Insurance & Commerce - Senate

Bottom of page okay there is. Soon they will start with you know with. Okay for for the record or what we don't do with the for forty three years deferred list or what. State income study for. Four forty three will help him study shall. Okay Senator you're freed herself and present your bill thank you Mr chairman of the committee I'll be very brief this is the genetic testing bill that we discussed last Thursday night we do have an amendment to. Addresses some of the concerns raised by the committee this is going to be as amended will run the members first. I just a quick explanation of the amendment one of the biggest hang up seem to be the definition of health care professionals we completely removed that definition is no longer found in the bill and instead we limited to the testing being recommended by a licensed physician physician's assistant or advanced practice registered nurse there was also some concerns about there is no limit on the number of tests talking with a lot of doctors since Thursday the the the placing any kind of limit really seem to go into science because there are a clear instances when multiple tests or additional tests are needed but to address that concern that this would be done to sort of somewhat recklessly we did add a line this is you get the first tested you can you're entitled to updated panel test as recommended by clinical practice guidelines because again there's gonna be some instances where maybe they make a new discovery that a gene is linked to a type of cancer or you're not working with a different oncologist who wants to see once the test or something it really isn't the case of once you have the test you have a Polaroid that you can always go back to look at sometimes I just need to do additional tests so that's the amendment. All opposed same sign. I seven center your amendment have been adopted would you please present your bill as amended I will and I'll be very brief and I don't know that I need to go back to the bill that you all should received a letter today from doctor Britton lot she's the medical director the Prescott center in northwest Arkansas I won't read the entire letter but she did say that genetic testing is one of the most powerful development she's observed during her medical career she says that the cost of a risk reducing mastectomy just for example is significantly less than the cost of chemotherapy says one of the hardest scenarios she faces when a pregnant woman is diagnosed with breast cancer and has to grapple with whether or not to receive chemotherapy which as you know could affect a fetus at that same woman had known about a genetic mutation while at the time she could navigate or reproductive years more intentionally with better odds of a healthy pregnancy so again it's. Powerful tool this legislature unanimously passed the genetic counselling Act of two thousand nineteen we recognize the importance of genetic testing and this would just ensure that it is available to all Arkansans so I would appreciate a good vote. Any questions from the committee. Senator I appreciate what you've done I'm icy NO a case where this is actually worked out were but it was home sitting with my dad. past witness I did the test on her daughter who was twenty four years that kind of **** jeans when it had to members all over her body and they tested her two kids and one of the two kids turn out that same genetic disorder and they started treatment on the child I do know there are times when this comes in handy. First hand so yes Sir recreation presenting that any questions from anyone. Centerman. I appreciate what you did to amend the bill I I would just I would ask if you would work with insurance companies and providers to so that would there's clarity for patients in regard to the different surgeries that they may have and whether or whether the not those might be covered under their insurance policies just because I wouldn't want them to go down this road and then you know get surprised by the bill afterwards so I think that would probably just be the responsible thing to do thanks thank you. Senator Hickey. Nobody. Any other questions saying nine we do have one here to speak against the bill is cross BlueShield getting used to this. Mister would you please introduce yourself for the record. Max Greenwood Arkansas Blue Cross blue shield first let me say we pay for genetic testing okay this is a bill that has nothing to do with us paying for genetic testing we already do that with this bill is going to do is require us require any physician we're talking dermatologist podiatrist they can order genetic testing under this bill he requires us to do it at no cost share and I'm like Senator Leding said this is not going to help all our Kansans you all have carved out AS CPSE. Our home and Medicaid. So basically this bill will apply to small employers and working individuals who purchase their own insurance and it will removed any cost share so we will increase premiums we pay for genetic testing every insurer in the state does that's not what this bill does And I would tell you that that just saying that a physician a licensed physician or APRN can request this test is not putting any safeguards and. Thank you. Thank you got a question for certificate. What what what is the procedure that you goals that you all go through you said every insurer pays for it now to get that what what has to transpire now under the current policy generally we get a request from a doctor for like breast cancer it would be a request for bracket test we pay for that test we pay for any adverse result that results from that test and if that woman should need a mastectomy not only pay for the mistake to me but we would pay for any other subsequent medical issue she may have as a result of that what we the request that we get senator are from physicians who have training in medical genetic counseling and it's for the very reason that we don't have to a a total gist and podiatrists ordering tests that are unnecessary. Okay so the other day and I know that what you had to but I think that you would use me too much of us had a problem with the healthcare professional but what you're saying is it would it would need to be narrowed down. Quite a bit more for you all ever feel comfortable with that part yes Sir and and that is what I communicated to Senator Leding earlier as well. Thank you ma'am. I will say screen with the he has a committee this down some I don't may not be where you want it to be but I know he has done that I'm looking at it you saying the amendment it's healthcare professional that's very broad Senator I mean healthcare professional is me by anybody in the state of Arkansas right now. These people are licensed to do this to this work. Your healthcare professional referring to on here you're looking at a physician position system advanced practice and rector nurse they are the ones who control healthcare for individuals right now. On the amendment. Senator Penzo yes Sir. I just had a question you mention record gene testing so if somebody