House Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (8)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1905
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1905”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1627
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1627”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1943
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1943”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1444
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1444”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1843
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1843”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1885
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1885”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1887
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…of first. We have a special order of business on Thursday, House Bill 1887. I believe Representative Mayberry has emailed each of the…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB437
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB437”
|
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
All right, the chair sees the quorum. We're going ahead and calling the meeting to order. Have a couple of housekeeping items to take care of first. We have a special order of business on Thursday, House Bill 1887. I believe Representative Mayberry has emailed each of the committee members. I have asked Representative Mayberry to prepare his PowerPoint presentation without
the pictures, and committee without objections, I would like to leave that as is, but I'll leave that up to the committee. If there's any objections to having Representative Mayberry have his PowerPoint presentation be the words only and to remove the pictures. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized I wish to object, Madam Chair All right, the pleasure of the committee then All in favor of leaving the pictures out of the presentation
Indicate by saying aye All who would like to have the pictures included Indicate by saying aye We'll be leaving the pictures out, Representative Mayberry The other point of housekeeping that I wanted to bring up, we do have a long list of bills and I would, without objection from the committee, I would like to ask that we set aside the first 15 minutes this morning to do some non-controversial bills.
And then we'll move right into our special order of business, and then we'll move into our agenda with our pseudoephedrine bill. So do we have any representatives here who believes they have a non-controversial bill? And we're going to really hold you to it. If it becomes controversial, we'll set it aside, and we won't proceed. So any representatives here who have a non-controversial bill that they'd like to go ahead and run this morning?
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
2:11
Representative Wilkins, which one? 1843, the Alzheimer's Advisory Council.
Would you take your place at the end of the podium, please, and
Wilkins, go ahead and proceed presenting your bill, and it is
1883? 43. 1843, thank
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
3:12
This is, as most of you know, that we're here last session. This is a follow-up to the Alzheimer's Task Force, which had a very successful year.
We produced a statewide report that hadn't been done in Arkansas before, and it had a lot of good points, and it led us to a direction that we know we've got to travel now. And it is the one task force, advisory council, that the governor approves of and the Speaker of the House both agreed that this was probably something necessary we need to carry forward.
So I'll take any questions on it. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. Motion at the proper time. Committee, do we have any other questions? Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. Motion due passed. We have a motion due passed. Do we have anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the bill? Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak
for the bill? Representative Wilkins, are you closed for your bill? I have, ma'am. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no.
Representative Wilkins, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. All right. We're
going to recognize we've got a couple of more people on the list. The next one we'll recognize without
objection is Vice Chair Woods for House Bill 1905. 1905. Representative Vice Chair Woods, you're recognized.
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
4:59
Thank you, Madam Chair. House members, I'll just explain what I've done. I hope the bill is in your packet. If not, let me just explain real quick. House Bill 1905 has already been passed out of this committee. What I did is I amended it on the floor. And so what I did is we added lines 8 through 11, which is adding two more groups to the board that is being created in the legislation. There's the State Health Alliance for Records Exchange has a council or a board.
And so there are a list of different groups that are currently on the board, and we left two out on accident. So there's a – or UAMS has requested to be on it. Let me rephrase that. And the Arkansas Health Care Association has asked to be added. That's – it's already been amended on the floor. It's already engrossed in the bill. Appreciate a good vote and would like to make a motion at the proper time. Representative Letting, you're recognized.
Motion to pass. We have a motion to pass. Vice Chair, are you willing to? I'll take it. You'll take it. All right. Anyone in the committee who wants to speak against the bill? Anyone in the audience who wants to speak against the bill? Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for the bill? Representative Vice Chair Woods, are you closed for your bill? I am. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll indicate your approval by saying
aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Thank you, Madam Chair. thank you colleagues all right representative letting I think you have a
bill and it's the 1882 if you'll take your place at the end of the table if you'll
Leah Hamilton
Unverified
6:51
introduce your guest or have her introduce herself please for the record
Speaker 38
6:56
yes thank you hello I'm my name is Leah Hamilton I'm a research assistant and adjunct faculty in the School of Social Work at the University of of Arkansas and a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Public Policy. For four years, I've served on a research team investigating asset development in Arkansas and other states.
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
7:11
Representative Letting, you may proceed. Representative Letting, thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee. Essentially what we're doing here is just trying to help working families in Arkansas by removing the resource test off of T, Transitional Employment Assistance. It's a DHS program. say you're the mother or father of a small family, you've got a job, you're doing okay, and you've socked away about $5,000 to $6,000 in savings despite daycare, braces, clarinet lessons, that kind of thing, doing the responsible thing by saving. The economy turns, you lose
your job, and you need this transitional employment assistance. With that $5,000 to $6,000 in savings, you do not qualify, because there's a resource cap of about $3,000. So you would be forced to spend down your savings in order to qualify for this assistance. While receiving this assistance, you would not be able to accrue savings above that cap, leaving two potential outcomes. Either one, you find a job, you leave the assistance, and are essentially starting from scratch, or the two-year clock on the program expires, you don't have a job, and you're left with basically nothing.
I think we can all agree that it's wrong to penalize families that have done the responsible thing by saving, and so that's why we're looking to scratch this antiquated resource cap. With that, we'll take
questions. Representative Smith, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
8:36
you, Madam Chair. Representative Letting, how long has this law been in
Speaker 42
8:40
effect, the one you're trying to negate? I'll allow Ms. Hamilton to address that. Thank you.
Speaker 38
8:48
I believe that the resource limit has been in place, since since T was established it's been now largely replaced by since welfare reform days it's been now largely replaced by work requirements 24 months lifetime limits and very low income limits are now kind of serving the function of creating you know misuse and making sure that it's going to deserving families but it's still on the books as kind of a relic of pre-welfare reform era so so what date though
Speaker 38
9:20
say I'm so sorry um DHS might be
able to give you a specific date but I believe since the T program was initiated it's been on
the books representative letting I've been informed by our esteemed staff member that was 1997 thank you
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
9:37
then and then in your opinion this needs to be modified in the sad state of our economy this is the right thing to do till
people can get back on their feet and say what you are attempting to do agreed thank you thank you madam chair
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
9:55
representative Mayberry so the current cap is three thousand dollars on the on the resource limit yes and this would completely eliminate the cap it wouldn't just raise it to a higher level correct it would eliminate the cap is is Is there potential for abuse with a complete elimination of
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
10:18
the cap? Probably potential for abuse with any such program like this. In 2009, 33,000 people applied for this assistance.
Only 52 were denied because they exceeded the resource
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
10:31
cap. Is there any kind of data to show by how much, on an average, these people were
Speaker 38
10:40
exceeding the resource cap? There's no data that, I don't believe DHS collects data by how much they're exceeding the resource cap. Two things that probably would preclude abuse would be that other states, there's data on other states that have higher resource limits, low resource limits, and no test at all and
there's really no associated caseload change with that. THE LOW INCOME LIMITS AND THE LIFETIME LIMITS AND THE FACT THAT FOR A FAMILY OF THREE THE BENEFIT IS ONLY $204, THERE'S REALLY A LITTLE ECONOMIC INCENTIVE FOR A PERSON WHO HAS VERY HIGH RESOURCES TO ABUSE THE SYSTEM. REPRESENTATIVE LOVEL, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
Representative Lovel
Unverified
11:32
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. Letting, could you
tell me who, what department pays or provides the funds for this? The Department
Speaker 38
11:42
of Human Services determines eligibility for the program, and the Department of Workforce Services runs the program. Okay, and then,
of course, where does the money come from for Department of Workforce to award the money? Temporary Assistance
Speaker 38
11:59
for Needy Families is a federal program that offers a match to the Department of Human Services.
I believe it's a 50-50 match, but EHS might be able to better answer that
question. So if you're correct, then 50% of it comes out of revenues from the state, and then 50% comes from federal? I believe so. Okay, and then the final question is how much do you all estimate that this is
Speaker 38
12:30
going to cost DHS? We estimate that it will be a negligible cost, as Representative Ludding said. Out of 33,000 applicants in 2009, only 52 were denied for excess resources.
So we see a negligible increase in caseload, as has been seen in multiple other states. Further, other states have reported significant administrative cost savings because when caseworkers are no longer required to investigate assets and resources, their time is saved. But just to follow up, would you not agree that once
this bill is passed, if passed, then there's going to be a whole lot more people apply for this money? And it would be, I think, 52 people out of the so many that applied are the only ones turned down.
But would you not think that if you did away with all requirements,
there would be a whole lot more people filing for this? I don't
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
13:27
believe so, simply because there are other requirements in place. There are income requirements you can
only be making for a family of four. I believe it's about $230-some a month. Again, it's only for two years, and it's just not a lot of money. We really don't think there would be a significant caseload. And really, what are the economic costs of continuing to penalize the poor and keep them in a poor place?
Okay, this is probably one of those that DF&A would probably estimate the cost at four or five times what it would be. But still, I don't think 52 times whatever would be realistic to believe either. So don't you
Speaker 38
14:10
agree? Currently, the two other programs, the WorkPays under Division of Workforce Services and also the Children's Health Insurance Plan have no resource test, and neither of those programs have reported significant abuse of the program or people with high resources applying for
the program because both programs also include very stringent income requirements and other requirements to keep misuse out. Okay. Thank you.
chair committee any other questions seeing
no questions what's the pleasure of the committee motion do pass from representative word anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the bill yes ma'am if you will take your
Speaker 77
14:59
place at the end of the table Good morning. My
Speaker 78
15:12
name is Joni Jones. I'm director of the County Operations Division of the Department of Human Services. Just wanted to add a little bit more information.
Ms. Jones, would you get closer to the mic, please? Thank you. Is that better? Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 78
15:25
Wanted to add a little more information. We did do a cost estimate for this particular bill.
It ran around $200,000, and that would be for the people who are currently denied for assistance, as well as the ones that we kind of call the woodworking effect maybe some people who might come to the program knowing there's not a resource test and with that $200,000 cost estimate the agency is opposed to this only because we're in an environment where some of these federal grant awards are we're seeing a decline in the amount of money that's being allocated to states and we're just not at a time where we feel like we can open the door for an
increased number of clients at the same time that we're seeing a decrease in some of this funding
committee do you have any questions of Miss Jones Miss Jones thank you very much
for your testimony anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for the bill anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the bill we have a motion do pass from representative word all in favor of Indicate by saying aye.
All opposed, no. Representative Letting, you have failed your
bill. Ladies and gentlemen, we do have a couple of people who have signed up for non-controversial. Representative Dale, are you in the room? Representative Dale, are you sure this is a non-controversial bill? I feel pretty confident. It's House Bill 1943, and Representative Dale, if you can be brief with it.
