her that question. The second part of the bill is equally important, but it sets in place a plan to provide 12 months of consistent coverage for all kids under Our Kids First.
Upfront money, 1.6 million state, but it's all subject to CMS approval for the Medicaid side, the federal side, and the availability of state funds, clearly written in the bill in the last section. Bottom line, SB 65 improves access to health care for our kids. SB 65 keeps kids out of the emergency rooms, and it improves governmental efficiency. Those are the three things the bill does, and I believe it's a good bill. I recommend it for your concurrence.
Oh, I see questions. Representative Allen,
you're recognized. Madam Chair, a motion at an appropriate time. Representative
Lee, Representative Letting, Representative Penartz. Just one question, one or two, and I'll
make them brief. I like the, especially on page 3, items line 4 through 7, I can't believe that they don't
do this about pre-populated renewal forms and the use of online submission, it's my understanding that Ms. Jones had talked about the online uses that they were trying to implement in the department in her division. All right. On this Section 2, bottom of the page, 32 through 36, what does if and only if and what's
the estimated cost involved here? The estimated cost is $1.6 million.
Representative Uvalde Lindsey
Unverified
7:00
There are administrative savings in the using of technology in the administration of enrollment. That saves some money. The net cost to the state in match for Medicaid is $1.6 million, subject to the availability of those state funds, subject to the approval of CMS for the program in and of itself. That will take some time. Don't envision that that's probably going to get
enacted within the current or probably the next FY12 fiscal year. That was my second question.
Would it really actually hit the fiscal year 13? Representative Parks, it could be by fiscal year 13, the second year of the
Representative Uvalde Lindsey
Unverified
7:40
buy-in. That could happen. CMS approval, as you know, takes a certain amount of time to get that done. And by then, hopefully, our matching funds will be sufficient to take care of this program. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Seeing no further questions, Representative Allen, your motion? Do pass.
We have a motion do pass on Senate Bill 65. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the bill? Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for the bill? If not, then Representative Lindsey, are you closed for your bill? Yes, ma'am, I'm closed. The question before the committee is do pass on Senate Bill 65. All in favor indicate by saying aye. All opposed, no. Representative Lindsey, you have passed your bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. We will now take up Representative Wren, House Bill 1765. He has a concurrence in the Senate amendment. Representative Wren, if you will take your place at the end
Representative Tommy Wren
Unverified
8:49
of the table and present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair, colleagues. We had an amendment on House Bill 1765, an act to establish the priority of the Medicaid program to receive reimbursement from third parties and for certain Medicaid costs.
What we did is we added the word passed to Section A there on line 26 of page 1, the Department of Human Services entitled to a reimbursement for past medical assistance payments. With that, I'll take any questions. Committee, any questions? It's the pleasure of the committee.
If we have a motion, do pass. Representative Perry. Are we adopting the amendment? We're concurring in the Senate amendment. Representative Penartz, are you comfortable to move
along? With Representative Hull's help here. He gave me the amendment here. I couldn't find it in my
packet. Very good. We have a motion to concur in
the Senate amendment. Anyone in the audience wishes to speak against the bill?
Anyone in the audience wishes to speak against the amendment? Anyone in the audience wishes to speak for
the amendment? Representative Wren, are you closed? I am. Thank you, Madam Chair. All in favor and concurring with this
amendment indicate by saying aye. All opposed, no. Representative Wren, you've passed your amendment. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, committee. Rep. Stewart, if you are prepared to present Senate Bill 296. Go ahead, you may proceed.
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
10:49
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 296 is Senator Teague's bill. It basically outlines who can request an autopsy that is in your medical records. You'll notice on lines 30 through 33, it outlines four people, your executor or administrator, your spouse, the parent of the decedent or adult child. On the back page, it simply defines the health care provider who may be holding that autopsy record
and then provides liability if they follow the procedure outlined in this bill and release it to those four individuals outlined in the bill. And I'll be happy to answer any
Speaker 46
11:34
questions. Committee, any questions? Representative Smith. Thank
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
11:38
you, Madam Chair. Representative Stewart, who would have gotten those records previous to this bill? I'm curious. I think
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
11:46
this is a protection to limit who can get it from your medical records under the HIPAA.
And so this outlines it before. I think it just had the administrator. Now it adds those other three sections. And that makes sense. A person from the family would like to have a copy of the results. So this is your spouse, your parents, or the child. Thank
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
12:05
you. I just assumed that it was already in that case. that case. So I guess this is one case
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
12:11
where we actually need another piece of legislation. I think the health care providers were a little bit reluctant because this gives them the outline of who they can give it to and provides liability if they do issue it to those four people.
It's kind of like building a fence. You need
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
12:26
to know how far you can go in either direction. At the
proper time, Madam Chair, I'll have a motion. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Representative Smith. Any other questions,
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
12:36
Committee? Representative Smith, it looks like it's the proper time.
Thank you, ma'am. pass on this, please. Thank you. We have a motion due pass. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak against the bill? Anyone in the audience wishing to speak for the bill? Representative Stewart, are you closed for your bill? All in favor of Representative Stewart's bill, indicate by saying
aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Representative Stewart, you passed your bill. Thank
you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Committee. Representative Murdoch, I believe you're here to present your bill. It is House Bill 1604. If you will,
take your seat at the end of the table. And there is an amendment, I
Speaker 73
13:23
believe, that's being handed out. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Chairman Tyler and to the committee. The amendment is simply
just cleaning up a little language that we had to clean up in the bill after it was written here and just want to get you
Speaker 75
13:38
to approve the amendment first there's not any
questions representative Allen we have a motion to adopt the amendment to a house bill 1604 anyone who wants to speak against the motion for the motion all in favor of amending house bill 1604 indicate by saying aye all opposed no
All right, Representative Murdock, you may go
Speaker 72
14:04
ahead and proceed. Thank you. This bill, House Bill 1604, is an
Speaker 73
14:09
act to improve access to treatment for sickle cell anemia in Arkansas and to reduce the overall health care costs. The 87th General Assembly, led by former Representative David Rainey, who is present and we're so thankful for, led the charge to establish a sickle cell task force. members, the chairman is here, Chairman Johnson, along with Dr. Beckton and Dr. Trotter. That
task force was enacted to help look into, delve into, and come up with recommendations for an adult and comprehensive care center for sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell disease is an inherited blood disorder that affects over 1,000 persons of all races in Arkansas. Only a couple of decades ago, most children with sickle cell did not reach adulthood. Because of that fact, there were few doctors who treated adults. Even though the life expectancy has greatly increased, adult services has not caught up
with these changes. There is no self-identified clinic in Arkansas for adults with sick of cell disease. Because of poor quality of care, adult patients are now placing a large demand on health care systems. With poor quality care, many adults with sick of cell disease have frequent pain episodes that result in misery and poor health outcomes. Because of that, a person with sickle cell may be uninsured. With frequent emergency department visits and hospital admissions, hospitals are often faced with uninsured, unreimbursed care.
Persons unable to work because of poor health are also unable to pay taxes. It is an advantage to the patient, hospital, and society to improve health outcomes for individuals with sickle cell disease. Establishment of an adult clinic can improve health outcomes for patients and provide cost savings to patients, hospitals, insurers, and through medical savings, the state and federal government. With
Speaker 75
16:10
that, Madam, I will answer any questions.
Representative Woods, you're recognized. I'd like to
start off and just say thank you so much to former State Representative David Rainey for everything you've done for this issue, and you championed this when you were in the House, and I have a lot of respect for you and everything that you've done, and thank you for not turning around and walking the other way, and even though you're termed out, you're still making a difference to our state, so thank you.