finds that they've got cancer yes Sir and Their children have a decent chance of. Carrying the gene. Do you do you cover the testing of children yes okay. Yes okay already doing this it should be a problem. This this bill is very broad Senator and it's that there's no cost share that's the key here there is no cost share right now. This call share if people go and and have genetic testing done they pay a copay they pay coinsurance this would remove all those requirements that's going to as to the add to the cost of insurance centerman. What that would With that online Page three line thirty four thirty five where it says it's not subject to any cost sharing requirements under other applicable law without also include deductibles yes okay. It would not count against another words it would not count against the tax rate. Okay Sir and as I said you're carving out three substantial groups of people on this bill. Thank you Mr chairman of Senator Leding Are you familiar with the representative Allen's genetic testing bill. The biomarker bill the yes committee passed yes Sir can you could just for my information kind of compare and contrast that with the two bills that have a different how there shall I would've been able to do a better job last Thursday when I had taken the time to look at it biomarker testing is different from genetic testing then there's also you have Jett testing that specific for inherited mutation risks so they are similar but they are three different things okay our thank you and and. Thank you for all you have to do. Hi Senator Hickey. More for Senator lead was but was there a reason that we didn't put the cost sharing part in there was that intentional or I mean but what was the thought process when that Senator Leding that is intentional they're trying to make sure that there's no potential financial cost that might keep somebody from you know that the doctor recommended they have this test but that the the code the cost sharing is cost prohibitive and that she's not to do so and again I mean we're worried about costs but as you I read from doctor brown's letter a lot of the preventative care is certainly much cheaper than if they're not able to do something to prevent the cancer and end up having to go specific chemotherapy or surgery in the future as for having carved out the three groups that was not intentional would love to have support for coming back and adding those in the future if not having him in there is a concern but we it took them awhile to get the language that they wanted and so we missed the deadline on getting it submitted for would have affected employee benefits. Matt the the call sure thing and I understand I mean we would all just love for for dolls you know all to be that way but it just seems like everything within our field you know like that requires some type of. I'll share or you know something to just try to make sure that I hate to say skin in the game in a case like this I mean spot at a meeting by that but the so we just a. I just I just think that it would have been a little better served if we just left heading and specially I mean since that's what we do with our my almost all other parts of our field with the insurance. So anyway let's a federal in little bit cause them out they got a male actor bill and things like that is just. From a from their cost and you know what we're saying you know like say and I agree with that is cycle all these bills or will it start talking about we're carving out to know everything that the state has with the Medicaid and things like that I mean at some point we've got to say well if we're not willing to do it and to pick it up pay for for the state we just can't keep checking it over to the private insurance on that side so and I understand and and again the. Was it intentional to covered employees would happy to fill them in a future time as for the the cost again the legislature has passed similar legislation to remove cost sharing for some advanced cancer screenings because we just really believe and it's much more cost effective not only are you potentially saving lives but it's much more cost effective at preventing costs are treatments down the road. Thank you Senator Leding. Any other questions committee. C. nine thank you it's Greenwood appreciate if anyone else here to speak for or against the bill. Seeing no one else. Any other questions for Senator Leding. If none possible committee. I make a motion to pass. Second by Senator Penzo. Follows in favor say aye or any discussion. Centerman. Yeah I just I I do like the bill I mean I just I just worry about. For instance there's a lot of people that need MRI's but that if they haven't met their deductible they're gonna have to pay for that MRI so I just. Not sure from a policy perspective how I feel about that that that I appreciate that you narrowed healthcare professional I probably would have said that it needed to be in on college and oncology A. P. R. N. or an arcology phys our oncologist professor and physician And at I would just probably narrow that and then read at eliminated line thirty four and thirty five and then I probably would okay with the bill. it's been a motion and a second card to do pass as amended all those in favor say aye. I. All the postings and. Roll call. Senator Irvin. No. Senator Dismang. Senator Dismang. Senator Hickey no. No senator mark Johnson yes. Yes Senator Penzo yes yes Senator boy yes yes. Senator Murdoch senator Murdock. Bill has failed thank you Committee yes. Nicks and avoid. Yes Sir Boyd is this SP five forty eight. Yes Sir and I have a team behind me to help me present this monster bill. So if you're ready for me to be in all of the and again Sir our state senator Justin Boyd Senate district twenty seven and I have and he'll introduce himself Mister Tarpley and Mr Miller here and representative Ferguson might be here in a minute as well but we'll get started whoever wants to talk and introduce yourself okay. Thank you Ripka senator Boyd I'm Billy Tarpley executive director of the Arkansas state dental association appreciate this at a time to be here appreciate senator Boyd running this bill for us this bill would correct situation from the last legislative session representative Ferguson had run the bill on the assignment of benefits which makes it possible for a patient who chooses to go to an out of network provider to ask the insurance company to provide to have that compensation for those services sent to the provider rather than to the patient that bill at the time didn't it excluded dental plans this is representative of Ferguson's attempt and brick and senator Boyd's interest as well to correct that situation so that that same situation applies to dental patients. And if you don't mind one more thing to it we have to have been in discussions to our knowledge there's no opposition to this bill. That covers it it's pretty simple just any questions the committee Senator Hickey I thought there was opposition in the beginning so Joe correct that. Kate and and how how was it done that was done in just direct