And if we do have a number of questions, what I'm going to do is we'll set it aside, and we'll take it up later, if that's all right with
Speaker 85
17:15
you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
If you will have your guest introduce himself for the record,
Speaker 87
17:22
please. Morning, Madam Chair and Vice Chair and members. My name's Randy Young. I'm the director of the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission. MS. Welcome, Mr. Young.
Representative Robert E. Dale
Unverified
17:34
MR. Thank you. We're going to be talking about a receivership, which
very often causes a lot of concern, but in this case, we're talking about allowing the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission authority to petition a court to appoint a receiver for a public water or sewer system. The Natural Resources Commission furnishes grants and loans to small cities and small communities to form public water systems and sewer systems. Very often these small cities and towns do not adequately maintain those systems, nor
keep them financially secure. And so that causes the water condition, the water and the services that they receive for those communities to deteriorate to a point that someone needs to go in there and provide some different direction. I'll tell you this bill does protect public health, and then it provides a tool for proper
and safe management of water and sewer systems. And in most cases, these systems are both in financial stress and in violation of health regulations and ADEQ permits. When we issue loans from bond money, we already have this authority, but this legislation would expand the authority to other systems. This is a last resort and would only be used after all other options have been exhausted. It is not an automatic authority. The ANRC must petition the court and receive approval before the court will appoint a receiver.
And once issues are resolved, the management of the system can be returned to the local water system. If issues can't be resolved, this bill provides a mechanism to merge poorly performing water and sewer systems, and a receiver appointed to a water system will execute a bond in an amount determined by the court to faithfully discharge duties and obey the court. We'll take questions. Representative Smith, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
19:47
you, Madam Chair. Representative Dale, how many systems, or do you have an idea how many systems this might affect with the passage if we could pass this bill?
Is there any indication how many systems are in danger of being worked with this particular
Representative Robert E. Dale
Unverified
20:05
piece of legislation? I'm going to refer that
Speaker 87
20:10
to Mr. Young. Thank you. I don't have a precise number, but I think the best way to give you an indication is our commission meets every other month, and typically we'll have at least one system needing financial help that's really an O&M problem, like to replace burnout motors and that sort of thing.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
20:30
So in the 8 to 10 a year maybe? Yes. Is the financial situation because their rates are too low and that they have not managed it correctly, or is it because of
Speaker 87
20:43
other unknown circumstances? Do you know? Well, it's a mix, and I'd say primarily declining
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
20:48
customer base. People moving out of the system and
Speaker 87
20:52
going somewhere else, you're saying? And it's primarily East Arkansas where we've got declining populations and systems that were built 40 years ago,
primarily with grant money from the federal government that are in need of operation and
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
21:06
maintenance. Do you all give them additional assistance in how to manage their funds so they
don't become financially distressed before this occurs or is it actually wait
Speaker 87
21:18
until the disease occurs before the doctor steps in? We do provide financial assistance. We have a program through the Arkansas Rural Water Association to provide financial as well as technical and managerial support to those rural water and sewer systems.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
21:35
The reason I ask, a lot of those people that have those tasks are not necessarily the class CPA in the local town, though some of them are, but I think that extends the hand of
cooperation from your desk to theirs. Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Dale, I have
three people on the list for questions. So I think this is going to need more debate than we have time for today. I hate to do this to you, but I really think that this is one that we probably ought to make sure we have sufficient time for and not rush.
So if you would mind pulling it down without objections from the committee, and we'll revisit it later. We'd be happy to do that. Thank you, sir. Representative Summers, I know you're waiting. You raised your hand as well. Do you feel confident that it is a non-controversial bill? All right, take your seat at the end of the table. If we have one hand to go up, we're going to set aside. How's that? Uh-oh, we have hands.
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
22:42
Representative Summers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Tim Summers, representative, state representative. I'm the director of a nonprofit drug and alcohol treatment center. We have detox centers in a number of our centers. These detox centers currently are supervised by the State Health Department. Representative Summers, I'm going to go ahead and interrupt you. This
is one that's going to take some discussion. I've already been signaled by some of the committee members. So if you wouldn't mind, we'll just do this when we have plenty of time.
All right, Representative Lampkin, you're on for your special order, House Bill 1627. Representative Lampkin, if you will have your guests introduce themselves for the record and then you may proceed presenting your bill. Yes,
Speaker 110
23:47
ma'am. I'm Sonny Cox, Arkansas County Judge, former president of the County Judge Association
and representing the county judges here this morning in the Solid Waste District. My
Glenn Bell
Unverified
24:01
name is Glenn Bell. I'm the executive director of the Southeast Arkansas Economic Development District and the director of the Southeast Arkansas Regional Solid Waste Management Board. Andrew Armstrong, staff
Speaker 114
24:12
of the Regional Solid Waste District and the Economic Development District. Representative Lampkin, you may proceed.
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
24:22
Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Bill 1627 is an act to amend various provisions of the Solid Waste Management and Recycling Fund Act and other purposes. House Bill 1627, let me start over. The original Solid Waste Management and Recycling Fund Act was passed with good intention to reduce the burden on landfills in the state. However, the letter of the law in its original form did not go far enough to ensure this in this day and time. Upon close inspection, the original law lacked clarity in its inclusion of activities that constituted recycling and waste stream reduction.
The way it was written included very specific activities as recycling while ignoring other vital aspects of recycling a waste diversion system. Until recently, the provisions in the law were interpreted broadly to achieve the original intent. As of late, this law has been interpreted more narrowly, excluding many activities that are recycling and waste diversion. the same activities that have been practiced and allowed since the inception of the Recycling Fund Act. We have realized a number of things historically allowed did not fall under the exact provisions of the current law.
This limited interpretation of recycling and waste stream diversion, as well as further investigation into the specifics of the current law, has led to the introduction of the bill before you, House Bill 1627. The purpose of this law is to address the original intent of the law, of this amendment is to address the original intent of the law and clarify activities that meet the specifics. Essentially, this bill readdresses the law so that it reads with original intent and interpretation which all recycling programs in the state operated under
until recently. The intent of the law was to improve and safeguard Arkansas's environment by reducing the burden on landfills in the state. This was done through recycling activities At the local level, recycling was seen as a waste diversion activity that reused materials for various beneficial purposes. House Bill 1627 deals with interpretation issues by expanding the definition of recycling to include waste stream reduction activities. Specific language activities and examples of those activities have been included to
clarify the intent of the law. For example, wood chipping has been included in this bill to show the intent of waste stream reduction. Instead of storm debris going to the landfills, it could be chipped and given to the citizens as mulch or for other uses. The key point is to clarify the intent of waste stream reduction where those materials are put to a beneficial use regardless of whether the end product is sold, given away, or consumed in a useful manner. The bill also addresses some reporting requirements in order to streamline those reports and reduce
the amount of paperwork associated. In no way does this bill impose additional burdens on solid waste districts or recyclers. It allows the districts and recyclers to expand their recycling activities if they so wish. These changes should also help the state realize its recycling goals. I have some, if there are any questions, I have some people here that probably could answer the ones that I can't. That's basically Bill 1627. Committee, any questions?
none what's your pleasure we have a motion do pass anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the bill anyone in the audience who
wishes to speak for the bill representative lambkin are you closed for your bill
Speaker 118
28:00
yes ma'am i'd appreciate a good vote all in favor indicate by saying aye all
Speaker 119
28:06
opposed no mrs lambkin you've passed your bill
thank you thank y'all so much All right, committee will now take on House Bill 1444, Representative Wright.
If you will, take your place
at the end of the table. House Bill 1444, Representative Wright.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
28:43
Madam Chair, thank you. Marshall Wright, State Representative. And, Madam Chair, I'll just start to my right, asking the gentlemen who are here to help
Speaker 130
28:51
me present my bill to introduce themselves. Thank you. Madam Chairman, Marshall Fisher, Director of
Speaker 131
29:02
the Bureau of Narcotics in the State of Mississippi. Welcome, Mr.
Speaker 133
29:07
Fisher. Madam Chairman, Sheriff Bobby May, St. Francis County. Madam Chairman, Brian Cheshire, elected prosecutor for the 9th West Judicial District and director of the South
Central Drug Task Force. Representative Wright, you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
29:23
Thank you, committee members. And I also want to thank all my co-sponsors that are on this committee and my co-sponsors that are not on this committee. Everybody has had to listen to me preach about House Bill 1444 long enough, and so I thank everybody for that. House Bill 1444 is a simple bill. Now, I really believe it's simple, but it does a lot for the citizens of the state of Arkansas. What House Bill 1444 does is it makes ephedrine and pseudoephedrine or products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine available by prescription only.
For anybody here that does not know, what that means is anything with ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, that's what they use to make crystal meth with. It's the only non-replaceable ingredient in making crystal methamphetamine. You can substitute your liquids, you can substitute your acids, but you cannot replace pseudoephedrine or ephedrine. There's a huge problem, not only in this state, but across the country with crystal methamphetamine.
I believe everybody here would probably agree with me on that. It's killing and maiming our children. It's killing and maiming our law enforcement officers. Our kids are living in literally toxic waste dumps. When these meth labs are busted or these cars are stopped on our interstate, we're finding children right next to the ingredients and the acids that it takes to make crystal methamphetamine. No longer do you need a full-blown lab to cook your meth.
There is now a new method that is becoming extremely prevalent in the state, and it's called shake-and-bake. The reason why they call it shake-and-bake is because you literally put it into a Coke bottle or some sort of bottle, and you shake the ingredients up inside your car while driving down the road and you can make crystal methamphetamine. Not only do you have to worry about finding it in cars, but you've got to worry about it in your hotel rooms. You've got to worry about it when you're at parks, when you're at state parks,
when police officers stop a vehicle and arrest somebody. And if they take an inventory of that car, they now have to worry with what exactly is in that Coke bottle. I am so close to this issue because I see it in the Delta every day. That is how I started on this in the first place when I was appointed as a guardian ad litem to a family whose child was living in a home, walked in, wanted a drink of that Coke bottle,
took a drink, and it burned that child all the way down. That's how I got started on this. We have
to do absolutely everything we possibly can. Excuse
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
32:27
me, Representative Wright. Representative Hall. Yes. Yes, Madam Chairman. I appreciate Representative Wright with his
passion, but I think we drifted off of the actual wording of the bill here. What we're discussing is to eliminate the purchase of these products,
not the aftermath of what they mixed. Would you not agree
that this is drifting a little from the main hurting of this bill? Representative Wright, will
you try to hold your testimony to the bill, please? I will, Madam Chair.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
33:03
Thank you. Madam Chair, we can immediately slow the production of meth if we stop it at its source, which is making pseudoephedrine and ephedrine available by prescription only.