And Representative Murdoch, I had a question. And the task force, isn't there a current task force dealing with the sickle cell right now? Are they still up in, is the task force still alive or still meeting? The task force submitted this report in
Speaker 73
17:03
August 2010 to the General Assembly that was established. As I know it now, it's done its work. It's given the recommendations. It's all been published. and now we're at the second phase of it, if you will, or the next phase of the analysis.
That's the legislation time, and that's why we're here today. So the task force
Speaker 72
17:23
has completed its purpose, as I understand it. And the task
Speaker 85
17:25
force, okay, so is the task force still, or so they've, are they, does it still exist,
I guess, is my question. Let me ask the chairman. He's here. No, it's turned out. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Well, thank you to the task force and everything that you've done with this legislation. So thank you. Representative Letting, you're recognized. Motion at the proper time.
Representative Wagner, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Page 1, lines 23 and 24 indicate that the clinic is created by this bill. Through UAMS, now are they planning to put that in their budget, existing budget, or will there be
funds needed for the clinic that we don't know about yet?
Speaker 73
18:20
No. Yes, ma'am. We've already included a line item in their budget, but the funds will come from other sources. It will not come out of their existing budget. We've
Speaker 75
18:33
already begun to procure those funds. And what would be those sources? Grants. grants,
Speaker 73
18:38
other commissions, and then a big part of it that we can receive funds, Representative Wagner, once the enabling legislation is passed and then we have a place to put it, a lot of the federal money that we can get needs a vehicle to put it in.
So once we have this passed, then we'll have somewhere to
place it. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Seeing no further questions, Representative
Leading, your motion. Motion do pass. We have a motion do pass as amended, sir. Motion do pass as amended on House Bill 1604. Anyone wish to speak against the bill? Anyone wishes to speak for the bill? We have someone in the audience who would like to speak for the bill. Please take your place at the end of the table. Introduce yourself and the group you represent.
Sylvester Smith
Unverified
19:25
Good morning, committee members. My name is Sylvester Smith. I know you normally are accustomed to seeing me come before you to speak on behalf of small business. Today I'm just speaking on behalf of myself as a concerned citizen. And I think it's important that we note the importance of this issue, especially to African-American citizens across our state. This bill is – this issue has wreaked havoc on our community for many years. And I think it's time for the state to step up and say that we're going to do something to help provide treatment options for these ill Arkansans. And I also want to note that this is a public-private partnership-type concept.
There will be significant private sector dollars raised to support the clinic. And I just think that it's important that the committee members know that. Thank
you so much. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Anyone else wishing to speak against the bill or for the bill? Are you closed for your
bill, Representative Murdoch? Yes, ma'am. All right. Then the question before the committee is the passage of House Bill 1604 as amended. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Representative Murdoch, Representative David Rainey, you're to be congratulated on passing your bill.
Thank you so much. That ends the non-controversial period, so we'll go to our regular calendar. So we'll have Representative Carter, if you will take your place at
Speaker 84
20:54
the end of the table. Representative Carter
is going to be presenting Senate Bill 593, which is the identical bill to the House bill.
So he's presenting Senate Bill 593, committee. Thank you, committee.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to ask Senator Dismang to join me at the end
Speaker 55
21:20
of the table. Welcome, Senator Dismang.
Good morning, Madam Chairman, committee members. Committee, thanks for hearing the bill. I know each of you are aware that the Unemployment Trust Fund is currently about $330-some-odd million in debt.
The Arkansas DWS projects this will reach $364 million by the end of the year and upwards to $400 million over the coming years. I think that the one thing that's absolutely certain in dealing with this is that something has to be done. And respectfully, I think Senator Dismang and I have put together a bill that addresses this problem. It's not an end-all, be-all solution, but the provisions in this bill, we think, will save somewhere in the $50 million, $70 million range annually.
I want to say that supportive of the fund, supportive of the process, it's a necessary process. is people are able to draw unemployment, and it's very beneficial to the system to get back on your feet. Nobody's trying to stop that, okay? There's going to be some minor changes that are proposed in this bill, and let me go down them. Number one, currently the automatic increases in the minimum and maximum weekly benefit amounts,
there are no automatic increases. However, on July 1, 2012, those will start back up. This bill will eliminate that sunset date. Number two, the potential benefit weeks will be reduced from 26 to 25 weeks. But please know that with the federal money that's out there on the extensions, that effectively takes it from 99 weeks to 98 weeks. So you're able to draw currently and even after, if this bill passes, 98 weeks.
That's a long time. Also, it increases some of the qualification requirements to be eligible to receive any benefits. I think that it's important for both sides of this equation to have a little skin in the game. and I think that this is a good step on one side. Business, let me be clear, the businesses are, there's no scenario that the business is not going to be able to be responsible for paying their fair share.
This money is owed. As you well know, there's a proposal in front of, I guess, the state agency's committee today, you know, to potentially even bond this and pay some of this debt off. But, you know, the upshot is that both sides, you know, are going to have to give a little bit to make this work, and I think this is a very good start, and we've got to do something. And, you know, $50 million to $70 million is a lot of money, and that's material, and it needs to be done. So with that, I'd ask if Senator Dismang has any comments.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
24:36
I think Representative Carter has summed the bill up very well. Well, again, I think inaction is not a scenario that we can live underneath in this legislative body. You know, when we were elected, we were elected to step up the plate and take care of problems when they arise. This is a problem. This unfunded balance, or this balance, this liability balance owed to the federal government, which I think the latest report shows it to be $346 million, is something that we have to pay back and we have to address. And so I would appreciate your support in doing that.
One thing I want to note is that this is the legislature's bill, and I hope you'll join me on that. We have to do something, and let's appreciate any questions. Representative Gaskell, you're recognized. Thank you,
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
25:31
Madam Chair. Go to page 4, line 11 and line 21. Are we going to drug test all of them?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
25:40
No, sir. That has not changed the existing laws regarding drug testing. Now, there is another bill out there that failed in the Senate committee yesterday that would require random drug testing of those seeking benefits. But, again, that's not in this bill, and that was something that failed yesterday in the Senate Public Health. It failed? Yes, sir, it did.
Speaker 114
26:00
Oh, okay. Not on my side. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Lovell, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Carter, did you say that this bill would end up saving us $50 to $70 million? The
estimates that we have is between $50 and actually Dismang is telling me $75, somewhere between $50 and $75
million. So if we keep going the way we've been in the last, well, in the past, we could owe another $346 million in just a short time, couldn't we not? Yes.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
26:43
And just to speak to that a little bit, you know, the major thing in this bill is the removal of the automatic increases as far as the minimum maximums as far as unemployment. I received a phone call last night from a CNN reporter, and they were talking about this bill, and we were asking some questions, and asked what our maximum was at $451. She said, well, I'm in New York, and our maximum is $405. This automatic indexing has gotten us way out of line with the national average
as far as what we pay in benefits. Can
I expand on that a little bit? But kind of how we – my question is generally when these things come up is how did we get to where we are? Well, many of you may recall, I guess, two years ago that I guess the business and labor groups came to an agreement. And business raised the wage base by a couple of thousand dollars. And I think the math that I've seen, that ended up costing around between $40 million and $60 million a year.
In exchange for that, the labor group agreed to forego the automatic indexing to July 1, 2012, which is part of what we're dealing with today, and we think that was around $25 million. So to get everybody squared up here and moving forward, I think this is certainly a reasonable provision and necessary to make sure both sides have equal skin in the game. It's got to be paid back. I mean, we've got to do something.
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
28:19
MS. Representative Allen, you're recognized. A follow-up. Thank you, Madam Chair. A follow-up to my colleague's question. That savings that you said we were going to come up with, is that on an annual basis or is
Speaker 128
28:39
that per year? Annually. Yes, sir. MS. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 130
28:49
MS. Thank you. Trying to find something. Wagner and Wilkins.