discussions with the with delta dental they had concerns primarily to to censure down to make sure it was a little more specific and that that has since been done I'm sorry James. Okay so so the payment is going to go directly to the providers that will be a double check or anything like that and all those discussions that are or what it's our understanding the this would give the patient the opportunity to go ahead and sign that over to the provider if the patient doesn't want to be that way the check would continue going to the patient but the the provider has to agree with a certain number of things to make that possible okay thank you Sir yes Sir. And I was informed by one of lobbyists for delta dental that they were standing down they weren't opposing it. The Committee. Seeing none with anyone here the. Someone else here to speak for or against the bill. Seeing none. A motion Senator Irvin second by Senator Penzo. Any discussion. Representative Virginia on anything up for a vote. I would say I would suggest leaving it alone. We have a motion do pass in the second all in favor say aye. same signed. And your bill is passed. Senator Rapert said you join this would go to you now. And would you tell us which bill you're going to start with the and how many you have tonight. For. Your password. Okay on for seventy four rigging everything good for records over what you don't know what that bill. We'll put on the first listen okay. Okay so you had we're going to five forty five is that correct. Yes Mr and you have an amendment. Yes so if you like to present your amendment whether passing around you're free to. Okay the amendment just just make some clarity over health insurers the bill drafters. That one went through review they added that some language and just making sure that our deduct that is about property casually not health. Thank you and just when it back at least one step which in addition cell for the record sorry Joshua Bryant ascent District thirty two. Amendment Charles presented we have a motion to adopt the amendment. Post by Senator Irvin. I do have a second second by Senator void all in favor say aye hi. Senator your minutes been adopted so please present your bill as amended thank you Mr chair as amended amended committee I brought to a probably about a month ago Senate bill three fifty that talked about a private right of of claim against the insurance rider it does I don't know how many are in your that discussion I believe fewer or asset for that discussion but we had very very lengthy and long debate we had my constituent here that had had issues with the process the interest part was here to to discuss that to speak on on the bill and then we had obviously the attorneys from both sides the argument and I pull that bill down because request was can we work with the insurance department to determine what is that look like within rule and so I spent better part of the three three weeks I think spring break we we all kind of just took a breather just to kind of digest but what came out of that was that was the bill in front of you which is that which is reasonable timelines of industry standards. by statute so they can they can adopt by rule and I think at the end of this really what it is is is timelines and processes and procedures that over the years I think both both sides of the issue felt the courts and case law. Decided different ways so it became very ambiguous to really what was desired at the end in the end result. And so the in working with the insurance department and and both sides of the issue we came up with with this bill that identifies really what with the rule should look like and so my my goal is to have some good debate on. On how we can rectify this because I think the committee was introduced to a lot of issues that the insurance department was trying to navigate through. If you would can refresh my memory on whenever you're. Constituents here last and what was that what we what we see here four was that a tornado of fire it was a it was a roof claim okay and it came through had issues with or the arbitration process and timelines and where they they started low on a on a process claim and then ended up ended up high but it took a year litigation and then they brought up I think there's attorney here that brought up a hotel and in center Murdoch's District. that is still still in litigation because of time on issues and and just refusal to play pay claim and what this bill does is it it spells that out with specific instances of what timelines need to meet if you don't meet the time line what you need to do to to remedy that and can't really that what you need to do to remedy that it just it really just gives a pathway of success for for claimants. Thank you for that clarification. Any other questions from committee. Johnson. Thank you Mr chairman. A center right I like to read the bill I like this one hi lows to request the commission to come the table if we're all okay for everything but if there is I'm just one insert any you think you can add anything will so you also this whole process and I hope I hope you would he would relay is is that we we worked well together Ms gatt and him and Mr Saran who I understand is going through some traumatic issues with his road residents and and. He's here okay he is here he's he's he's in workload or a close I hope they make an outline that what with the goal of of this is and different processes that we can we can discuss thank you just for by tired Mr always know truck just got here but. Sorry so when we look at regulation of claims in the insurance industry the insurance department one of the things we've done the last five years is improve health insurance and drug claims now on health insurance claims drug claims if they're not paid in thirty days third minute third okay that's how fast we move with truckloads one of the problems that we've got with property cancer claims is under rule forty three which is the rule that governs how long insurance companies have to pay or make claims we have not gone back and address property casualty claims right now right now under rule forty three insurance companies have forty five days to admit or deny payment of claims here's the kicker says come on a less reasonable time is necessary for investigation or further investigation close quote so that Clause that language has allowed property casualty insurers some leeway in terms of time per user just claims it's not malicious is not evil they've got things they've got to go get they've got to get statements and things like that it's just different than health insurance and drug claims and so I think what senator Bryan's proposing what we looked at our improvements to speeding to speeding up the property and casualty claim review and adjustment process if the the bill also adds an appraisal arbitration provision which I think is important for the committee to consider would join that but we are for improvements to route forty three and we are for improvements to speeding up the property casualty claims carriers claims do occasion to make it