I'd like to now turn it over to Mr. Fisher, who is here to help me present and to tell about how this has happened or what has happened in Mississippi when they had the same sort of bill passed. Thank you,
Speaker 147
33:29
Madam Chair, and thank the committee for having me here today. First, I want to tell you I'm not here to
Speaker 130
33:35
try to tell the good people of Arkansas what to do. I'm just here to tell you what we did in Mississippi and what has worked for us. A little bit of background on me so you'll know where I'm coming from.
I'm a veteran, a military veteran. I'm a retired DEA agent. I spent nearly a quarter of a century with DEA. I retired from DEA in 2005 and became the director of the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics. And I'm a patriot. We studied this issue last year. I'm sorry, in 2009 we began to study this issue because for the first time in the history of the state of Mississippi, Our methamphetamine arrest exceeded a combined total of our cocaine, powder cocaine, and crack cocaine combined.
Our demographics traditionally have not supported that. We realized we had a serious problem. We looked at electronic tracking. We had some good gentlemen come from another state and present this issue to us. But I spoke with colleagues of mine in other states, in Kentucky, and other states that had electronic tracking had been running electronic tracking for several years. And to my knowledge, this state included, I think this state has been running electronic tracking for approximately three years.
There's been a 34% increase in the number of meth labs here. Oklahoma has been running electronic tracking for the same period of time. There's been a 164% increase. The state of Kentucky had over 1,000 labs last year with a 65% increase. I spoke with a district judge in my area who told me that all the children that he had removed custody of from meth-addicted parents, and the entire time he'd been on the bench, he'd yet to have one even petition the court to get custody of the child back. So we proposed to the Mississippi State Legislature to go prescription only.
Sudafedrin was prescription only prior to 1976. Since that time, we've seen a 68 percent reduction in the number of meth labs and an 80-plus percent reduction in the number of drug-indangered children that have come out of the meth labs. If we're bordered, of course, by four states, I'd venture to say that any law enforcement executive in the United States would love to stand up and tell you they're down 50 percent in burglaries or 50 percent in any type of crime. If we weren't bordered by four states that are still selling Sudafedrine over-the-counter,
I think we'd be in the 90 percentile reduction already. We've been very successful at it. As you're probably aware, there's about 16 other states in the United States who are considering this. It's just really and truly a self-inflicted epidemic. I told you I was with DEA. We know that opium poppies are grown in foreign countries and coca plant. We can't do anything about this. This is a self-inflicted epidemic that's been going on in this country for over three decades now. I can tell you my first methamphetamine, my first undercover buy was methamphetamine back when I was barely shaving.
We've still got this problem on the street. I'm here with a
solution. Thank you. Mr. Fisher, would you mind taking
questions before we move on? No,
ma'am. No problem. Representative Lovell you are recognized. Thank you Madam Chair. I guess curiosity, how
many arrests from meth and whatever have been done in the
state of Arkansas? I don't have any stats on the state of Arkansas. You're just an expert on Mississippi? Yes sir. Okay. Tell me how many arrests have you made in Mississippi that had Ultram or oxycodone
Speaker 130
37:24
in their possession. We make, I can't tell you the exact number of arrests. I can get you the numbers on those, but we have had numerous arrests regarding those issues, yes. You said you had numerous arrests?
Speaker 154
37:37
Doctor shopping cases like that, yes, sir, we
did. So, and you will verify that both of
those are prescription drugs? Yes, sir, they are.
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
37:52
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Vice Chair Woods, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Wright. And Mr. Fisher, I have a question. I've been approached by different friends and colleagues and law enforcement officials that say if we voted for this bill, then we're taking away their only tool of tracking here in Arkansas when an individual buys Sujo Fedra
and they swipe the driver's license and then we can track who's buying it. If we move to prescription in Arkansas, what are you doing in Mississippi to where, if it's prescription in Mississippi, my question is, how can you still monitor it and see who's
Speaker 155
38:31
buying it? I'm just curious. Thank you. Good question.
Speaker 130
38:35
Mississippi has a prescription monitoring program. It's about seven days behind. It is run by the Mississippi Board of Pharmacy. So you can track through that, through our monitoring program, who is purchasing pseudoephedrine.
I would comment on the doctor shopping issue with respect to pseudoephedrine. It hasn't occurred there. We've had one case where it was reported to us that somebody had a prescription that was found on the scene of a meth lab. The other issue with respect to pseudoephedrine as opposed to Ultram and some of these other drugs, Adderall, Adderall, some of these other prescription drugs, is if you were a doctor shopping for it, you've still got to go get it
Speaker 154
39:14
and convert it in an hour-long process to another drug. We haven't had those issues yet.
Speaker 132
39:21
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Fisher. Yes, ma'am. Yes, my name is Brian Chester. I'm the prosecutor for 9th West Judicial
Speaker 133
39:41
District in southwest Arkansas. Madam Chair, I don't know if it's appropriate, but I ran some numbers off of lead zone lab, which is what the representative was talking about briefly earlier
Speaker 132
39:51
for my four counties that are in my district.
Would it be appropriate for me to be able to pass
out this information? Sir, if you would, bring it up to the front here, and we'll take a
Speaker 133
40:06
look at it. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know this bill, House Bill 1444, talks and specifically deals with ephedrine. But we are really here, and I am here on behalf of prosecution, and I hope the state of Arkansas in regard to criminal law enforcement, mainly dealing with meth.
That's what I'm here to talk about, because without ephedrine, we don't have meth. As you heard, Representative Wright State, labs have progressed in the past, just like we have progressed with the future. It used to a lab had to be something that was stable, set up, and it would take two or three to four days to manufacture a cook. And today, as you heard the shake and bake syndrome, we can have a lab anywhere, even in this capital. And the products to make labs or to make meth are mainly household items.
Most all of us would have about 95% of them in our house, from iodine to lye to denatured alcohol to lighter fluid for starting a fire to Pyrex dishes, mason jars. I see somebody has a water bottle down here at the end of the table here. I've seen at least 12 of those used as a hydroxylated generator in the use of meth. plastic bottles, tubing, just anything that you have normally in your house,
lithium batteries, matches, all of these are used. And as Representative Wright said, the only item that is not interchangeable in all the different methods of making meth is ephedrine. You know, we heard the gentleman from Mississippi State back in 1976, ephedrine was under prescription. I know some of the older people do remember that. I can remember having to go to the doctor to get a prescription for Actifed or Sudafed, but I believe were the only two ones available at that time.
Yes, it is an inconvenience, but you have to weigh the inconvenience versus the damage it's doing to our society and the damage it's doing to our youth and to our homes. These labs are now mobile, as Representative Wright said, and I believe with the passing of this one bill, you can have the biggest blow on impact upon fighting methamphetamines in the state of Arkansas. Now, I heard a representative ask a question of the numbers versus hydrocodone or oxycontin and that nature.
I don't have these numbers with me today. Had I known that would have been asked, I would have. But I can testify from my four counties, and I've been involved in prosecution since 1995. I would say it would be, I just about guarantee it by my life, less than 5% of the cases versus the meth cases. 5% of the meth cases versus meth cases would be oxycontin or hydrocodone of that nature. The increase has risen in the last two years for hydrocodone, and Dr. Shoppen is starting.
I think this is a product of you passing the bill when you limited the number of ephedrine, amount a person could purchase about 2004 and 2005. My task force tells me that before 2005, the labs were in bigger quantity. They manufactured bigger quantities of drugs. Once you passed and lowered the amount of ephedrine someone could have or possess or purchase, it started going down. And from there, it's gone down since until 2009 when we had a sharp increase jump
back up now I'm just talking about my task force in my area we had 31 labs in 2005 after you pass that law it dropped to eight labs and it stayed around that area until 2009 when it jumped back to 27 labs I have two counties that border the state of Oklahoma 73 percent of the labs in the last two years are in those two counties out of seven. Seventy-three percent. The Prosecutors Association, the elected prosecutors
met together when we were discussing the bill that Governor Beebe has presented to help prison reform and reduce the prison population. This bill was also brought up. It was voted on by the prosecutors across the state of Arkansas. Twenty-seven of the twenty-eight were present and it overwhelmingly passed it was not unanimous but it did overwhelmingly pass to be in support of passing this bill to fight meth if you don't have ephedrine they cannot manufacture the meth if they can't
manufacture it they can't sell it the users can't use it you know as some people say well this is just a federal that's right a box of ephedrine you go to your store cost six seven bucks they trade that for twenty five to fifty dollars worth of meth every single day these are the users just the users if a user can't afford to pay fifty dollars but they can afford to pay seven and get a box of Sudafed at Walmart your local pharmacy and they can trade that for up
to $50 worth of meth. The statistics that I have that I presented up front to pass out show for my four counties how much of this ephedrine is sold in certain cities. For Sevier County, I used Dequane being the county seat. For Howard County, I used Nashville. For Little River, I used Ashdown. And for Pike County, I used Glenwood. I didn't use the whole county. This is not what was sold through the whole county, but just in those side, those city limits of that zip code.
And I have it broken down by a month. Normally, you would think selling Sudafed, Actifed, anything like that for codes will fluctuate with the flu and with the cold season. And I will agree, in December, it seems to be the highest month to purchase. but in Howard County in January and February you had 170 grams sold in January and 167 grams sold in February but in May and June
the warmer months when it's not normally used it's 180 grams each month respectively it stays pretty well synonymous across the board throughout the year in Little River County in January 116 grams 103 grams in February in May and June 179 grams 140 grams respectively it goes this way per county now I only have my four counties
because this is all I had access to and if anybody would like to see the information what was based on this was printed off leads on lab in the last two days I was only allowed to go back for one year from leads on labs leads on lab has been a great effort in helping us track down some of these manufacturing and meth dealers. But we don't believe it's enough. We believe, again, from the prosecutor's standpoint, that you can have the biggest impact on our kids' lives and our society. Because if we
don't stop it, the governor keeps talking about prison overcrowding. If they can't get access to it, they can't manufacture it. If they can't get access to it, they can't use it. Yes, somebody's going to say, well, they're going to move to something else. Yes, they probably will. But as we see, our society progresses in time. I expect the oxycontin and hydrocodone probably be the next thing. That'll be a step we'll have to face and argue about at that time. But you do today, I believe, have your best step at fighting methamphetamines
in the state of Arkansas. Questions? Mr. Cheshire, you will take questions. Yes, ma'am. Representative Lovell,
you're recognized. Representative Lovell, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. This would be for Representative Letting. Are we
there? We – I think we're – Right. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That was the last witness. Thank
you. You had been confused. I think you're done picking on me for today. Representative Wright. All right. So Representative Lovell, can I come back to you and
see if we have any questions for Mr. Cheshire?