Representative Hall, you're recognized. My question has been
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
29:08
answered, Madam Chair. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. I'd
like to make a motion at the proper time, Madam Chair. Representative Mayberry, I'm sorry you've been preempted, but I'm
sure you'll get a chance another day. Representative Wilkins. Thank you,
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
29:23
Madam Chair. Representative Carter, and probably everybody
in this room knows this but me, but I'm not latching on to how we get from 25 weeks to 99 weeks or 98 weeks.
Speaker 119
29:35
Yeah, I know it's federal. Well, the additional weeks
is when the federal money kicks in on the extension. And that basically would just kick in after the 25th week if this bill passes instead of currently it kicking in after the 26th week. But, you know, of course, you know, we may all get run over by a train tomorrow and nothing's certain, but as we stand today, you know, that goes out up to 99 weeks.
That is a long time, and I think that that one week is certainly, when you balance that to that being a part of the money that's saved, I think is reasonable to do. Okay, just to follow up on that, there's no
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
30:23
guarantee of that federal money kicking in, though, right? I thought you were talking about one day. And I'm not, I mean, right now it's
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
30:34
there. I don't know how long it's going to be there.
I mean, the federal government can rip money as often as it wants to, but we don't have that luxury here in the state. And so I'm not, like I said, I'm not sure when that will run out. We've had to make some adjustments to how we administer unemployment to be eligible for those funds. I can't say that was always the best decision that we made as a state. But, again, as it stands right now, it's at 99 weeks, and this would reduce it to 98 weeks. One thing I need to point out and make sure that everybody is well aware of, this will not affect anyone that is currently receiving unemployment benefits.
This will only affect those that would become eligible after the law takes effect. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Wagner, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
In changing this from 26 to 25 weeks, did you consider or do you have a sunset clause in here so that when times
get better and we have money that that perhaps would be back in place?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
31:47
We do not, but, I mean, as a legislative body, we have the ability to change that at any time we wish as long as we're in session. And so if two years from now we decide the times are better and we can make those changes, we can. But as far as enacting a sunset provision, I just say I'd like not to put that burden on future legislative bodies of them having to reconsider, but let them make their own decision when the time's right if that's what they want to do. The other thing that we need to make sure to be very clear of in regards to sunset and the indexing and the $451 we'll be at,
we have, this legislative body will have every right to come back in the future and increase that amount, every right to do so. It just will not happen automatically.
Can I piggyback on that a little bit? I mean, to me, one of the difficult challenges with trying to implement a sunset is that, you know, this math has to do with the dollar amount that's owed. And it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to pick some artificial date in the future to try to forecast when this debt was going to be paid back.
So I think it's something that certainly is a concern of ours, the amount of money that we're in the hole, and I think that has to be monitored every time we're up here, and it can be dealt with. But for us to say, well, you know, we're absolutely certain that we're going to be settled up whenever, 2013, 2014, can't do that. So it would be awfully hard to do that
Representative Davy Carter
Unverified
33:14
and it didn't mean anything. I just think we have to look at it every time. Certainly. Go ahead.
When you mentioned that, who did you say had agreed to forego the automatic indexing? It's my understanding that
that was a part of a compromise that was done last session. Who were the parties involved? I understand that. I mean, that was an agreement. My memory, well, let Jonathan think. There's a commission that's been set
Speaker 139
33:44
up that's supposed to take a look at this,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
33:47
and I think I may be reading into your question a little bit more than what you want me to,
but I think what you're asking is, was there a compromise made with that commission on this bill? I mean,
it's a late reason. You mentioned that it goes, they were agreeing to forego the automatic indexing
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
34:14
to July 1, 2012. That was in a prior session when the commission got together and they presented a compromise to the prior legislative body. And so that group is composed, in
Speaker 145
34:25
my understanding, of employers and labor.
And so that is not in the bill, though? I mean, I'm not seeing that date anywhere in here, so I'm assuming that's
not a part of your bill. That is the way it is today. There is no indexing, automatic indexing today. However, as the law reads today on July 1, 2012, which was a part of that consensus then, it comes back into effect. So this bill eliminates that July 1, 2012 date and just says we're not going to do it.
Again, once we get closer to having this debt dealt with, I think we could come back and deal with this every time. I mean, the facts are that the fund is not solvent, and it bothers me that this is out there, and when you ask the question of who's responsible for this, our businesses are paying it. But, you know, my speculation would be that if the federal government called the debt,
that Governor Beebe and Richard Weiss would get a letter that says, send us the money. And I don't know that we've got $400 million to send. So we've got to do something, and I think this is certainly the right. It's not the overall solution, but it is certainly a good step in the right direction. Thank you. Thank you, Madam
Chair. Committee seeing – oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see Representative Penartz. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just a couple of questions. What does starts on page 1, line 36, over to
page 2, line 2, mean you're talking there that you're talking about the weekly minimum benefit shall not be greater than $81 a week. If you take four weeks, that's $324. How does that jive with what you're saying down there? The maximum benefit should be no more than $451 if you're saying if it shall not be greater
than $81 a week. Could you explain the apparent conflict between those two sections? We're
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
36:56
saying the minimum benefit based on eligibility and that being the look back and how
much has been contributed for that employee, the
minimum is $81. Shall not be greater than $81. So if it's capped at $81 and you take that times four, that's $324 a week, but yet you say the maximum benefit can't be greater than $451,
but the other one says it can't be greater than essentially $324 a
Speaker 167
37:26
month. I'm not. The bill that I have, starting
line 30. Sorry, I've got Senate Bill 593, dated 2nd, 25th, 11, unless there's
Representative Davy Carter
Unverified
37:42
been amendments to this. Representative Pernodson, our bill reads on line 29, a weekly benefit amount shall not be less than $81. So I can't explain if yours says greater than.
Page 30. Down at the bottom of the bill, what's the date of your bill? 2-2-5. Ours is 2-25-11. Yeah, that's right. Is that what y'all's is? Yes. Okay. Page 1, line
36, the weekly benefit must amount established in subdivision B-1 of this section It shall not be greater than $81 a week.
So if you took that times four, that's four times eight is what? $32. $3.24. How is that? And then on
lines 10 and 12, you say the weekly maximum benefit amount shall not be greater
than $4.51. So which is it? $3.24 or $4.51?
No, I'm sorry, gentlemen. The language says shall not be greater than $81 a week. So $4.51 is greater than
$81 a week. Can I
Speaker 105
39:06
see a copy of the bill that you all have to make sure? We had an amendment yesterday, and I'm not sure it was correctly.
Well, while you're checking that, if I may, Madam Chair, while they're checking that, I have another question, if you would allow.
Yes, certainly. Have someone check that. It appears to me there's a conflict.
I've been wrong, and I could be wrong today. So page three, lines 32 through 34, I'm a little bit ‑‑ I need some clarification on that. You talk about misconduct includes violation of any behavioral policies of the employer
as distinguished from deficiencies in meeting production standards or accomplishing job duties. I'm a little bit confused as to why you would single out behavioral. Why aren't you
saying misconduct includes any violation of medical and or behavioral policies? Why are you singling out behavioral? I'm sorry. I was trying to read
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
40:21
the other part of the bill. You're saying the medical?