consistent with health insurance and I think this bill goes a long way for that. Thank you Sir thank you Mr chairman thank you senator. Any other questions. Seeing no other questions. We have one here to to speak against. Derek Smith. So I'm sorry. I'm Kevin Kevin press measurement. I'm twenty seven the mystery let Mr Smith go feet first on his or thank you Mr chairman so I was here when US senator Bryant presented the SP three fifty and appreciate the work he's done to take a look at it I I think almost he invited the committee to do what we think ought to be done and that is let Mr ran in the Commissioner revise rule forty three two sure it's deficiencies a rule forty threes in place it has specific guidelines and and procedures. the bottom line however is the courts have held that eighty eight citizen can't sue for a violation of rules forty three and I know that frustrated some plaintiffs lawyers and that's kind of what I see this bill. Reward you we've got these timelines in place I would just suggest to the bill goes beyond establishing deadlines and processes and it's interesting that there's a an admission if there's a deadline miss for health and casualty in this proposed bill unlike rule forty three if the claim is not admit it is not accepted within set could be seventy five day starts at of the forty five and then can be extended Dennis deemed admitted the problem with that which is a little different than health care is and a claim under property and casualty requires some investigation can you imagine the investigation that's done when a when a commercial roof worth millions of dollars is destroyed as apparently it was in his constituents case it takes some time to get people out there and look at it and appraise it there's also in this bill. The a prohibition it keeps the insurer or from it or rather it requires the insured to go forward with the appraisal even where there's not coverage for the claim and you may recall when we were here before there was a plaintiff's lawyer from for city in I'm not disparaging plants flowers he represented the actual plaintiff in the case involving the motel in East Arkansas we dug into that because it Mr brand didn't recall it we didn't know anything about it we dug into that file it turned out the reason there was a delay in paying that motels claim is the cop policy had been canceled before the date of the loss there was no coverage and yet under this bill under this bill. The insurance company would have to go forward and that motels case and provide appraisals there be two appraisals if they couldn't agree there be an umpire presented this bill says you can't stop that even if there's no coverage so what I'm saying is this bill has a lot of specific Senate the go beyond there's one I can't help but mention and that is it says that the insurance company has to treat the rights of the insured equally now in a perfect world that would be great you know the old all state add were you're in good hands but there are key and I don't represent all state but there are situations where they're not equal interests because you might have a suspicion of fraud you might have a suspicion of arson in under this bill contrary to rule forty three. The insurance company is required by statute to treat the interest equally and so I just say to you I thank the senator is. Got the right idea in the right motive to make the claims processing better. But I I status a really hurting say almost this is the beginning of a change to a rule forty three Mr rand says it needs to be changed I urge this committee to take them both at their offer and let rule forty three be amended the reason I say that is the rulemaking process will will under the eight APA will require notice it'll give everybody a chance to weigh in on it and we'll come out I promise you with a better rule What this is going to do because it give some specific examples of what is deemed to be an unfair claims practices. And some of them you know you just you do you hope no insurance company would do and if they did it there's already a law that says they can be sued for bad faith and recover punitive damages but There's a provision in here. And on the on the appraisals in the arbitration just so I'm clear to the Committee on how that supposed to work. If his constituent was here he would get to pick an appraiser his carrier would get to pick up an appraiser if they couldn't agree they pick an umpire literally that's the what the statute words as a home buyer and the umpire decides the dispute. I'm surprised the plaintiff's lawyers would be for what I would call binding arbitration most of time they wanted jury to hear their terms but when you go to two appraisals and now an umpire it will stretch beyond so I think we rely on the insurance department and their experience and their judgment and their rules and it would be my respectful suggestion that. This problem to the extent it exists can be solved with a revision of rule forty three and not open our courts up to fighting over how many days it took if there's a problem with people dragon the feet the insurance company has a lot of power to take care of that so with that I respectfully ask that the this bill be denied and that the parties be encouraged if not required to go solve it with rule forty three revisions be happy to answer any questions Senator Johnson. Thank you Mr chairman Mr caress You heard my testimony on the previous bill I know you're in the room yes Sir we both slept since then Little anyway Do you believe that this bill Center Bryant's bill Senate bill five forty five and the potential Tweaking or amendments to rule forty three are mutually exclusive market you say this bill passing and it's still doing the. thank you suggest of a review and in the rulemaking process with the rule forty three well I think if this bill passed then you hamstring the Department with what they can do with rule forty three because it's already set in statute and in particular some of the specifics about you gotta treat each side equally and then the appraisals and and I don't know to what extent the department had a role in drafting this bill despite request I don't know what role they play in drafting this bill but I would say that we don't need both and the better process with that would lead to the better result would be the revision of rule forty three because it gives everybody a chance to weigh in on it and do it and I'm and frankly more well just do it no matter that I think would lead to a better product. You may recall. In my statement I guess it's been what a week or ten days ago I mentioned that is interest rates go up I fear that. Possibility of insurance companies want to hold their money even longer than usual simply because they can make interest all and I'm not disparaging any carrier whatsoever but certainly when interest rates are near nothing then there's not much incentive to to not just go ahead and buy a claim but it you can socking away for a little while maybe there is so I'm I guess I have a little more of a reason that I think that there's