Speaker 21
48:42
Absolutely. Representative Hall, were your questions
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
48:45
for Mr. Cheshire? Yes, Madam Chair. In your report here for the January 10th to January 11th, how many cases
does this represent that was, how many total cases? This is not
Speaker 170
48:59
a total of cases. This is the amount of ephedrine that is sold in
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
49:05
that county in that zip code. How many cases was arrested for meth labs in your four counties?
How many did you arrest? How many was
Speaker 172
49:17
arrested in your county? In which year? January 2010
Speaker 133
49:20
to January 2011. Okay. In Pike County, one lab. In Hempstead County, one lab. Lafayette County, one lab. Sevier County, which is on the border, five labs. In Little River County, which is on the border, two labs. The 2009 Pike County. I just wanted to,
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
49:35
I just needed one year, so you're telling me, number 12 labs were busted up in the four counties over a year period.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
49:46
didn't ask that, sir. I'm not trying to be a – I'm just – because we've got a lot of people, and I want to get through this pretty fast because I'm off to another meeting here shortly. Question I have is you referenced to several household products. And are you telling me if we remove this one product, you can guarantee this committee there will not be any
Speaker 162
50:07
more meth labs in Arkansas? No, sir, because I can't guarantee a doctor is
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
50:12
not going to write a prescription to somebody that's going to manufacture it. Can you tell me that those people who are cooking, I think is the term, that this product,
they're not going to be able to come up with another substance that will be similar or be able to do that
Speaker 133
50:29
it is legal? From our Arkansas State Crime Lab, at this point in time, to make methamphetamines, no. This is the only essential product that cannot be interchanged. let
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
50:40
me ask you one final question if i may uh as i understand this and i'm not a a pharmacist nor a doctor but i if i'm sitting i'm in little rock and i have a uh onset of a coal you're telling me if we do this i will not be able to go
and purchase something over a counter at any retail outlet that will take care of my product without going to a pharmacy a doctor and getting a prescription no sir
Speaker 133
51:07
i'm not telling you that because there are many items like Sudafed and not ephedrine items that are the same basis but do not have ephedrine in them that are sold over the counter. It's just these specific items that have ephedrine in them that you actually have to go to a pharmacist now, to a pharmacy, and swap your driver's license to obtain these. It's a very limited number of items, not the ones that are just over the counters that you see behind.
If you walk into Walmart or pharmacy and what you see on the shelf, that does not contain ephedrine. If you have to go up to where the pharmacy part actually is and swipe your driver's license, that is the few
Speaker 170
51:42
items that will have ephedrine. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Representative Smith,
is your question for Mr. Cheshire? It's whoever wants to take it.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
51:52
Maybe the sponsor. I've just got three questions. All right. Well, why don't you go ahead and proceed. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Are the pharmacists in favor or against this bill? One question. and where is the governor's office on this bill is the second question,
or is there another better bill in the system is my third question.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
52:11
I'll try to get them all one at a time. The governor's office, to my knowledge, has not taken a position. The pharmacist association is here, and I believe they will be able to respond however they want. I don't know what they're going to say. And what was your last one?
Speaker 184
52:24
And the last one, is there another bill that's similar to this that might be a little bit better? I don't believe there is. There is a similar
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
52:35
bill with the esteemed senator sitting to my left.
Be careful now. Be careful. He swings a big stick. Representative, I have a great amount of respect for Senator Malone, a great amount. And I applaud his efforts. We just have agreed to disagree. Okay. And thank you. Thank you,
Madam Chair. Representative Penards, is your question for Mr. Cheshire? If it's not, I'm going to recognize Representative Lovell first.
Just trying to be fair to everybody. All right. Thank you. Representative Lovell, you're recognized.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And Representative Wright, I'm sorry that I called you Representative Letting, I guess . I've been called
worse. Thank you. Well, yeah, you have. But, you know, when you first made your presentation, you said that ephedrine, pseudophedrine and all this is is used to make drugs yes sir all right is it ever used to treat colds or
flu yes sir it is okay if your district does as well as mine it is is
probably very poor at least the biggest percentage of mine and your districts are very poor yes sir and a lot of those poor people do not have health insurance. Yes, sir. If this were to be made prescription only, it means that those people could not go to the drugstore and buy across the counter with their driver's license ephedrine or pseudo-ephedrine to treat a cold, but they would have to pay an office visit to a
doctor. Yes. And then they would have to go to the drugstore, buy a prescription, probably at which, once it's made a prescription, it's more than $6 or $7. So then these people are out a doctor visit, which in my town are $60 a call, and then they're out double what ephedrine costs right now across the counter. So instead of buying something treated cold over the weekend, they're going to have to wait and pay $60 to the doctor
and then go back to the pharmacy and get a $14 box of ephedrine. Don't you agree? No, sir. Okay. Well, would you explain why
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
55:02
every single product sitting in this box right here over the counter to treat a cold. They treat the exact same symptoms as pseudoephedrine does. The boxes are exactly the same. They can go there, and they can buy these drugs and treat a cold. A follow-up.
There are two drugs that treats on gas, and one's nexium, and the other one is, I can't think of it right now. But I've been told by a pharmacist that even though those two drugs are prescribed for the same purpose, then in some people the makeup of the drug is a little bit different
and it works on some people better than the other drug does. So you say it can be had with a substitute box, but what if ephedrine is the one that works on the patient that needs it? Then they can go
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
56:05
to their doctor, have themselves evaluated by their doctor, and have it prescribed to them. and pay $60 for
office call and then a prescription. Mr. Representative, I agree
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
56:16
with you that they would have to go to a doctor
and pay whatever it costs. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Penartz,
you're recognized. Well, I was sitting here, Madam Chair, trying to determine if maybe I really need to ask a question to a pharmacist. So since now the gentleman down on the
other end, unless he's got another one I can't see, is not a pharmacist, I think I'll hold my questions.
Thank you, Representative Penarts. Representative Smith, did you have a question, or did I just not scratch your name off a while ago?
Speaker 97
56:55
I got my three a while ago. You want me to go three more? No, sir. Thank you. I appreciate you.
Speaker 184
57:00
I really appreciate you recognizing, Madam Chair. You're welcome. Madam Chair, I briefly would like
to let Sheriff May present, and then I'll
Speaker 207
57:17
wind it up. Mr. Bayh, you are recognized. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I'd like to, first of all, congratulate Representative Wright for presenting this bill.
I'm one of the witnesses here today who actually have been fighting in the trenches, and I'm not taking it away from my good friend here, Mr. Fisher, for 25 years. years, he stated that he had been fighting in the trenches, and I certainly respect him for that. But presently, I am the one here now who is actually fighting in the trenches. And we don't have the clean atmosphere that we have in this room here. And it's easy, it's very easy to argue pros and cons, and I've been listening very intently
what the representatives down in the end, the arguments they've been bringing up. I have an old friend, and one of his favorite sayings is, is the juice worth the squeeze? And I would dare say it is more than worth the squeeze in this particular incident. I've been listening to arguments that would state that folks can't go and get a veteran for their cold or their flu in order to fix themselves. Well, we can see that there's other products out there, that they have to go to the doctor to get a prescription.
In most cases, if they do, the doctor probably would prescribe something better than Infederin to fix them up, if they actually were that sick. We have, in this country, an epidemic. It's a very, very serious epidemic. All you have to do is turn on your television sets and watch 60 Minutes or Date Line or something along that line, and they have specials about the meth problem we have. Approximately 80% of all the inmates serving time in our state prison are serving time because of some sort of drug-related crime.
Most of those drugs that are in there, I've been told somewhere around 50% or so, are in there because of meth-related crimes. This is a great burden on the taxpayers of this state. The governor has been fighting a valiant battle to express that very thing to the good people of this state. And you all, this committee, should be very aware of that, what it's costing the taxpayers. In my county, we can house somewhere around 110 prisoners in my jail.
Sometimes we go over that. But I can tell you, frankly and flat out, that about 70% of our inmates are in there because of meth-related crimes. It's a sad situation that we've got here. My deputies, on a daily basis, investigate crimes that are related to methamphetamine. We see children involved with families.
Representative Wright spoke a moment ago about the shake and bake, about driving down the highway highway and literally making this drug while in the vehicle, while children in the vehicle. We've actually had explosions inside a vehicle where children and adults both were burned. I think if you would check with the children's hospital here at the burn center here in Little Rock, you'll find that not only have children been treated for meth-related burns, but also adults who have been involved in making this satanic ingredient.
And I can tell you, from a law enforcement standpoint, I cannot imagine, and I want to address this to the gentleman down there on my right, I cannot imagine any law enforcement official not being for this bill. Talking about tracking, this electronic tracking, I can tell you that has become a joke in law enforcement. And the reason it is, is because people now, you can go to Walgreens, Walmart, people line up. They know when the trucks arrive with the pseudo-infederate.
Am I correct here? They know. They'll go in and they'll buy. They'll literally line up. There'll be a line coming out from the pharmacy buying the pseudo-infederate. And then they take it, and they do. They either trade it or sell it, and $50 is the going rate. It's what they sell it or trade it for. And the electronic tracking is a joke because these people, they'll buy, maybe buy once a month, and the red flag doesn't go off. So I can tell you that argument doesn't hold water. What we've got to do is fight this battle and win this war.
And when the next war comes up, we've got to fight that battle. And we've got to fight a battle, one battle at a time. And we can talk back and forth, pros and cons, this and that. But I can tell you there's nothing more important than you folks in this room need to be talking about and doing something about you have an absolute opportunity to give us in law enforcement the tools we have to have in order to fight this crime. And it's a crime. It's a crime against humanity, and it's a crime against children,
which, of course, is part of humanity, but it's a crime against the entire population, not only the state, but this country. It's an epidemic in this country. And we and you in Arkansas can do something about it by coming forth and not bending. And I'm a very frank person, Madam Chairman. I'm not vulgar, but not bending to the big money in this lobbying group who's not for it. Now, let's be frank and honest about that. So, yes, I'm here to support this bill, and I certainly hope this committee supports it and gets it out of here
so that the rest of this legislature can vote for it and pass it, because we've got to have something in law enforcement to help us. Instead of people sitting on the sidelines, and I see it in my office all the time, People coming to me, why can't you do this or why can't you do that? It's concerning meth. Rehab programs, what a waste of money, what a waste of time, what a waste to the taxpayers of this state. Rehab starts right here. Let's keep this infederate out of the hands of the people who are going to be cooking it and presenting it and selling it to the public.
I'll take questions, Madam Chair. Thank you, Sheriff May, for your testimony and your service. Representative
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:03:42
Hall, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Welcome, Sheriff. A couple quick questions, if
I may. You referenced that you've been fighting these meth labs for about 25 years, is it? No, sir. My
Speaker 207
1:03:54
colleague was fighting them in the trenches for 25. I'm in my 23rd years being sheriff. I was sheriff of Lee County for 18 years. I'm in my third term as sheriff.