Why is it medical? Page 3, lines 32 through 34, Senator.
it seems to me that I don't understand your rationale for singling out the term behavior rather than any medical and or behavioral policy. So I don't understand the rationale there for singling out behavioral. Why is it just say medical and or behavioral? It shall not be greater
Speaker 183
40:54
than. It's just establishing the floor.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
41:01
Okay, I'm not sure. What is a medical? Well, I don't
know. I'm asking you what you mean, why you're singling out the language. You're adding this language, and I'm just asking for clarification why you're specifically adding. to make sure that behavioral. What do you mean by that? Could you give me an example? Maybe I could better understand what you're talking about. The, and I'm sorry, my mind
was drifting on this other issue. That's all right. I do think I understand your question. The intent, and I'm going to get, with the Chair's permission, Russell Gunner to come and answer the questions that you had earlier because that caught me off guard on the amendment part, but I think we've got it right, is to move the standard away from what I would have, you know, strict liability
intent standard to sue some willful, you know, willful type negligence behavior that goes beyond just screwing up, you know, I didn't make the widget right. I mean, this is some, you know, it moves the standard over that you're just really, really screwing up versus more of a, again, just doing the job incorrectly. It would be.
I understand that. Okay. Could you please give me, I understand that it's beyond just the production standard. They didn't meet their quota of 22. They made 18. or they forgot they didn't do something that was part of their job duties. But I'm talking in terms of could you give me a specific example of what you mean by behavioral?
If we can do this, can I ask Russell Gunner, who's the attorney who helped us kind of draft some of this language to answer both of your questions. I would, with the Chair's permission, to do that. Certainly. Mr. Gunter,
if you will take your place at the end of
the table and introduce yourself for the group and answer Representative Pinnard's question, that would be great. Thank you,
Russell Gunter
Unverified
43:33
Madam Chairman. My name is Russell Gunter.
I'm an attorney with Cross Gunter, Witherspoon, and Gauchos here in Little Rock. I have practiced labor and employment law here in Little Rock for 36 years. And I also currently serve as the management chair of the advisory council to the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services. With regard to the questions involved, answering the first one first. I would prefer you answer the second one first, since
that's the one we're on right now. We'll go back to the other one. If the chair will allow.
Russell Gunter
Unverified
44:09
with regard to behavioral versus performance, work performance, is the distinction. In other words, if an employee is working and does everything the employee is supposed to be doing but just simply can't do the work, can't perform to the level that the employer wants, the employee would be able to draw its unemployment benefits. However, if the violation is a behavioral rule, such as rules against insubordination,
rules against cursing, rules against sexual harassment, rules against employee conduct as opposed to employee performance of the job, then they would not be eligible to draw unemployment.
Okay. So, I mean, that's what I was asking for, what your definition of behavioral is, because In the context of this bill, you're defining it again, Mr. Gunner, as
Russell Gunter
Unverified
45:04
how? I'm defining it as a rule of conduct, how an employee behaves while he's at work, versus
a rule of performance, how the employee performs his work. So it's if an employee
– and how would an employer – how would an employer – they would just have to document the fact that
an employee had a negative attitude? Yes, they would have to document, in other
Russell Gunter
Unverified
45:37
words, to disqualify. The employer has a burden of proving the disqualification, so they would have to come in and they would
have to prove that there is a rule or a written rule or a verbal rule that has been given to this employee and progressive discipline has been applied and what not, and that the employee has continued to violate
Speaker 194
45:58
the behavioral rules of the employer, and in that case, the employee would not
be eligible for unemployment. MS. And this is a silly example, but, for example, you must wear a shirt over your undershirt. MR. Exactly. MS. Is that something you are calling that behavioral? Okay.
Back to the original question, Mr. Gunner, if you could now address my original question with what appears to
be an apparent conflict between those two sections
Russell Gunter
Unverified
46:28
of the bill. The two sections, one addresses, the first addresses the minimum benefit amount that somebody is eligible to draw, even if their income doesn't get them to that benefit level of $81, they are entitled to draw that $81 as a minimum, a weekly minimum amount.
The second section is the other end of that, and that's the maximum amount. Somebody might be making enough money that would justify under the formula that they get $600 a week, but the maximum that's allowed is $451. One is a floor, the other is a ceiling. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
47:19
Representative Smith, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think what you're driving at
in relation to Representative Panarch's question on those minimum and maximums is probably just a little bit difficult for those of us who are not lawyers to understand, but I'll go beyond that. On page three, back to this misconduct, I think this might need an additional amendment. And let me, if I could, in stating it, saying misconduct includes violation of any behavioral policies of the employer as stated in the employee handbook, I like to have measurable data.
And at this point you have it described right now, it's sort of vague. It's quite murky if you really, and I'm not an attorney. But how could you regulate or disqualify someone without a measurable standard? It's sort of like taking a test. You're either almost passed or you almost failed, or you're almost
Speaker 202
48:14
dead or you're very much dead. Can't we get a little bit more definite with
Speaker 203
48:20
that? I understand exactly what you're asking. There's not an
Speaker 194
48:24
employee handbook or a set of work rules around that can cover every instance of employee conduct.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
48:29
I agree, but most employers have some sort of standard for the employee to answer to at the date of indoctrination when they come to work for company ABC. Don't you agree? I
Russell Gunter
Unverified
48:39
agree with that. But there are also many other standards of behavior that an employer can require of an employee. And, again, the burden is on the employer to disqualify a claimant. So if I'm going to come in as an employer and say I want to disqualify this claimant because of misconduct, I have to show that in some form or fashion, either through a rule in the handbook
or through a written warning and progressive discipline, that the employee knows that his behavior is inappropriate. I have to prove that before I can disqualify him. But don't you
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
49:09
agree that the employee needs to have firm footing also when he takes this job? Sure. Thank you. Can I piggyback
on that? That burden is a real burden. I mean, you can't just artificially pull something out of the air. I agree. So they're going to have to go through the process that you're asking for, and you're exactly right. That has to be done because they have to prove that the employee should be disqualified.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
49:34
That he didn't meet muster, right. Yeah. But if we're going to write a law, don't you think we ought to take care of some of these known facts on the front end? I know nothing's perfect, but don't
you think that's worthy of adding an amendment at this point? Well, respectfully, no. I think that because that's what's required anyway, that's the way it is because you have to go through that process, whether or not that is different from what
Speaker 202
50:02
we're putting in here. I mean, that procedure is there regardless.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
50:07
And I think just to elaborate on it a little bit, I mean, I wouldn't draft in a handbook that my employee cannot come into my office, throw all my papers off of the desk and cuss me out. I don't have to draft that, but that is a behavioral issue that should be understood, whether it's written or verbally communicated, or maybe even not verbally communicated. But, again, it's on my back to have to prove that that violated policy. But I think, again, not every policy needs to be written because insubordination, I think, in particular, is one that, I mean, I think there's a common courtesy in the business environment,
in a work environment, that those things are not to be done and should probably not be specifically outlined in a
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
50:48
handbook. Right. But I do also agree, or I think, that we should spell out as many of these specifics as we can. And in the instance that was given a while ago that an employee must wear a shirt or they must wear shoes, there's a few things that we could establish as parameters. And I think this leaves something open
for contests. Representative Smith, if I may, I think to address your line of questioning, I think it would be important if Russell could walk through very quickly on the actual requirements of going through this process and to meet this burden.