there's at least a touch of urgency not overwhelming but I just wanted no I I agree with you that in a perfect world we get a rule that month or two and we review it and it's all. Okay but I appreciate the fact that Senator Rapert brought this building And reached out and got some things done through advice from the from the commission so I'll just leave it at that by appreciate your forthcoming yes Sir this is not my comment you know Mr Moran hit upon this rule forty three and I haven't so I'm reading it. Requires that the ensure complete the investigation of forty five days that's actually about that's the same as proposed in the statute and then he made the dramatic comma unless such investigation cannot be reasonably completed within such time and he said that that's too much of a loophole. If we could take the language in that statute put it in the rule and close that loophole it's all the other things that come with the bill that I think are problematic and frankly didn't get discussed much here but. Your your concern about them plan the float and dragging it out at the expense of the insurer or should already be solved by rule forty three if it didn't have the the the language after the comet Mr brand highlighted dramatically okay thank you Mr president thank you Mr Mr crass Louis to one thing you just said you said R. State Building get do not get touched on that's why you're down there so if you want to touch on those parts that you don't like now the time to do it well I mean he he didn't bring up the the specifics of that that some of the things I've done but I I think I've raised for the committee the specifics thank you for the opportunity thank you senator. One question maybe for Bruce ran and that. Can can we can we chat made these changes without passing legislation to rule forty. God love you. Okay hello I'm sorry Sir if this is good good concession. Thank you senator Irvin I think you could on everything set for arbitration. I think to some of the suggestions in the in the proposed language related to arbitration our foreign outside rule forty three as Mr crass indicated I think the primary problem we've got with rule forty three right now is an open ended forty five day investigation which we do not have health insurance because the medical society in the hospital association came to us ten years ago they wouldn't have it and so right now health insurance if you don't pay or deny a claim within thirty days it's pretty much admitted that's not the way it is a property cast so we do need to fix this there's no question I don't know if the better mechanism is to rulemaking or through legislation it's really not fair center Brian I I think Senator Bryant was trying to do the best you could he wanted to order the department to put into a rule the standards and my response to that was if you're just going to order us in a rule to put this into our standards you might statutory code because I have no discretion to make changes to those kinds of commandments so I do agree with everything everybody saying not trying to be what waffles person here but I think the insurance department does the change for forty three I'm not sure the plaintiffs bar order the court lawyers have as much conference in department to do so as I think that they should but we we are definitely committed to it and I will definitely do so whatever this committee wants to do for sure okay so then my question I guess that would be for senator Bryant are you completely tied to the arbitration keys. And your bill. I think it was it was a critical piece of the problem that my constituent had and the the lack of of direction when it came down to the experience that he that he had not without our love I know I might in a couple days ago I received an email from the insurance department that was kind of their dialogue between the Kerrier in insurance department and since I'm not in in the world of insurance I would love if if Mr Ragland digest some of their in obviously. Yep it's coming from insurance carrier they're gonna give their their side of the story and the client's testimony at his side where you just felt like he was agreed so so so that's you know the issue about arbitration and commercial liability property Cassie losses one of the suggestions that I made was that we have a threshold of the amount of the property casualty loss which would be ten thousand fifteen thousand dollars something that's not small so we don't have to do traffic cases or auto cases and we don't have the bodily injury arbitration that was one of my suggestions to address arbitration I think. The goal within arbitration appraisal process is for the insurer to not feel like to get gypped by the insurance company for a from one side appraisal by the insurance company and for the Kerrier to employee a neutral process arrive at what the estimated losses are with the third party and I think that gives people more confidence that what is been decided in terms of their claims payment is reasonable so it's not just one side coming from the insurance company but it would be a novel approach for us to to review property and casualty losses I'd on arbitration so I do think you know that is something we can discuss but I mean I'm I'm new to this but I against the issues that are being raised for sure okay senator and if I could comment on your the on the on the appraisal in the car on page seven lot lines seven through twelve. It hi this proposed bill says that an insurer or cannot sell a policy where the insurers participation is optional. So the question I read had with not all insurance policies have a process for appraisals and certainly not from buyers so is that saying that I can't sell a property and casualty policy that doesn't have a benefit And appraisal process that's where I read the second one though is the one I highlighted earlier with regard to the claims the insurer shall not deny participation in an appraisal by serving there's no dispute as to coverage well there are a legitimate disputes as to coverage I I mention the motel case it been canceled in yet the statute as requiring the insurer and the insured to go forward with appraisals when they don't even know whether it's covered or not so that was one of the things I should have mentioned earlier but I think if we had time to put everybody in a room. All the players come up with the rule we can we can accomplish Mr Senator Rice noble goal here. I appreciate the comments however he's had a bill out there for quite a while the session not this one your honor I mean Senator recent no not this. Well but we just we just saw this one few days ago right but it's along the same lines I know the previous bill did not have the appeal I mean the appraisal in the empire in it this is new to me okay well I mean and my clients okay let me just thank you I will just say there are some real issues and problems out there with appraisals with you know I'm I'm concerned about networks and being able you know now we're being directed to preferred car collision specialist when it comes to who's in that work he's