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:04:04
Yes, right. And I appreciate it. used in Lee County also. My question is, how long has this meth lab crisis been operating? Could you give me a history lesson? I can tell
Speaker 207
1:04:19
you in 1975 when I was first elected sheriff in Lee County, we didn't know what meth was. We'd never heard of meth. The biggest problem we had then was marijuana, to be quite honest with you. And then when I retired after 18 years in 1992, it was just coming on the
scene, barely. And, of course, then I was out of office. I worked with President Clinton for eight years, and then I moved to St. Francis County and ran for sheriff there
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:04:53
in 2006, and it was big time in 2006. So we're looking at about 19, 20 years, which we're referring to. The question I have, in that period of time, has this product been, was it approved by the federal drug approval?
Speaker 208
1:05:13
Are you talking about FDA? Yes, sir. Well, it's approved by FDA to be sold as
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
1:05:19
a medicine, as a medication. Is there any move on a national
level to remove this from their list of acceptable drugs? Sir, I can't answer that. I don't know. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank
Speaker 178
1:05:32
you, Chair. Representative Malone, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:05:43
I just have one quick question. You can purchase ephedrine over the Internet. Can you not? I'm not aware of that. I believe
Speaker 208
1:05:53
you can. So I was just curious. Well, you can also
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:05:57
purchase Viagra over the Internet. But I mean, I... But making a... So how does... Even if this is made prescription... I don't
Speaker 221
1:06:06
think I've ever done that. Yeah. I don't really... I just know that you can. I
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:06:10
was just... I was just going to keep going because I didn't even want to go there. Anyways, so you can still purchase it over the Internet.
And I guess my question would be the man from Mississippi who tracks it. Do you track Internet sales, or is there any way to track it? Because you – I mean, if banning ephedrine is the goal of this, they'll still be able to get it no matter – I mean, they can
Speaker 130
1:06:37
still get it on the Internet. If they want it bad enough, they can order it. Well, Mississippi has a law that mirrors federal law, which bans obtaining any controlled substance via the Internet unless you have a valid prescription based on a valid doctor-patient relationship.
Speaker 224
1:06:54
I have one follow-up. I guess my next question is it really doesn't
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:06:59
matter who distributes it, whether it's a doctor or pharmacist or anybody. It's all about the intent of the person that gets it, correct? So really, no matter who distributes it, if the person wants to sell it to make meth, they're going to do that, whether it's from the pharmacist or the doctor. So banning it really isn't going to fix that problem, in my opinion. Wouldn't you agree it's all about who receives the pills with what they
Speaker 130
1:07:25
do with it? Well, ma'am, the only thing I would say to that is if you make it prescription only,
You're limiting access to pseudephedrin, and access to pseudephedrin equals methamphetamine. And as my colleague here said, it's just as simple as this. It's either profit versus human misery and suffering. And we had a saying last year in Mississippi, there's no middle ground here. You're either for meth labs or you're against them. MS. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Wright, you're recognized to wrap up your presentation.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:08:02
Madam Chair, committee, thank you all very much for taking the time to listen to us. One of the things, very briefly, I want you all to consider is the cost of cleanups of meth labs. DEA has now told us that they are no longer going to be paying for the cleanup of these meth labs. That means we are now going to have to start paying for these meth labs at approximately $2,500 on average per lab to clean up. and we had over 600 meth labs last year alone. So where are we going to come up with that funding? We
need to do everything we can to choke out this problem.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Wright, we have a couple of questions, I believe, for you.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:08:45
Representative Wilkins, you're recognized. Actually, I was going to ask you just that, what the cost of cleanup was, and I'm sure the sheriff is aware that a homeowner, to a homeowner, it's quite an expense. and I have been told from my constituents that they more or less ignore, if there's a meth lab in there, landowners are now, building owners are now ignoring it
because of the cost of the cleanup, which adds to the danger of children being exposed to that. I'm a former law enforcement supervisor, and in the early 90s, I had officers exposed to meth labs that were very sick before he knew what it was, really. But that's the
question I wanted to ask, clean up. Thank you. Thank you.
Representative Penartz, you're recognized. Thank you.
Representative Wright, just a quick question. Do you believe
that if your bill were passed that it would prevent people from doctor shopping for prescriptions? MR. No, I do not. MS. Thank you. MR.
May I follow up? MS. Certainly.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:10:01
MR. No. MR. I don't represent the Penards.
I think we're always going to have that problem, but I don't think that is a reason not to try to do everything we can
to prevent access. But let me just be clear so I understood you. You believe that your bill will not prevent doctor shopping for these prescriptions. Is that correct? I don't think anything will prevent doctor shopping. But with regard to your bill, I'm not talking about anything. I'm talking about your bill, right? Correct. Okay, so you do not believe your bill will stop doctor shopping. Is that correct? Yes or no? MR. That is correct, Representative Penards.
Thank you. Thank you. Committee, seeing no further questions, what's
the pleasure of the committee? Representative Wilkins, you're recognized. Do pass. We have a motion
do pass. We do have people signed up to speak for and against the bill, so we'll start with the against first. Representative Wright, if you all will step aside, we'll hear the testimony from the for and against sides. Thank you, Madam Chair. The first one on the list to speak against the bill is Leo Hauser.
Mr. Hauser, if you will take your place at the end of the table. Introduce yourself for
Speaker 237
1:11:29
the record and proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the committee, my name is Leo Hauser. I'm here today representing the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, which is the trade association for the companies who manufacture the over-the-counter products. If I could, Madam Chair, and it's acceptable, I'd like to have Mandy Hagan, who has also signed up with CHPA in opposition to the bill, to join me, because I think our testimony
is not only synonymous, but may help shorten the process. MS.
That would be great, sir. Ma'am, if you will take your place at the end
Speaker 241
1:12:02
of the table, introduce yourself for the record. MS. Thank you, Madam Chair. and I'm Director of State Government Relations for the Consumer Health Care Products Association. CHPA is the trade association representing major U.S. manufacturers of non-prescription drugs, of course, including products that contain pseudoephedrine. I wish the box of the other products was still up here because the first thing that I wanted to say is
those are great products, and our companies make those too. The same companies that I represent on behalf of pseudoephedrine make the alternative products that are on the shelves, and I won't disparage them. They're great products. The difference between what you can get on the shelf and what you can get behind the pharmacy counter that contains pseudoephedrine is that none of those products contain a long-acting decongestant if they contain a decongestant at all, and most of them don't. So what people are looking to treat when they buy pseudoephedrine is severe sinus congestion, and they're not going to get that relief from any product that's on the shelf that doesn't contain pseudoephedrine.
That's why about 16 million Americans every year walk right past those products and go to the pharmacy and ask for pseudoephedrine and show their ID and sign the law because they know that it's what works best for them. There are several states this year considering this issue, studying it extensively, about a dozen states where bills have been considered to move pseudoephedrine to prescription status. None of those bills has been signed into law, and several of them have already failed deadlines or died when those legislatures adjourned. What we would ask the committee to do is to study this issue more extensively
before making such a large policy change and for a couple of reasons. One is that there are fiscal impacts for the state from making a change like this. Non-prescription drugs are subject to sales tax. Prescription drugs are not. There's concerns about the cost to Medicaid of each doctor visit for every Medicaid recipient that has to now get a new doctor visit that they wouldn't otherwise cost to the state employees for their health insurance premiums that could increase because of increased doctor visits. And also the unintended consequences on the legitimate consumer.
That's the main concern of CHPA. And if you are an hourly employee, don't have insurance, having to take time off of work and pay out of pocket for a product that is vital to the healthcare system for the self-treatment of these very common ailments, that's something that the legislature should consider very carefully before making this move so
I'm happy to answer questions committee any questions represent Japan arts
you're recognized thank you you mentioned
something I want to cover because this is something not being a medical person really or knowing anything about this these types of drugs again the difference between what you can get over-the-counter and if these became not available over-the-counter is the medical purpose that I heard you state. And could you restate that again? Is it that these drugs are somehow or these particular products are somehow more effective
for certain classes of patients? Pseudoephedrine
Speaker 241
1:15:17
is a decongestant, so it acts by shrinking the capillaries in the nasal passages, there's no other non-prescription decongestant on the market that can be formulated in any kind of extended release. So all of the popular allergy products like Claritin D, Zyrtec D, they contain pseudoephedrine because they are available in 12 or 24 hour doses. You can't make those products with
any other decongestant that's available without a prescription. So if we were to pass this bill, that is going back to something another representative said.
Those products would not be available for those class of persons that needed that medicine. MS. Exactly. MS. Okay. Thank
Speaker 237
1:16:09
you very much. MS. Mr. Hauser, you have some more comments? Just two very brief ones, if I could, Madam Chair, to support what Ms. Hagan was talking about. What I'd like the committee to please consider is what sometimes happens in the general area of unintended consequences. Before I do that, I wanted to take just a moment and thank Representative Wright and
to thank Senator Malone for the effort and the desire they and we at CHPA and probably everybody in this room, including law enforcement, have to try and get our arms around a problem. And the problem is bad people taking a good product and turning it into a very evil thing. We're there with you. And what we disagree on is the approach to get from A to B. The unintended consequences I'd like to bring up for just a second, they're more just practical. As I was reading through this bill, and if you would like to take a note on page 2, lines
2 through 5 where it talks about essentially the requirement that you have to have it only available under a prescription if this bill becomes law. Well that being the case it makes me wonder if I as a citizen of the state of Arkansas go out of state to visit my mother or go on a trip and I get ill and I need to buy this and I buy it in another state and I return and I'm driving back home and for whatever reason get stopped and I happen to have my briefcase or whatever open and the pseudoephedrine
containing product is in there, am I technically in violation of the law and subject to the terms and conditions of the law? It may seem like a stretch, it may seem like a petty point, but to me it says if a bill is passed and there is impact on criminals, the impact for legitimate consumers that are unintentionally caught in this web are just as dire. The second thing on the fiscal note, as Ms. Hagan brought up, there will be costs, I believe,
to Medicaid and to the state employees. And in addition to that, I think it's going to have an impact on the providers because there's going to be an influx of people who are going to be going to their doctors, trying to get a prescription because that's the only way they can get their medicine. With that, I would close and ask for
any questions, please. Representative Ward, did you have a question, or were you just
Speaker 248
1:18:33
kind of looking at us funny? All right.
Committee, any questions? Thank you, Mr. Hauser, Ms. Hagan. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee. We do have people signed up to speak on behalf of the bill. Mr. Tim Koch, I'm not sure how to pronounce it. If you'll help me out when you sit down, I'd appreciate it. Introduce yourself for the record, sir, and welcome to public health. Hi,
Tim Koch
Unverified
1:19:03
thank you, Madam Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Tim Koch.