Who's the plea made to? Who's making those decisions? Because, again, it's not as if somebody's out in the hallway, you know, just checking off and saying, well, you're disqualified. So, Russell, can
Russell Gunter
Unverified
51:35
you walk through that process quickly? MR. The claims process is that an employee files a claim, states the reason why he's no longer employed, the employer has to respond in writing, state why the employee is not employed, and they make an initial determination. Either party can appeal from that determination. If the determination is that the employee is eligible for unemployment and the employer
wants to appeal that, they go to an appeals tribunal, a referee, who holds a hearing and makes a decision, and there's a further appeal to the Board of Review. So there is a quasi-judicial process in making this determination, and I understand what you're saying, but I will tell you not only in the unemployment arena, but in any other claim of employment claim that an employee makes via Title VII claim of discrimination, claim a violation of any of the federal statutes that provide protection, there is a process
by which the employer has to prove in any of those circumstances that the employee knew that the behavior was inappropriate. That can be either through a handbook, it can be through having given the employee written counselings and written warnings, but the employer is going to have to prove in some form or fashion that the employee was aware of the behavioral issue. If the employer doesn't,
Speaker 201
52:53
the employer is going to lose. Well, I
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
52:55
agree, but I also think that for betterment of the employee, that that small little
statement as stated in the employee handbook was sure enough clear up things.
But thank you for your comments. Thank you,
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
53:07
Madam Chair. Representative Malone. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just curious what a medical misconduct is. Tracy brought that question up. What's a medical misconduct? I've never heard of it. Is it in the bill? No, she just pointed out that it just says behavioral and not medical. And I don't really know what a medical misconduct is.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
53:31
I was just curious. Thanks. I mean, I think there's behavioral medicine and I don't know.
I'm done. I have no idea.
Representative Ward
Unverified
53:41
Representative Ward, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. You mentioned that there is a formula in place to determine the benefits. benefits, and even if a person may qualify for more benefits. How did you come up with the $451 max benefit? That's what the max is today. And so actually even if the formula dictates that the person should be entitled, then max
Speaker 211
54:07
would never change if this particular legislation passed.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
54:11
Never is not probably the right word. It can change at the discretion of this legislative body. And so, you know, I mean, for two years, yes, I suppose it would not change. It would be set at $451. But in the next session, if this legislative body decides they would like to increase that, there is no restrictions in doing so. Can I
Representative Ward
Unverified
54:32
have a follow-up? Also, since you mentioned the Arkansas workforce, where is the Arkansas workforce on this particular piece of legislation?
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
54:39
It is my understanding they have no position. They're not for or against. No position, but I will say that we did work very closely with them in several provisions in this bill and took several of their recommendations, and everything in this bill was presented to them to make sure that it all passed the mustard, and we had something that would work and make sure it kept us inside the federal guidelines, what a state's allowed to do. One other question, please.
Representative Ward
Unverified
55:10
Yes, sir. Prior to this max of $451, do you know what the max were prior to this? Max, the max amount payable prior to this $451. It was, I think last night I
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
55:28
looked somewhere, it was around $430, give or take a few dollars. But again, this is what it stands at today. Thanks, Madam Chair. And I think, just as a follow-up, I mean, we pay significantly higher than most other states,
especially when you take to account what our average weekly wage is for the state. We're actually
good benefits. Representative Mayberry, you're
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
56:01
recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Would you say that this bill, to summarize, essentially makes few, if any, changes to how an employer and employee act and react with each other in the workplace and surrounding that,
and makes some what could be described as relatively minor tweaks in the system that essentially will save the state of Arkansas millions of dollars and help us get out of a hole that we are unfortunately in? Is that how? Yes. Would that be a proper summary of this bill? Absolutely. Thank you.
Representative Penartz. One question I forgot to ask, Senator and Representative Carter.
Is it not true that the debt owed is an employer debt, the employers of Arkansas? Yes, that's true. Okay. I thought that that was true. I just wanted to make sure that I was – I had heard that earlier, and I wanted to make sure that I was not laboring under a false assertion. Yeah, and again, there's under no circumstance that at some point
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
57:17
there will not have to be an increase in tax on employers to make sure that this is repaid.
I know, and we did increase it from the 10 to 12 that it currently is now. And I understand that it would be a heavier burden on employers to have to increase that ceiling at this time, especially when we're still some people would say we're not in the recession still but there are others who would say that we are especially those that are unemployed but I appreciate that clarification sir, thank you thank you Representative
seeing no further questions Representative Mayberry you were preempted but your person is not here so you are recognized for a motion I'm so moved alright All right. Representative Hyde makes a motion to do pass. Thank you, Madam Chair. Move do pass. We have a motion do pass. Representative Penarch, you have
Speaker 31
58:19
a question? Are we going to allow public testimony? Yes, ma'am, we are. Okay. Thank
you. We have a motion do pass. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the bill?
I believe we have someone signed up to speak against the bill. Mr. Alan Hughes and Mr. Rick Belk, if you will take your place
at the end of the table. Representative Gaskell, you're recognized.
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
58:48
Thank you, Madam Chair. Recommendation, limit this debate 10 minutes to the side.
We have a motion, non-debatable, to limit debate to 10 minutes on either side. All in favor of that indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no.
So for the audience and for the members, we will limit debate for 10 minutes on either side. So Mr. Price will keep track of the time. And so each side, those who are against, has 10 minutes. Those who are for have 10 minutes. And Representative Carter and Senator Dismang, it is up to you to manage your for time if you want time for closing. Okay? All right. Mr. Hughes, go ahead. You're recognized to introduce yourself for the record, please, and have Mr. Bell do the same. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 70
59:32
and committee members. I'm Alan Hughes, president of the Arkansas FL cell. We're here to
Speaker 233
59:36
oppose Senate Bill 593. The advisory council that's been mentioned has been going on since 1975, formed under the governors. It's made up of labor, business, and public. We started negotiations this year. We knew the concerns about the trust fund, the shortfall. We've faced these challenges year after year. Labor has always been at the table to willing them to do their part as they put it's skin in the game it's been done time after time we've taken freezes over
the past on benefit increases it is indexed it all goes up automatically that question I think come earlier it's in the system it's indexed on the benefits the taxable wage base is not indexed that's what we come up with this number area it's always growing under this bill right now it would be froze at 451 we would be back in here every session fighting for these unemployed workers try to get an increase and it sounds easy enough but I've been over here time after time on minimum wage knowing how hard it is get things done
at times let's go back to the fund the fund right now with the piece of legislation going around about the bond issue that would pull us out on the trust fund it would go towards that I don't know if any is left over goes into the fund but we've made an offer at the table we started negotiating with the chamber that we could turn around and live with a freeze on that sunset. We did it in 2009 on misconduct. We asked them to put a sunset in this time. We also offered a freeze on the benefits
to help this fund out. Each one of those was anywhere from $25 to $30 million back into the fund on our part, and that's the unemployed workers back. But that freeze, once that freeze has gone, they've lost the negotiating power. When they go back to the table, it'll be something else every time. We've been through this. Also, we have a problem with the 26 weeks. I'll let Mr. Belk get into this, but you brought out some good points. The workers lost their job at no fault of theirs. $282 is at the poverty level or below the poverty level.
We're talking about people struggling, and they need help now. I know business needs But workers have come forward offering these two sunsets on this to help this bill out. It's done it in the past, and we're aware we've dealt with this fund time after time. With them being able to get this bond issue through to help them on their part, we're asking you please stop this bill. Let us work on trying to get some sunsets in to protect these workers so they don't have to keep coming back to the situation.
I know what y'all's call, but they need all the help they can in the future also. And due to time, I'll
Ricky Belk
Unverified
1:02:28
turn this over to Mr. Belk, if I may. Thank you, Madam Chair, Committee. My name is Ricky Belk. I'm the Secretary-Treasurer of the Arkansas AFL-CIO. A couple of things I'd like for you to think about is, as we talk about these benefit reductions, As we talk about these benefit freezes, those are people, and those are dollars not going into their pockets
that they can spend, and unemployed workers are spending pretty much everything that they're receiving. It's going back into the economy. There are economists, and I do not claim to be one, who will tell you that unemployed workers and their benefits keep the employment higher than it would if those workers were not receiving any benefits. There was a question earlier about what the maximum was prior to $4.51.