out of network while I live in Mountain View it's gonna be really hard for me to drive three hours to go get my car fixed and have somebody drive you know follow me there are three hours away because that is the preferred collision specialist for the to work on my car that doesn't work really well for rule Arkansas I know that may not be an issue as addressed here but these are some real consumer issues that do exist out there so there's got to be some sort of movement if this bill passes or whether it doesn't pass I absolutely believe that that rule forty three must be changed we're we're with you on that and I know what you think we went to sleep at the wheel here we believe this is Senator described in his opening that this was moving to a rule change. Member what he said I pulled the bill down so we can address it in rule as for we thought this was going until this bill was filed without certainly me or my clients knowing that I am not criticizing the Senator certainly has a right to do that but I don't want you think we went to sleep at the wheel because I didn't. And this is a new area what what covered by Senate bill five thirty that was a different animal I recognize his constituent had an issue with an appraisal we talked about it he had an issue with it don't know the specifics of his policy it wouldn't with with anybody that I've talked to but Nobody is saying it rule forty three shouldn't be amended I think we're disputing whether that's the best way to do it and that's y'all's call not mine thank you thank. Thank you any other questions. Thank you Sir thank you. Mister Smith. Good morning Mister chair committee my name is Derek Smith with the Mitch Williams C. like gates and what your law firm here in Little Rock Arkansas where I specialized in regulations insurance companies I'll make this very brief and and for the most part echo the comments and statements by Mr crass we we agree with that I should sell you that today up here on behalf of State Farm insurance company just a couple of points but the we agree that the best course of action for dressing these issues is through rulemaking we think that rule making process allows for a questions and answers exchanges they get to a process that satisfy the concerns of the senator would also leave a workable process without a lot of confusion and I'll just mention one thing that jumped out to me on page two of the bill. If you look at lines twenty three through twenty five where it talks about if a claim investigation exceeds seventy five total days the claim shall be admitted unless delayed by action of the insured later on lines thirty two through thirty four it provides insurer shall not deny a claim solely because it cannot complete its claims investigation with the top within the time period under the statute in our view it we're not quite sure what that means for an insurer or once you hit that seventy five day period we don't see an opportunity to request the extension but we can't deny the claim and again the statute says if you can't completed within the time period is deemed admitted you with this confusion set in law we couldn't we're our hands are bound for two years we think a rule making process allows us to ask these questions get answers and read to result that works both the consumer and the insured and so with that I'm happy to address any questions to the best of my ability I will mention one thing that we talk about how a property and casualty is just different than health and how it health it's a thirty day review period and that's the end that is true I will note that the thirty day period as established by rule not by statute the same thing could be done for PNC. Thank you any questions for Mister Smith. C. nine thank you Sir thank you. Any other questions for Senator Rapert. See no one else here to speak for or against the bill. Possibile Committee. The motion to pass Senator Penzo second by Senator Johnson. In discussion. The even even the purest form on this on this bill we did we did hear that that. There was not even allowance there was not even an allowance in it that if somebody's insurance had been cancelled. That you would stop at that point that you would have to go go forward so personally even if someone could get past all these other items I do I do want to membership to remember that that was stated that the in its current form like I say the cost would still have to be born I guess by the by the parties even if the policy itself in castle so. Thank you don't I will make a correction from a scepter it's a do pass as amended. Okay thank you in a second as amended. Any any other discussion. Center for. No matter what happens at this bill and I'm not sure how everybody's going to vote on it but no matter what happens with that I E.. I I want the insurance department to address the changes to rule forty three in rules. I absolutely think that that is necessary I think Senator Hickey has a good point in the the way that the bill is written and I kind of just which we have more time on this because I think we could work it at work the language and and get it completely rights which then would give you know the insurance department I know a lot more comforts in moving forward with changing the rule but so I just wanted to have that discussion point on record thank you. Thank you senator Johnson. Thank you Mr chairman and I appreciate what to Senator Hickey said except I didn't hear it the same way he did and that's. The instance of the claim the basic coverage not being in place they were simply mentioning how the investigation had to go and that it didn't include that. Made made mention that fact that it is not in place that the coverage is not in place however it would be come a would be I will use or discovered that's probably not a good insurance ward but it would be discovered admissible in a different point because I don't I don't think there's anything in this bill and correct me if I'm wrong Senator bro that would require company making to pay claim when the coverage is not in place because of whatever reason cancellation lack of in a. Mr Randi's not a just be at that moment of of state. We're we're doing our investigation and we got to do this and even though we found out during that hello it's it's the coverage is not in place which obviously is kind of a deal breaker in case like this but see what Senator Johnson said for the two of you all heard that differently when we have the the witness come back for let's get that clarified reshaped it thank you. Yes Sir Boyd. Senator Breanne get to close to the bill at a question of procedural questions make sure okay yes one one thing I don't know if it was claim or that the appraisal is going to be ordered out so I don't know far terminology will you both right. It says that that if it's not completed the investigation is not completed within seventy five days then it's deemed admitted and you have to pay it that would be true even if there was no coverage under the terms of this bill the second point Senator Hickey is just related to is the appraisal it says you