Speaker 255
1:19:08
I'm Director of Professional Affairs, Pharmacy Regulatory Affairs at the Walmart Corporate Office in Bentonville, Arkansas, and I am a licensed pharmacist in the state. Walmart recognizes and agrees that the current pseudofed tracking system does not work, and that something different must be done, and it must be done soon. Walmart supports this bill, which requires that ephedrine, pseudofedrine, and phenopropanolamine be dispensed only by prescription. Compared to all other alternative bills before this committee,
we believe that this one provides the best solution for controlling the pseudofed problem in the state. On behalf of Walmart and myself as a pharmacist in the state, we support this bill, and we respectfully request that this committee do the same. Thank you,
Madam Chair. Sir, will you take questions? Absolutely. Representative Lee, you're recognized.
Chair
Unverified
1:20:02
Thank you, Madam Chair. You're saying the system we have now is woefully broken. What would you suggest we do to change it as a pharmacist?
Speaker 255
1:20:11
To change the tracking system? Correct. My experience across 17 states as Director of Regulatory Affairs, my experience shows me that the tracking systems across other states are not truly effective either. And I believe because of that, the only way that we're going to fix this problem and make an impact and truly move the needle is to make these products by prescription only. So
Chair
Unverified
1:20:38
you don't know what specifically could be changed in the current tracking system?
Speaker 255
1:20:43
There are different variations of tracking systems across the country, and I would not want any of those to be leaned on as a good solution for the Sudafed problem. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Smith, you're recognized.
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:21:02
Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, your comment about the doctor's need to prescribe this medicine, do you not realize there is a shortage of doctors in our great state at this time? I understand that.
You know, in fact, I really don't have a doctor in Camden anymore because my doctor retired, and we need to encourage the ability to service the public at large. So is this really the right time to present a bill like this? I believe for the
Speaker 256
1:21:26
majority of the population and for the safety of our citizens, I believe that this is the right way to go. I agree we
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
1:21:31
need to do something. I'm just curious if we've got the right mechanics here. But thank you. Thank you, Madam
Chair. No other questions from the committee, Mr. Koch. It is Walmart Day at the Capitol, and we thank you for being here.
Speaker 256
1:21:47
Absolutely. Thank you very much. All right.
I think last on our list to speak against the bill is Sheriff John Montgomery. If you will, Mr.
Montgomery, take your place at the end of the table and introduce yourself for the record and proceed. Thank
Speaker 265
1:22:09
you, Madam Chair. My name is John Montgomery. I'm the Sheriff of Baxter County. I've been a sheriff in my fourth term. I've been in law enforcement approximately 22 years. I have the greatest respect for Sheriff May.
I've known him for several years. We just disagree on this particular issue. In fact, I think if you – and we did not, and I want to make one thing very clear. I'm here on behalf of myself. I'm not representing the association as a whole because the association is somewhat divided. The issue is really, I think, in a couple of areas. First of all, if the members of this committee remember, in 2005, they placed the pseudoephedrine cold pills behind the counter,
where you no longer could just walk up and grab them. That alone reduced the amount of meth labs pretty drastically. Then in 2007, Arkansas introduced, through the Attorney General's office, leads on labs. And I will tell you, Arkansas's tracking system is by far superior to many of the other states. And the reason is because it's real time. In our department, if you go into one pharmacy and you attempt to purchase Pseudo-Ephedrine, they swipe your driver's license.
That is instantaneously available to law enforcement. And this happens on many occasions. Now you go down the street and you try to buy it from the second pharmacy. An alert is put out to us that you just tried to buy pseudoephedrine twice because the current law says you can only purchase three grams in a day, 28 in a month. So law enforcement knows that. That's why the number of meth labs, in my opinion, that we've been able to seize has gone up is because of this tool.
So that's the first thing that I want to put out there. The second thing that I'm very, very concerned with, if right now that information on leads on labs is available to us instantly, if this goes to a prescription only, there's going to be a HIPAA violation because now they can't provide us the information because it comes from a doctor. So what you've essentially done is shut down our leads on labs. You've shut down the very tool that we use to bust these labs,
And it's the best tool that we've had so far. From a personal standpoint, my wife takes Pseudoephedrine and has for years. She's tried many of the other products. They just don't work. And so, you know, she's got not only allergies but during cold. So for her to have to go to the doctor each time or at least every so often to get a prescription when it's something that can be, you know, readily available, I just think it's put in an expense. The truth is, we can afford to go to that doctor.
The problem is taking off work and making time to go. That's the expense for us. But there's so many people, legitimate people, that purchase pseudoephedrine. I totally agree. Meth labs is a plague on our society. And as law enforcement, we're doing everything we can to try to do that. I just feel that this is not the solution. The other states, and I mentioned Mississippi was talked about, I know Missouri, those are not instant leads on labs.
I think they take seven days for that information to get back to law enforcement. Several times this last year, and I would say close to ten of the meth labs, we actually arrested them as they left and were on their way back home from the pharmacy. And the reason is because when you've got known drug dealers, you can actually, as law enforcement, flag them. And so when their associates and them all buy pseudoephedrine the same day, it pops up to our investigators, and they can immediately go out and through search forms make those arrests.
So, again, with all due respect, law enforcement is not totally in agreement, but from a personal standpoint, I just think this bill is going to hurt law enforcement, and I certainly think it's going to hurt the poor. Thank you. Thank you, Sheriff Montgomery. Representative Pernard, did
Seeing no further questions, thank you, Representative Montgomery. We have no one else signed up to speak for or against the bill.
Representative Wright, are you closed for your bill? You want to close for your bill,
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:26:46
please take a seat at the end of the table. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. I just briefly want to address the tracking issue. What we've done with the tracking issue is we have created an entire underground network of smurfers. It's called smurfing. They spend their entire day traveling around our state buying pseudoephedrine. Law enforcement is not tracking the manufacturers of meth.
They're tracking these smurfers. That's what that system does. We've got an opportunity to stamp out meth, and it's make it by prescription only. It's the only thing in the manufacture of meth that if you cut out, you cannot make meth. I thank you so much for your time. I appreciate a good
vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Wright. We had a motion on the floor from Representative Wilkins. Do pass for House Bill 1444. All in favor indicate by saying aye.
Aye. All opposed, no. No. Representative Wright,
your bill has failed. Ladies and gentlemen, I do want to say we're going to hear without objection Senate Bill 437, Senator Malone. I will tell you. Yes, ma'am. Representative Lee, you're
Chair
Unverified
1:28:01
recognized. At the outset of the meeting, you were very specific about voting, about what we were going to hear, And to pull that out of order at this point, because it is controversial, would take a two-thirds vote, if I'm not mistaken.
Ma'am, the reason I have suggested we do this is that, if you will recall, Senator Malone was here presenting last week, and he had already begun to present his bill when there was a motion to take it for an opinion at rules. So we had already recognized him to present his bill, and we wanted to go ahead and hear that bill today. Now, it's up to the committee. We can decide if we want to hear Senate Bill 437 or not. I will let the committee rule that.
Speaker 270
1:28:48
Representative Lee? Yes. I had something on
Chair
Unverified
1:28:52
1728, which is next in order on the agenda. Could I ask Representative Carter, ask me to ask for
for that? Without objection, we'll set a special order for House Bill 1728. Any objection for that? Representative Lovell.
Madam Chair, my objection would be that we went three weeks left, or supposedly three weeks left.
But if we hear all the bills on our agenda, and even a small percentage of those be special order, then we will still be talking in May. And I respect that. I respect that,
Chair
Unverified
1:29:35
Representative Lovell. He is a chair of Revenue and Tax, and that's the only reason he asked for it is for planning purposes, sir. But I understand what you're saying. It is
the pleasure of the committee. Representative Lee, are you withdrawing your request or you're not withdrawing your request?
All right. So we have a request for a special order for 1728 on the 22nd, March 22nd. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. Mr. Price, roll call it, please. remember members we go in order of seniority on roll call representative Allen
Speaker 275
1:30:27
I'm sorry representative Gaskell representative level representative
King, Representative King, Representative Hall, Representative
Speaker 273
1:30:42
Hall, Representative Hyde, Representative Hyde, Representative Penards, Representative
Speaker 275
1:31:09
Wagner, Representative Representative Lee, Representative Ward, Representative Smith, Representative Wilkins,
Rep. Perry, Rep. Malone, Rep. Letting, Rep. Wardlaw, Rep. Lamkin, Rep. Mayberry, Rep. Representative Mayberry
Representative Woods Yes Chairman Tunnel Okay 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8 We have 8, 4, and 6 We'll go ahead, Senator Malone, and hear your bill
and we will not set a special order at this time. Thank
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:32:25
you, members of the committee and Madam Chair.
And I will be brief. Point of privilege here. Does this
committee, would this committee recognize the pharmacists that have taken off today to support this bill just by them raising their hand? Just some show for the members. There was a question earlier about where the pharmacists on this. Is it okay if they do that? Oh, they already. They
Speaker 285
1:32:48
have already. All right. Well, they don't take instructions very well. Thank you very much. That's all right.
I will not. Senator Malone, before you, before, let me, I should have made this announcement already. We have made arrangements for lunch.
So if you all are thinking we're not going to have anything to eat, we're going to have something to eat. So we've got a lot. I will not stand between this committee and lunch. I promise you. But the lunch will be delivered here, and we
can be rude, I guess, and eat in front of others. But we have had occasions where we've not been able to eat between meeting
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:33:17
and session. So we're going to take care of that today. All right.
I will not address anything about the bill unless you want me to. You've already passed it out of this committee. We're back here, in essence, to concur an amendment, and the amendment was driven by some questions of the committee members that we needed to have an allowance in here to
allow for military-issued IDs to be valid to buy pseudoephedrine. That's the difference in the bill today in which you voted out last week. I'll stop there, answer any questions, or go through the bill if you'd like me to.
It's engrossed in the bill. The amendment has been engrossed in the bill. Representative
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
1:33:57
Wagner, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, I could not hear what you were saying, and I apologize, but would you repeat
what the item is that
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:34:08
you mentioned? There was discussion by the committee that we should honor the military folks and that that their military identification qualify for them to use as identification to buy pseudoephedrine from a pharmacy. That amendment was drawn. It's engrossed in the bill now, and that takes care of the issue that several members had.
Representative Wilkins, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:34:40
A motion at the proper time, Madam
Chair. Committee, any other questions? Representative Malone. Representative Malone.