The maximum benefit in the state of Arkansas was $441. Now, it's also been discussed and pointed out that the maximum benefit in Arkansas is more than the surrounding states. That is true. But that is not true of the average benefit that the unemployed Arkansan is receiving. When you compare the average benefit that someone's actually getting of approximately $280 per week,
that ranks somewhere around a third of the surrounding states, according to the Department of Workforce Services. Eliminating one week from the state benefit maximum will take out of the economy $4 to $6 million, according to the Department of Workforce Services. That's a large amount of money in an economy the size of Arkansas. Over the years, as was necessary, there have been many times when management and labor have come together
and put together a plan that would put the trust fund balance back in a better position. In 1981, we had a $59 million debt through benefit freezes for three years, changing the formula so that the maximum did not increase as much for one year, and then changing the number of quarters that you utilize to determine benefits for a 10-year period, that trust fund was put back in good shape.
At the same time, there was an increase that the management side agreed to of the taxable wage base of $6,000 to $8,000. In 2002, pretty much same scenario. Maximum benefit frozen for two years. Taxable wage base increased from $9,000 to $10,000. That taxable wage base is now $12,000. dollars, but at the same time, in the prior legislative session that that was put into
place, there were also concessions put into place by the labor side, and that was changing the disqualifications in a discharge situation, and according to Department of Workforce Services, saved about $20 million. $1,000 increase in the taxable wage base saves about or puts in an additional $25 million per year. So we understand the need. We truly understand
the need to fix the trust fund. What we would like to do is to fix it but then also deal with it every two years, and that's what we have done traditionally, and that's the benefit of a sunset, Department of Workforce Services will say that once their projections go out more than two years, they get real shady. We can all keep our fingers crossed that the economy is indeed going to rebound to the
point that employers start hiring people and therefore more taxes are being paid into
Speaker 237
1:06:54
the base, but it can be fixed. We've done it before, and we're
you. Committee, any questions? Representative Penartz. Yes, gentlemen, this advisory council that was mentioned, who's on that advisory council?
Is that headed up by DWS? Yes, ma'am,
Speaker 238
1:07:21
it is. And Mr. Russell and Mr. Kenny Hall serve on that.
Speaker 233
1:07:26
representing management. Mark Martin, our legal counsel and some of our members serve and two people from the
general public. And is that not a council that has businesses on it or it is? It is. It's made up of business, labor, and public, yes. Okay. And was this bill discussed at that advisory council?
Speaker 233
1:07:47
Well, ma'am, we made the offer on the misconduct and the freeze on Sunset. But they were supposed to bring back hopefully a tax increase, but they could not get it passed with their members. So that's where we left. So this specific bill,
was it discussed or parts of it discussed by the Advisory Council? Parts of it was. Okay. But not exactly the way it was wrote. So what you're indicating to us today, there was no agreement by the Advisory Council with
regard to agreement by your entities and by the other entities on the full text of this bill? Yes, ma'am. There was not. Did you make individual efforts beyond this advisory council in speaking with the sponsors of this bill? Would you repeat that again, please? Did you make any individual inquiries or discussions or meetings with the sponsors of this bill? ask to meet with them with regard to this bill we only talked to mr. Carter
Speaker 233
1:08:52
yesterday on this end and we only spoke to mr. domain in the meeting the other day but we were trying to work with business the ones that we sit down at table with hoping we come up on agreed
upon bill so I guess you talked to him in committee meeting but you didn't sit have a sit-down meeting with the sponsors of this bill with regard to the
Ricky Belk
Unverified
1:09:20
content of it no representative if I may I think it would be best be characterized as late in the ballgame
yes representative Carter was approached he was gracious enough to share our thoughts mr. Belk your time is up I'm sorry to interrupt you Thank
you, Madam Chair. You're very welcome. Mr. Hughes, Mr. Belk, thank you very much. So that is the expired time for the opposition, too. We have Mr. Gunter. You're signed up to speak for the bill. All right. So we're going to, I guess, move to our close. Is that right? Representative Carter?
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. MR. A couple of
things. MS. Excuse me. Representative
Representative Ward
Unverified
1:10:16
Word, you're recognized. MR. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Carter, in listening to Mr. Bale testimony just a moment ago about the amount of money that will be removed from Arkansas economy from $4 to $6 million, if
take out that one week. Is there any way that you may be able to compromise to amend your bill to leave in at least the 26th week rather than going from a 25 week to more or less help Arkansas economy with that particular part of it? MR. Well, the
short answer is no. Is this going against my time? I just want to make sure I've got my
clock right. MS. Well, you have plenty of time
since we didn't have MR. Okay. All right. No. I mean, the reality is going to be that, you know, the money is coming from somewhere.
It's coming from businesses. And I think when we have unemployment rates as high as we do, that, you know, we do not need to continue to put the pressure there on the business. The short answer is no. The money will stay in the economy. That money is not going anywhere. And you can, you know, we can't all, you know, 98 weeks is a long time. And, you know, nobody's here to take away anything from one and give to the other. But the reality is we've got a problem. And we talk about negotiations. Yes, I was approached yesterday at 2 o'clock about this.
And I don't speak for Senator Dismay. I don't think he was at all. But the reality is that all these sides have gotten together for a long time. This problem didn't happen overnight. And nobody has – there was no deal. There was no consensus. But, you know, it's our job to find one when they can't because we've got to pay this money back. And it's only going to get worse. So, you know, I respectfully disagree, you know, with some of the other comments. But when the two sides cannot come together, which, I mean, we would all had rather that happen, it didn't.
But we can't ignore it. It's our responsibility to fix it. And these are reasonable changes that has material money savings. So, you know, I hope that's answered your question. I'll let Senator Dismak speak for his communications with the group. And to be real brief, I've
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:12:42
received no communications from any labor organization in regards to this bill prior to going into the committee room. And I think Alan would agree that they acknowledged in that committee room in the Senate
that they hadn't even read the bill before they sat down at the end of the table. And so it's hard to negotiate something when you don't take the time, and I think that everyone involved in your organization should understand that you did not take the time to even read the bill. It's hard to negotiate when you don't
Speaker 251
1:13:14
know what you're talking about. Last thing on the dollar
and the bond issue, you know, who knows if that will pass or not, but I do want to understand, even if that does, I mean, and the businesses will have additional assessment to settle up on what's already out there,
what's already outstanding. That does nothing for the ongoing burden that is going to be incurred if we don't make any changes. To state it another way, the problem is going to get worse. Save a bond issue or not, that only takes care of the existing debt. That does nothing for the ongoing deficit that this fund continues to run. Again, it's our responsibility to do it, and with that, I guess we'll close. Appreciate a good vote, and thank you for listening to the long testimony.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, the question then before the committee is the passage of Senate Bill 593. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Representative
Carter, you have passed your bill. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Chair. Thank
you. All right, next on our agenda, and ladies and gentlemen,
we are going to be working through lunch, so we do have lunch being delivered here from, I believe, the Arkansas Children's Hospital today is treating us to lunch.
Next on our agenda is Representative Rice. Are you in the room to run House Bill 1840? Representative, or Senator Crumbly, are you in the room to
run, you're going to run Senate Bill 459? All right, Representative Hall, if you'll
take your place at the end of the
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:15:01
table. Senate Bill 459, members. Thank you, Madam Chairman. If it's permissible by the chair, I'd like Dr. Nash to join me here.
She is more familiar with the details of this proposal than I. Certainly. Dr.