can't refuse to have an appraisal and the costs that go with that. Merely because you claim there's no coverage so whether it's been canceled or you claim it's outside the policies up here whatever the reason for a coverage dispute. Hey you still got to complete the investigation and seventy five days or is deemed admitted and you got to pay it so carrier could pay something and not covered for or violate this statute a number two you have to go through the appraisals even if there was an issue about coverage. I hope that answers. That answer questions Senator Johnson actually. I'm I'm just I'm not confused a little me used up I can't believe it but judges state of Arkansas that would allow that although he might allow a procedure that's a little tedious we we do not expect an insurance company to adjudicate claims or there's no coverage okay thank you Sir okay we don't that that was what I was trying in and if this committee believes that we need to issue a rule clarification to adopt this legislation to clarify that there on the proposed time limits for education that there has to be insurance coverage in place will do so no question so we could pass this bill and for lack of a better word I will fix that I will clean it up I will clean it up okay Senator Hickey is that kind of answer where the two of us are on this because I don't in your kit what you said I don't disagree with that that were absolutely packed I'm agreement with you senator Johnson I I would just quote quote you I heard you say this morning or this afternoon words matter main things they do they do main things and when you put words in the statute they mean things and for him to say well I can solve that by rule I don't think so when you pass it out of this statute. Those are the words that have meaning and they're pretty clear well let me remind you my friend that the words that meant things that I was speaking about today had been ruled the other way for seventy two years so address from mayor that has come up but but I have confidence in the the details being taken care of by the insurance department I think we pass that one out please from my standpoint if you order thank you thank you any other questions Senator Hickey on that. The. Hey we're we're gonna back up the in state of Pennsylvania for Senator Johnson which are one made the motion I get you to pull your your motion down. VOL B. four U. motion motion now. The thank you yes we're already we're going close now thank you. Mister chair committee members I think a going back to what we're here is it's just about this process out I think what we fleshed out is maybe there is some action that we can take as a state to do better for citizens what I what I like about it is is neither the attorneys for the insurance companies nor the trial attorneys necessarily like like this because neither one if you like they would they win something which I think is means I found good middle ground to navigate through I was given two options what what the rulemaking process go out and. Go through this process which it is a longer process and I'm not opposed that I will take the will of this committee and and now that I've got seven out of eight members that have digested this that during this process can. You know hopefully address recollection of these conversations I'm not opposed that process but when I have everybody at the table in the sense of you know the access to be our attorneys and access to the intent of what the insurance department the totality of the rule this just meant slides everything down from section eight. Downton number and adds a new section eight which is in essence this this bill exception arbitration which adds the dissolution of this section of the code so it's it's a real easy read in the sense that we're adding language or not really necessary to leading a lot of the rule. so that that was the intent of the of the bill is is to really get a wide angle view and see where we can lands obviously if if. Groups or divisions feel like there's. Things that don't make sense I'm glad that we're here to flesh this out and discuss that So that would be my my closing statement I know several states have a tackle tackle this and the feedback I got was it was a long game open that we can we can come to some conclusions and and moved for pretty quickly. Thank thank thank you senator Reid so that being said I have a motion by Senator Penzo do pass as amended second by Senator Johnson. Any discussion Senator Irvin I'm so sorry but as I read on page three line seven when it says that an insurer shall investigate all potential limits of damages a claimant is legally entitled to recover. Legally entitled when means that they would have to have a policy in place in order to recover so I just I wanted to correct my. Statement previously so I do read that as they have to have insurance coverage in place in order to be considered legally entitled to recover. Thank you Senator any other discussion. We have a motion do pass by Senator Penzo second in by. Senator Johnson as amended. All those in favor say aye. All those opposing signed. Senator your bill is filed. Thank. Do you have any other bill center. Senator Rapert. You have any other ones today. Thirty seconds if you do this going on now are you there. Not showing on my end. You're good okay sent fans a you've got the the next ones. This. SP five fifty three. Your back to them in the morning. For correct this is directed to your yeah. A list of where a. it is P. three we're going to check on that real fast officials up here they would love it all these SP bills other day for can. Missteps. Jean me that get that force if they have it what about SP one fifty one. Okay are you through your sprint of our list Thank. Los. Yes but on the far left until the end of. yes Sir. VOL one. Yes Sir will give you know the movie tomorrow regular day session of the Senate Committee meeting. Okay. That gets us through all the Senate bills. We discussed earlier the only doing Senate bill just try to get everything through and after special several committee members. If there are any. House bills they're non controversial we can go through the night we're there will not be anyone here to speak for or against some some that's really easy just for read for the record. H. the seventeen hundred will not be run tonight under any circumstance and neither will H. B. twelve fifty seven. House Bill sixteen forty if you're okay with a Mister Smith just walked back in the room this bill let's go for okay. Center Ryan H. B. sixteen forty. Representative Hodges bill. Thank you Mr chair by state senator Justin Boyd Senate district twenty seven and the tax Mr Derek Smith introduce himself. Good evening Mister chair committee my name is Derek Smith with the Mitchell William silicates and what your law firm or practice insurance regulatory law on this issue I am representing a CLI the American council of life insurers as well as State Farm. So Mr president your bill Sir thank you this bill adopts model re baiting language recently approved by the National association of