Speaker 216
1:34:49
Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Malone, I just have a quick question along the same lines of the – I
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:34:55
appreciate you amending it for the military. As you know, Fort Smith, we have over 30,000 troops that come through there. My next question would be, we also have approximately 100,000 workers from Oklahoma that commute to Fort Smith on a daily basis that, for instance, work at Whirlpool, Max Deal, Hiram Walker,
Mars Petcare, Mitsubishi. I'm just curious, because if this bill passes, it means they wouldn't be able to go and get Sudafed because they have an Oklahoma ID, yet they work in Arkansas. Is that correct? That is correct. Is there any way to
Speaker 227
1:35:28
amend that for those workers? I mean, again, I'm just trying to
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:35:35
... I do understand and have empathy for the border Other cities, however, just listening to the testimony we heard a little bit earlier about
putting it on prescription, this is a strong effort to tighten down what we have to make sure that we don't have folks coming in from all other states with different kinds of identification to buy this product. And normally, not all time, normally the people that live in Oklahoma or over in Tennessee, physician is in Tennessee or their pharmacies in Tennessee and so they will be able to buy it in the state where they live based on the law where they live and I don't think I can or we can come up with a bill that will not have a
lot of loopholes in it to accommodate out-of-state visitors and people I'm sorry but I don't want to do that
Speaker 227
1:36:26
if I may madam chair with the follow-up certainly what and
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:36:30
I appreciate that but I guess being a border city we have to look at things differently, and for instance, if someone lives in Sallisaw, which a lot of them do, and drive into Fort Smith, they can't go all the way back to Sallisaw on a lunch break of a third shift while working
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:36:48
at Whirlpool. Honestly, God, I really do understand the plight, but we've heard from all sides, at
least I have, and I bet a lot of you have, on the problem we have today with the loopholes in the present system, and the only solution we've got is to tighten down what we have, which is in this bill, it vastly tightens the system, or go to a prescription only. And this group of pharmacists and a lot of you, all of us, what can we do to get this product off the street but keep it available for the legitimate users in Arkansas and not require them to go to the doctor
and get a prescription? I don't mean to be facetious. I truly understand the fact that people will be coming across the border to work. However, it's back to they live in Oklahoma, or they chose to live in Oklahoma, they chose to live in Tennessee, and they're over here to work, and we're glad they are, but I don't know how to make this bill fit their choices about where they live.
Representative Lampkin, you're recognized. Thank you, Matt.
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
1:38:01
Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Malin, my only problem with the bill, and I'm not sure it's a problem, I would appreciate if you would discuss or would you discuss Section 6 where it says the Board of Pharmacy may adopt rules adding to a list of additional non-prescription drugs that are subject to the same restrictions. Yes, ma'am. I will be glad to.
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:38:25
I'd appreciate that. That is in there because there's already a product that's emerging that has a potential for abuse.
If you're familiar with a product brand name, Robitussin DM, it's called syrup with dextromethorphan. That is beginning to be abused. This would allow the Board of Pharmacy, after public hearings and all the things that they got to go through, to do the same thing with a product like that that is being abused to put it back where a pharmacist has to sell it and we don't have to ban it from the marketplace. We hope that's rare. We hope there's not another one. But if it does, that gives them an opportunity to solve it at the Board of Pharmacy.
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
1:39:04
Okay. A follow-up question? Yes, ma'am. Certainly. Thank you. So you're saying there are restrictions in there, or guidelines to follow in there? Not that I don't trust them. I'm
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:39:18
just asking. It is Administrative Procedures Act, and it's a very extensive proposal to go through, but they would have that opportunity since we only meet every two years, yes, and
they just can't nilly-willy decide that they want to put aspirin or Tylenol behind the counter.
Speaker 123
1:39:35
MS. Okay. I just want to make that clear. MR. You bet. MS. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Penartz, you're recognized. REP. Thank you, Madam Chair. I see one of my pharmacists, an excellent fellow from Fort Smith over there, here today, and I believe he was one of those gentlemen that raised his hands. But Senator Malone, let me ask you just a couple of questions, and I, too, am concerned and I express my concern to you, I believe, outside of this committee about the border
city issue, and we talked about that. But my question is, does the pharmacist association support this bill? If I remember, I think they did when you originally brought it up to us. Yes, ma'am. And Dr. Riley
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:40:26
is here, but just in essence of time, I'll tell you, they voted unanimously
to support this bill. And I assume there are other pharmacists from Fort Smith besides my good friend Mike
over there. So I assume that that implies that they also support it. There's a ñ like in
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:40:48
an organization, and I'll speak for them and I shouldnít, however, Not every pharmacist agrees that this is the right solution, but the great, greater majority do, and the association members that represent the pharmacist voted unanimously
to support this bill, as well as the Board of Pharmacy. The Board took an official position on this bill and endorsed it also.
Well, just one last question then. I want to make sure that this doesn't place an undue hardship on
pharmacies, because many of our pharmacies are small businesses in towns that are both large and small and cities across the state. Nothing in this bill places an undue hardship on a pharmacist, a small business in our cities? MR. Yes, ma'am, it
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:41:42
does. Here's the deal. I'm a pharmacist, as you know.
But this is a time when, if we looked at our pocketbook, I would be up here supporting the bill that required it to be a prescription, because instead of making a dollar and a half, I could make six, eight dollars, or whatever the number might be, and it would be worth having a pharmacist go out there and talk to the patient and verify that they needed that this medicine was for legitimate purposes. The pharmacists are here today to say that we went to pharmacy school to take care of the public, and it's not always about the money. And yes, it will take a pharmacist away from filling prescriptions to go to the counter
and take care of their patients or customers or however we want to call it. However, there's not a lot of that. There's not a tremendous amount of legitimate users for our customer base. But if we're talking about having my store, one I own, telling my pharmacist I want you to sell this stuff on the present system they're having technicians do it but on the new system I don't think anybody is going to take a pharmacist at their
salary base and have them sitting over there selling pseudo ephedrine so it may not be making sense but yes it is going to take extra time extra effort from the from the pharmacist whether they work for big box or the community pharmacist but we believe most believe that it's the responsibility to help take care of those people when
there are appropriate products over the counter to take care of their symptoms. So in this case, the overriding concern is the fact that you have pharmacists who are
committed to trying to do what's right in this case rather than always look to their pocketbook. Yes, ma'am. Thank
you. I appreciate it, Senator Malone. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Lovell, you
Representative Lovel
Unverified
1:43:38
have a question? Madam Chair, I was going to move for immediate consideration, but we don't have a motion on the bill. Sir,
we don't. We do have a couple of other people who have raised their hands for questions, so I think
I'll go ahead and recognize them at this moment. Representative Malone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 224
1:44:02
A quick question. In the bill, it says that the pharmacist is the only person allowed to distribute this drug or the
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
1:44:10
Cetaphed. Yes, ma'am. So in the smaller towns that only have one pharmacy with one pharmacist, are we asking them to work seven days a week? What do you do if your pharmacist goes on vacation for a week?
Are you just out of luck or does the tech give it to you
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:44:30
then? No. I'm sorry. I'm smiling because I'm a pharmacist and we are used to working seven days a week a lot of times. However, the store can't be closed. The store can't be closed for the community's sake, and it cannot be opened without a pharmacist in the building. So there's no situation where one of my stores could be open on a Saturday and a pharmacist not be there. A technician can't be in the store without a pharmacist.
Chair
Unverified
1:44:55
I think that's the basis of your question. Representative Lee, you're recognized. Currently, what IDs are accepted that are run through the current system? Well, I do thank you
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:45:11
for that question, because that is part of the problem, and I created it when I helped write the bill several years ago. It is an Arkansas driver's license, and because we try to protect our senior citizens that may not have a driver's license, we set a photo ID, and that opened the floodgates.
And we now have, so currently, they can do a photo ID almost printed off the computer. There can be, they've got all kinds of photo IDs in their billfold, and those don't connect with the Leeds Zone Labs, so they could have a, let's say they've got legitimacy, they have a driver's license, they have a permit, a concealed permit, they could be a member of the local fire department, they could be a city councilman, they could be on the quorum court any number of thing that the NRA the local it didn't matter they could
have a hand they have a pocket full of IDs picture IDs and the current law just says you know they got it that's what they got to have and they won't have that thing on the back where they got barcoding or that all that jumbled up stuff to that they read and so we understand that some of the big box stores today are not requiring them to be scanned, because they don't have to be, they'll type in these numbers and they get it.
So let me expand on that. And so the new, if you pass this, it becomes law, then people across, this happened across from Texas more than anything, cutting the corners off, and then it won't scan, and so they type, they punch in these ID numbers. So this bill that you're hopefully going to vote for in a few minutes says that I have to scan the card that they have, those three that we
provided, driver's license, state issued ID, and the
Chair
Unverified
1:47:02
military, they have to scan them. In your experience in dealing with, and I'm sure you have extensive experience in dealing
with people coming in and wanting prescriptions, getting drugs from you, how many of them might not have something like this? I mean, I'm just curious. Are there people out there that... Maybe 4
Speaker 306
1:47:21
or 5 percent. About 4 or 5 percent. It's really going to be low. And why would they not
Speaker 260
1:47:27
have a photo ID? Well, they may have
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:47:32
one, but we're not going to limit it to what we're
Speaker 260
1:47:36
talking about. Why would someone not have an ID of what you're describing here?
Chair
Unverified
1:47:42
What would make them not have one of those IDs in
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:47:47
your bill? It could be someone, a senior citizen that no longer drives, but again, they could pay $5 and get a state-issued ID. So that's why I say it's really going to cover most everybody. I guess to Representative Malone's point, if they lived in somewhere in Oklahoma or Tennessee, then they wouldn't have one of these IDs unless they were military people.
Chair
Unverified
1:48:13
Is it your experience that there are some people that don't get Arkansas-issued IDs for whatever reason, finances, unable to go down to the revenue office and get one? Is that your experience at
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
1:48:30
I don't know how to answer that. I'll answer it this way, though, is that the testimony earlier was it would be about $50 for a prescription. An ID card would be
Chair
Unverified
1:48:41
$5. So your testimony is to get a photo ID card from the state of Arkansas is pretty relatively
easy. Yes, it is. Thank you. Representative Wilkins,
we're ready for your motion. Do pass,
Madam Chair. We have a motion do pass. We have people signed up to speak for and against the bill, and we will go with against the bill first. And on that list is Mr. Koch with Wal-Mart. If you would, please take your place at the end of the table and introduce yourself again,
Tim Koch
Unverified
1:49:20
and we'll proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify before you today on this bill.