Nash, if you will take your place at the end of the table and introduce yourself for the record and
Chrishell Nash
Unverified
1:15:23
the organization you represent. Good morning. My name is Dr. Chrishell Nash, and I am medical
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:15:32
director at the Arkansas Minority Health Commission. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, this is a bill that actually is trying to bring
it's in the areas of the state of Arkansas, east Arkansas, south Arkansas, that has a life expectancy of 10 years less than the norm, the rest of the state. And having actually not read the complete bill, I'm going to try to ablip this through. But it
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:15:57
identifies the counties, as you see on Section 2, as the counties that the life expectancy has fallen, which includes my district that I represent. it. So what they've asked for is that the county compile all of the statistics into
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:16:13
one entity in which it can be analyzed and studied, and with that I will turn it over to
Speaker 261
1:16:23
Dr. Nash. Thank you, Representative Paul. This bill,
Chrishell Nash
Unverified
1:16:28
in our last discussion of limited funds, I'm very aware of the fiscal issues with our state and with our nation. What this bill does is it defines areas of the state that have the lowest life expectancy
and therefore where the most need is. It encourages organizations to focus their efforts, the health organizations, to begin to increase their focus in those areas. We are all responsible for the health of all Arkansans, and we're asking organizations to focus on attention in places that are in most need. This bill also asks for a report on those activities. For the last year and a half, we have been holding meetings in these counties where we
have come up on some significant themes. Everybody has limited resources, but oftentimes when we are in communities, we don't know what limited resources already exists there. So what this does is helps us identify those resources so we can better use what's already out there. That's one of the major lessons we learned from our travels around the state. And most significantly, also, this asks each of the organizations to make recommendations on how we can improve health in these desperate areas.
So in a nutshell, that is what this bill does. I think my final comments will be that the red counties counties have been identified, but those change as needs in our state change. The Arkansas Department of Health keeps these statistics, and they allow us to know in what counties there is decreased life expectancy. And this will allow for changes in that shift, but right now we know that the focus is in these counties listed in the bill. And I will take questions
Speaker 263
1:18:16
if there are any at this point. Thank you.
Are there any questions from the committee at this time? Representative Allen, you're We have a
motion. Representative Penards, you are recognized. Yes. Good to see you again, doctor. There is no money asked for in this. This is money that's already existing or will be used through existing channels to focus in on these areas that you've described here.
Exactly. Okay. Thank you. Thank you,
Representative Penartz. Are there any other questions from the committee at this time? Representative Wagner, you are recognized
for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On page 2, line 23, it indicates that these entities are encouraged to provide program services research. So all this is voluntary? I mean, in other words, we might not have any.
But then again, they may volunteer a lot of services.
Chrishell Nash
Unverified
1:19:24
MS. Yes. This is encouraged. This is not required. Our state agencies, our state health agencies are all very committed, and we just want to make sure that we are encouraging them to follow where there is
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:19:38
the most need. MR. I'd like to respond to that, if I may. What that
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:19:42
really does, these agencies are already participating in doing this. All this does is just reinforces the true mission of the tobacco settlement in trying
to help disparities in East Arkansas and South Arkansas in the rural areas, but they're already doing it. It's just a matter of trying to get it compiled and get the information where everybody has a broader understanding of the
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:20:04
health needs we need for the citizens of East Arkansas and South Arkansas. So they're just not doing
Speaker 269
1:20:10
the reports so that it's open to the public? We're doing
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:20:14
the report. They just haven't been compiled into one format to deliver to the body here where we can make sure, as you all recall, we've had some interim studies on the use of what's going on in the
tobacco settlement issues, and we're just trying to compile them together where it will be an easier access to the legislators, which is. Thank
you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Wagner. Representative Wilkins, you're recognized with the question.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:20:48
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Chair. You know, being a little bit involved in
some of this stuff, we're fooling ourselves if we think we can continue to do all that these agencies are doing without an influx of money.
You know, I chaired the Alzheimer's Task Force last year, and money is just hard to come by for these issues, and I applaud what you've done, but sooner or later we've got to wake up. We can't keep kicking the
can down the road. We've got to get involved. Don't you agree? Absolutely, Representative. Thank you. Thank you,
Chair
Unverified
1:21:26
Representative Wilkins. Are there any other – Representative Ward, you were recognized? Mr. Chair.
Representative Ward
Unverified
1:21:33
Dr. Nash, you have 19 counties listed as red line counties. Since you list these 19 counties, have you seen any significant decline in the life expectancy in these particular counties since you actually list them? These counties were defined
Chrishell Nash
Unverified
1:21:52
by the Arkansas Department of Health looking from, I think, 2002 to 2006. So this data will be updated with the newest information when it becomes available.
So we haven't had a second data point to see if we've seen
Speaker 263
1:22:07
a decline. But that is something that the health department actually tracks, and we will be able to follow that. Thank
Chair
Unverified
1:22:13
you. Thank you, Representative Ward. Are there any other questions
from the committee at this time? Is there anyone here in the audience that would like to speak for the bill, against the bill? Representative Hall, would you like to close for your bill? We're closed. We appreciate a good vote. Representative Allen, you are recognized with your motion.
Do pass. We have a do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. Those who oppose? Ayes have it. Congratulations,
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:22:43
Representative Hall. Your bill is passed. Thank you, Committee. Mr. Chairman, we also have Senator Crumby's Senate Bill 770, or let me rephrase it. Yes. 770. Can we run that at the same time while we're here? Dr. Nash is going to be the witness. He made his quota. Is that permissible with the chair?
Yes, sir. Go ahead and proceed. Senate Bill 770, members. Top of page three. This
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:23:18
is a follow-up or similar companion bill, it looks like, on the Red County issues on the counties that have the disparities in health care. I have Dr. Nash here with me who can explain this bill better if it's permissible by the Chair. Dr. Nash, introduce yourself again
for the record on this bill, please, and go ahead and proceed. My name again is Dr. Chrishell Nash, Medical
Chrishell Nash
Unverified
1:23:39
Director at the Arkansas Minority Health Commission,
and thank you again, Madam Chair. This bill is a companion bill to 459. It again addresses the health in these what we have called red counties. We know that the health of a person and a community is defined by a lot of things. It is defined somewhat by medical care and access to medical care, but we also know that education makes a difference, workforce makes a difference, transportation, all these things. So what this bill does is it takes us a step forward by saying the public and the private must be involved, and it encourages collaboration across the board in local communities.
Again, it is more than just the health agencies. If you go to page three, starting at line one, it goes through and starts to list a broader focus on health that includes workforce development, higher education, transportation, and many partners in local communities who are there working now, but we need to come together to define strategies that can happen in local communities that make a difference. This again, yes, we need more funding. We always need more funding in the poorest areas in Arkansas, but this helps us come
together and to make better use of the limited resources that we already have. So this bill encourages collaboration along those lines, again, out past the health care system, and it also designates that the Office of Minority Health and Health Disparities at the Department of Health and at the Arkansas Minority Health Commission will help to facilitate these efforts to bring these coordinated partners together. We just had a meeting today in local community about colorectal cancer, and we found out that one of the major barriers to that and getting screening for that is transportation.
As a health care provider, I don't have anything to do with transportation, but I know I need to have transportation at the table in local communities if I'm going to improve health. So that's the kind of theme that we're trying to carry out into local communities and allow local communities to define their problems and then, therefore, their solutions. And with that, I'll stop.
Representative Penartz, you're recognized. Motion at the proper time. Committee, any further questions? Representative Penartz, I recognize you for a motion.
Motion do pass. We have a motion do pass on Senate Bill 770. Anybody in the audience wishes to speak against the bill? Anybody in the audience wishes to speak for the bill? Representative Hall, are you close for your bill? Appreciate a good vote, Madam Chairman. All in favor of Senate Bill 770, indicate by saying aye.