Speaker 255
1:49:30
Once again, I'm Director of Regulatory Affairs for Pharmacy at the Wal-Mart corporate office in Bentonville, and I am a licensed pharmacist in the state of Arkansas. Walmart recognizes that the current Sudafed tracking system is not working and that there needs to be an alternative method for tracking Sudafed and for keeping Sudafed out of our communities. This bill
attempts to control the misuse of Sudafed, but Walmart believes that this is not the best alternative. For this reason, we oppose this bill and we support the other bill, which was for prescription only. as the senator mentioned dextromethorphan is a new drug not a new drug but a drug that is is being abused and we're seeing it more and more every day and what that does is it brings an element of individuals into our pharmacies which is exactly what we're concerned about with with the methamphetamine problem in that it places pharmacists unfairly into the role of law
enforcement to make a decision, yes, I am going to dispense this, or no, I'm not. Yes, you are sick. No, you're not. You're a drug abuser. And for that reason, I have a real concern with the safety of our pharmacist. The risk of danger to our pharmacist playing the role of law enforcement doesn't stop with the pharmacist. It goes on to all of the staff in the pharmacy, as well as customers who may be in the vicinity when these exchanges are taking place. In addition to that, the pharmacist may have a reluctance to dispense this medication to legitimate patients
because they don't want to get into that situation where they have to make a judgment decision as to whether they're truly sick or whether they're not. So on behalf of Walmart and of myself as a licensed pharmacist in the state of Arkansas, we oppose this bill, and we respectfully ask for the committee to
do the same. Thank you. Madam Chair. Mr. Koch, you'll accept
Chair
Unverified
1:51:26
questions? Absolutely. Representative Lee, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. You brought up an interesting point. It puts the pharmacist in a position of not just looking at an ID card but sizing someone
up and determining whether the person they're looking at is eligible or should get Sudafed. So does it open up the door for potential of discrimination on how someone looks, is dressed? When you're just looking at someone and looking at their ID card, how do you determine if that person is going to use
Speaker 255
1:52:09
That actually happens today, and I believe that that issue would happen more often. A colleague of mine rides a Harley-Davidson. He's a corporate, you know, he works in the corporate office with me. He rides his bike to work regularly. He had his gear on, stopped in a Walmart pharmacy. They refused to sell Sudafed to him regardless of the fact that he was a Walmart associate and people could vouch for him. And so for that reason, it does put the pharmacist in danger because they are the decision maker in whether or not that individual will get that drug or not.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Wilkins, you're
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:52:50
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Each one of these pharmacists over here really have their say whether
they sell it or not, don't they? I mean, if you choose not to sell it,
Speaker 255
1:53:03
how big a financial impact would that be on you? Well, currently they can refuse to sell it. Currently our Walmart pharmacists can refuse to sell it. They're empowered to refuse. It's their professional judgment.
So the way the law is written today, yes, they could refuse to sell. Thank you.
Seeing no further questions, Mr. Cope, thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Do we have anyone
in the audience who wishes to speak for the bill? Yes, sir, if you will take your seat at the end of the
Speaker 312
1:53:39
table and state your name for the record and proceed. Hello, I'm William Michael Smitsch. I'm from Fort Smith. I'm also the president of our pharmacy association this year, but mainly I can just quickly tell
you how things work at my store in Fort Smith, since I'm just a regular pharmacist. We have an independent pharmacy in Fort Smith, and we're kind of a medium, large to medium size store. I guess you would say we fill 250 prescriptions a day, something like that. And we, a few years ago, I brought a printout, which, unfortunately, I forgot to cross out the signature, so I can't really pass it along, but this is a printout of our, a copy of our
Leads on Labs signature log, and we sell about 12, 13 boxes of these products a month. I don't feel like we turned down any legitimate requests. But, you know, about a year ago, we made the decision in our store that we just weren't going to be a part of this whole mess, you know, when we kept seeing these people come in. And we did our own professional judgment and quit selling it to the people who would arrive
in carloads and want the same product and come in one after another, and we decided we weren't going to do that. So anyway, the way it is now, I've sort of done what is going to be allowed or offered in this bill, and I feel like we take care of all the legitimate requests. And I guess my point, to answer Representative Pinard's question, is it's easy. Really it's not like we, I mean, I've never had any threats, and it's just really not
been a big deal. The thing that happens is once word gets out, I guess, on the street that you don't do this, then they go away. It's just never been a big issue. My printout here goes back six months, and our numbers stay just pretty much the same all the way except for a little bit, get a little bit bigger during allergy season, which you would expect. And as far as the Oklahoma people, the legitimate requests from Oklahoma, you know, that's a
good question, and I don't know that I have a good answer for that. What I will say, not to be disparaging of people from Oklahoma, but back before we made the decision to restrict our sales, we had carloads from Oklahoma show up. And, you know, they weren't, in my opinion, they weren't legitimate sales. So I just, I think the problem of it being a burden on pharmacists, it will be a lot of work.
If you're a store that's already selling a whole lot, then it will be a little bit of work right at first. But once the word gets out that it's not going to happen, then
it's not been a problem for us. sir will you take questions certainly representative penarts now remember he is
from fort smith which is the second largest city in the state
madam chair thank you very much madam chair uh mike thank you for coming all the way over here today and spending the entire day of your
time over here in something you believe in let me ask you a question uh that was a that was mentioned earlier, do you make a decision each and every day about the prescriptions that are filled at your store, your pharmacy? I mean, if a person comes in and you talk to that person about what they purchase in terms of a prescription, don't you? Oh, certainly.
And you often look at maybe their mix of medications that they're getting, and you make a professional decision about that. MR. Absolutely. And the fact that maybe that you're asked to make a professional opinion about somebody coming in and buying this product wouldn't be that different,
Speaker 312
1:58:07
when I look down my list here, most of the ones, they're all recognizable or regular
customers generally, and we'll look at the current medications and their current medical issues when we sell these products. And then all the other ones are really ones that frequently what will happen is somebody will come in and describe some cold symptoms, not asking for a specific product, and I'll say, well, you really need one of these pseudoephedrine products. It actually works a little bit better, in my opinion, than the non-pseudoephedrine products.
So everybody on my list is either somebody we already know or somebody I recommend, whether they ask for
it or not. MS. And let me just address one issue that I brought up, and, you know, your representatives from Fort Smith are concerned about this, and that is that, you know, we're a border And I know in Fort Smith we have some pharmacies that are located near the border, right, you know, you could throw a football across the line. And I'm trying to be sensitive to those individuals, not only there but other spots where there's border city.
Could you address in your professional opinion and as a business person what your opinion about that is? Well,
Speaker 315
1:59:28
that is, you know, a concern. I would point out
Speaker 312
1:59:35
that in Oklahoma now, you can buy it pretty much like our law is now, so there's really not a problem with an Oklahoma resident buying it in Oklahoma, you know, now. And I don't think they're really – well, I shouldn't say that. I'm not sure what they're looking at as far as future legislation goes.
And I don't know, we're pretty close to, we're on Grand Avenue. We're not that far from Oklahoma, and we just don't really get that many requests. In my little last-minute research, I really wasn't able to identify anybody recently that was where that situation came up. And I was just kind of interested at the numbers of them mainly.
Would you say then, Mike, that the impact to your business, your pharmacy as a business,
would not be in any way significant? In other words, it would be nominal? It would be nothing. Okay. Thank you. Again, thank you for coming all the way from Fort Smith, the second largest city in the state, to testify today.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for your allowance. Sir, I believe we have another question,
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
2:00:52
if you wouldn't mind. Representative Hall, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chairman. A quick
question, if I may. The latest polls that I have read from the public domain has been that pharmacist is
the most trusted profession in the medical field. Would you agree with that? I
Speaker 315
2:01:12
think, yeah, I'd like to agree with that. I think it actually slipped down to like number two or three. Well, the question I'm getting at is since
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
2:01:21
my father-in-law was a pharmacist for 50 years here in Arkansas, I had a
lot of faith in his judgment. And if he told me that this medicine was better than some medicine, and he'd tell me I shouldn't take this other medicine because it's not good for me,
is that not the role of our pharmacist today is to make sure, and is it also a requirement that pharmacists make sure that the medicines that we're taking is compatible
Speaker 312
2:01:54
to each other? Yes, sir. We're required by law to counsel each patient with a new prescription and to look at interactions. And on certain drugs, there's even more requirements to interact with the patient. And,
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
2:02:09
yes, that's just what we do. So, since you're for this bill, you're
indicating to me that it is a bill that, as a pharmacist,
I guess you own your own pharmacist, that you can support something that just enhances your credentials of being a good provider of the medical
services. Is that an accurate? Yes, sir. We're capable and ready to do it. I'm not saying
Speaker 312
2:02:37
it's not going to be some work involved, but we're certainly ready. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Lovell, you're recognized.
Madam Chair, I'd like to move for
immediate consideration. That's a proper motion, non-debatable. All in favor of immediate consideration, indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Sir, thank you very much We're going to go to the vote now Senator Malone, we have a motion for immediate consideration So we're going to go on without a close So all in favor of Passing Senate Bill 437
As amended Concur in the amendment, thank you All in favor of concurring in the amendment of Senate Bill 437 indicate by Representative
Representative Lovel
Unverified
2:03:37
Lovell? That amendment's already engrossed in the
bill. Mr. Price indicates that I still should say concur in the amendment. Okay. Sorry about that, Madam Chair.
I want to do it correctly, that's for sure. I want to be just like Representative Hall and run my committee very well.
All in favor for Senate Bill 437, indicate by saying aye. All opposed, no. Senator Malone, you have passed your bill again. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, we do have lunch here. We're going to take about a seven-minute break, and we're going to come back and hear some more bills. We're going to get some work done.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1843
HB1905
HB1885
HB1943
HB1627
HB1444
SB437
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Linda S. Tyler Chair
Unverified
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 13
Speaker 16
Representative Jeff Wardlaw Chair
Unverified
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
Leah Hamilton
Unverified
Speaker 38
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
Speaker 42
Speaker 48
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
Representative Lovel
Unverified
Representative Buddy Lovell Chair
Unverified
Speaker 77
Speaker 78
Speaker 85
Speaker 87
Representative Robert E. Dale
Unverified
Representative Tim Summers
Unverified
Speaker 110
Glenn Bell
Unverified
Speaker 114
Representative Sheilla E. Lampkin
Unverified
Speaker 118
Speaker 119
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
Speaker 130
Speaker 131
Speaker 133
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
Speaker 147
Speaker 154
Speaker 155
Speaker 132
Speaker 21
Speaker 170
Speaker 172
Speaker 162
Speaker 184
Speaker 193
Representative Tracy Pennartz Chair
Unverified
Speaker 97
Speaker 207
Speaker 208
Speaker 178
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
Speaker 221
Speaker 224
Speaker 237
Speaker 241
Speaker 248
Tim Koch
Unverified
Speaker 255
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 256
Speaker 265
Speaker 106
Speaker 270
Speaker 275
Speaker 273
Senator Percy Malone
Unverified
Speaker 285
Representative Charolette Wagner
Unverified
Speaker 216
Speaker 227
Speaker 123
Speaker 306
Speaker 260
Speaker 309
Speaker 312
Speaker 315