All opposed, no. Your bill is passed. Congratulations, sir. Thank you, Madam
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:26:18
Chairman. While I'm here at the end of the table, I have House Bill 1172. Is it permissible that I run that bill while
I'm here? I think I'll let the committee decide whether that's okay or not.
won't hurt anyone. All right. All right. 1172. Is that right?
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:26:40
Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir. You're recognized. What this bill does, members of the committee, is to allow the AHAC University of Medical scientists give them authority to employ nurse practitioners and be able to put them out
into underserved rural areas of the state of Arkansas. And doing that, they have to comply with the existing laws and statutes that are enforced now in the collaborative agreements with the medical professions. The medical board has looked at it, they've had their input, and they're okay with it. The nursing board has a looked at it. They have a couple of add-ons they'd like to put on that has very little impact on the meaning of this bill, but we're going to do that if we can get it out of and send it in.
What I'd appreciate is a good vote, and I'm willing to
take and answer questions, Madam Chairman.
MS. Representative Penartz, you're recognized. MR. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Representative Fall, I appreciate your bringing this before us. I'm a little bit surprised. How is it that the AHECs are not currently able to employ advanced practice nurses? This bill is really,
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:28:01
they are able to do it right now.
It's a question of employing AHECs and putting them out into rural underserved areas that's under the same collaborative agreement that exists now under the codes. What the intent is, Representative Bernard, is to allow the AHEC, which covers all the state of Arkansas and most of the underserved areas that participates, what this bill would do would allow the AHEC to be the kind of collaborating umbrella for a nurse practitioner that would like to serve in an underserved area in the state.
They would still comply with the medical board, have to be licensed, They're just using the AHEC instead of the medical director of an AHEC. The medical director of an AHEC would be the collaborating physician. Okay. They could probably do it any way on their current statutes, but to make it clear and to clarify it where there's no question about their authority, that if we could do it by statues here, they would feel more comfortable
in trying to help the rural underserved areas of the
state. So the fact that they can do it now, this would be
a more coordinated effort throughout your AHECs. Absolutely. Are there 13 representative hall, or I forgot how many AHECs there are. I think
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:29:25
there's eight now, eight or nine. We added Mountain Home a couple years
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:29:31
ago, and then we have Harrison. It's a substation, and we have West Memphis and Lake Village.
Not all of them have clinics. And what we have, all of them have medical directors. But what we have is the hope is that the Eldorada AHEC is willing to be kind of the test plot to see if we can, testing agents, where we can put a nurse practitioner in an area that's underserved and has no health care that
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:29:59
we can use that as a stepping stone to expand health care for all of our Kansas. So
if I understand it, if this goes through then,
each of the AHECs that have clinics, I assume, of the eight, can employ an advanced practice nurse through this medical director who's the collaborative agreement is with and then coordinate these services on a statewide basis? Absolutely. That's intent. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I was a little confused because I thought they could be employed right now, but... They can. Okay. And they could probably do it anyway, but
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:30:38
this is just they want clarification where there will be no doubt what they're thinking.
And the medical board and the state board of nursing
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:30:47
are okay? They have, we corrected all their issues and got it all straightened out. and I think they're here today if you'd like to. Okay. Thank you, Representative Hall. Thank you. Representative
Wagner, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just trying to be sure I
understand the process. They will be trained at the AHECC centers?
They're part of the training process, yes, ma'am. And they already have the funding for that? Yes, ma'am. That's not a problem. Okay, and then as
they work, they're working for the AHEC clinic in that region, but they go out into the
Speaker 269
1:31:35
community. Yes, ma'am. Okay. In areas that's underserved areas. Just in those areas. Yes, ma'am. So how many
are you going to start with just El Dorado?
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:31:47
El Dorado is the AHEC that's willing to start. the program, and so we're going to try to get that started in the next year or two. See how that works and then go from there. If it works, then we can come back and get the next session to assess it and see if there's additional funding that may be necessary. But that's the future, but this is just a trial run. Let's see if we can make it. And the bill, the proposed bill, is already could probably be, the AHECs could probably
do it anyway. They just would like to have it clarified in statutes where someone next year couldn't say, why are you doing it, or do you have authority to do it? It's just trying to make it where it's open and everybody knows that they
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:32:33
can do it if they can find the proper avenue to do it in. MS. Thank you. MS. Thank you, Madam
Chair. Representative Smith, you're recognized. MR. I have
a motion. It's proper time. MS. Any other questions? Representative Smith, you're recognized for a motion.
Do pass. We have a do pass on House Bill 1172. Anybody in the audience wishes to speak against the bill? Anyone in the audience wishes to speak for the bill? Representative Hall, are you closed for your bill? We're closed, Madam Chair. Appreciate a good vote. All in favor of House Bill 1192, excuse me, 1172, please indicate by saying aye. All opposed, no. Representative Hall,
you have passed your bill. Thank you. I do not have another bill to run. I'm not sure the
committee would let you get away with it if you did.
Representative Letting, you're recognized. No, excuse me. Wait just a minute. Is Representative Johnston here? Representative Letting, you're recognized
for HB 1881. Thank you, members of the committee.
Representative Josh Johnston
Unverified
1:33:46
This bill we brought before the committee last Thursday. It's the wage theft bill. We had a few concerns, so we pulled the bill.
We had some further discussion. I believe we have eased those concerns, and so we're just back today to go ahead and have a vote
Speaker 294
1:34:01
on this bill. I'll take questions if there
are any. Committee, do you have any questions? Representative Wagner. I'm sorry.
Could you repeat what the change is? We actually haven't changed
Representative Josh Johnston
Unverified
1:34:17
the bill. This is the exact same bill that we brought to you Thursday. We just pulled it to have some conversation with some people who had some concerns, and
we've, I think, worked through those. All right. Representative Word, you're recognized. Motion at the proper time. Committee, any other questions? Representative Word, then you're recognized
for your motion. Motion do pass. We have a motion do pass on House Bill 1881. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak against the bill? Anyone in the audience wishing to speak for the bill? If not, the question before the House, Representative Letting, are you closed for your bill?
I'd appreciate a good vote, yes. The question before the committee is the passage of House Bill 1881. Indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Representative Letting, you've passed your bill. Thank you. Committee, we have lunch here. I recommend if the committee agrees that we take a 10-minute recess to get our lunch and we'll come back in 10 minutes.
Agenda
Call to Order
SB65
HB1765
SB296
HB1604
SB593
SB459
SB770
HB1172
HB1881
Recess
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Linda S. Tyler Chair
Unverified
Speaker 8
Speaker 13
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 18
Representative Uvalde Lindsey
Unverified
Representative Tracy Pennartz Chair
Unverified
Representative Tommy Wren
Unverified
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
Speaker 46
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
Speaker 73
Speaker 75
Speaker 72
Representative Jon Woods Chair
Unverified
Speaker 85
Representative Charolette Wagner Chair
Unverified
Sylvester Smith
Unverified
Speaker 84
Representative Buddy Lovell Chair
Unverified
Speaker 55
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
Speaker 114
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Speaker 128
Speaker 130
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 119
Representative Davy Carter
Unverified
Speaker 139
Speaker 145
Speaker 167
Speaker 105
Speaker 183
Russell Gunter
Unverified
Speaker 193
Speaker 194
Speaker 202
Speaker 203
Speaker 201
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
Representative Ward
Unverified
Speaker 211
Speaker 218
Speaker 31
Speaker 70
Speaker 233
Ricky Belk
Unverified
Speaker 237
Speaker 238
Speaker 251
Chrishell Nash
Unverified
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
Speaker 261
Speaker 263
Speaker 269
Speaker 280
Representative Josh Johnston
Unverified
Speaker 294