insurance commissioners to bring these laws into the twenty first century insurance companies have wanted to provide devices that connect to the internet and help monitor track inner educate policy holders about a risk these devices such as a water leak detection devices from property insurers are continuous glucose monitors provided by health insurers are a win win for the policy holder and the company the policy holder reduces the risk which in turn reduces the number and severity of claims insurance companies want to be able to provide to give these devices and services to their customers but the way our anti re baiting statutes are written these devices and services can fall into the category of prohibited rebates this bill allows insurance companies to have these value added service that relate to the insurance risk we work with Arkansas insurance department to prepare the bill and are aware of no opposition. Senator Dismang. I mean I I think I'm fine with it if if everyone is granted the same gift or whatever you want to call it the same token or whatever it may be but if I'm going to give it to five hundred my consumers and that's has a cost to the insurance company which then as an ultimate cost to the plans. Then but not to the rest the population I don't want those I don't want to pay for those five hundred tokens or whatever it is you know devices and so that would be my my concern. That was what we've got so if I made the bill requires the gifts and value added services not be provided on the discriminant for manner which would. Which would cover. The risk of certain consumers getting the value but not all happened so then how would it work I mean how do you how do you ensure that no one's. How do you define discrimination as far as who gets one and who doesn't treating the similar situated Cust one similarly situated customer differently than you would treat another. Does expand that lower better so I can understand. Senate so if you have consumers that I'll use the the continuous glucose monitor for example for health insurers if you have Covered persons who are diabetic. Presumably all of those who are diabetic that want to take advantage of commits continuous glucose monitor would receive. But. Why would the. The how would y'all make the determination that dates of everyone that then is diabetic would receive one of these monitors which they may have already received through their health plan from the provider. I would think I would. I guess all I can think about is back I had a you know a there's different companies that you can order your office products from. And in being a part of the gimmick was essentially you know the individual offices in charge of ordering the you know the office products we get a gift every time the seven Lexington are we're spending you know five thousand dollars on the gifs I mean you know so we can get into an office for the gifts for the person making the order I feel like I don't want everyone else paying for which children would spend a higher premium than for our office products. To be able to make up what they were given are employing gifts I I feel like I just don't want it shifting me if the a glucose monitor monitor for example them and that should be something that is prescribed or you know. Suggested by the provider that may or may not be because the circumstance in provided by the plan if that makes sense not just the insurance company saying aye you've got a diabetes we're gonna you know give you a glucose monitor I don't know that I understand what you're doing in a month and really opposed to it I just I don't want we make this argument all the time. We make this argument on that we don't want to pay for we don't want everyone else paying for a few people's you know various whatever it is because it increases the pool costs for everybody else and I feel like this is almost the interest companies asking to be able to do the same thing. The very good point Senator the two things I would point out one. Again you can't treat similarly situated consumers differently to and probably more important is that any value added services has to be related to the underlying risk so it's not just a gift for the sake of a gift it's not just something you get and so the benefit of the device reduces claim costs for everyone so there is a net benefit to any of the services that reduces everyone's client calls. Senator. Okay thank you for under lines thirty three through thirty six so under the federal sunshine laws. Physicians can no longer receive. Hendes calendars notebooks paper with printed pharmaceutical companies logos on them I mean it became incredibly incredibly strict where none of those items can be utilized in at at at at a healthcare offices anymore. So. I guess I'm just I don't understand why you would include that language or if it is I guess my question would be is there are you in conflict with any federal laws that relates to those sunshine laws that passed. The federal level that regulates pharmaceutical companies from not being able to provide physicians offices with pens and calendars and note books an exam table paper and things like that notepads. Excuse me centered could you repeat the lines were referencing I wanna be sure I get the correct so. Eight yes it says that they for advertising purposes are not prohibited. That is actually language that was from a bill that was passed by both chambers earlier this session when we drafted the bill as introduced the bill is not yet been signed so we just incorporated with that particular provision on token gifts has already been passed the session. Okay but I mean so you are you familiar with the federal laws so that prohibited this from being able to be passed out at health care professionals offices. mystical companies hello Senator boy you probably are I'm familiar with that so let me go back to a point my opening that and maybe all heard it maybe didn't only rip insurance companies have wanted to provide prices that connect to the internet and health monitor track and or educate policy holders about a risk these devices such as a water leak detection device from property insurers or continuous glucose monitors provide by health insurers are a win win for the policy holder and the company so if these devices detect a problem so if if your blood sugar is elevated and you get to know about it it's it's an opportunity to to do something about to go to the doctor be seen get started on the diabetes drug start your exercise or or you know diet regimen to to get that under control or you find the water leak so it's I that I don't I think maybe I went through it too fast to make that point that it so I understand that I mean I understand that my daughter has I think State Farm auto insurance and they have a device that they have sent her through the mail you know that at checks are speeding and all that stuff so it monitors her driving right so I think I understand exactly what you're talking about my question actually was just that language that was added just because for me it's a fairness issue if pharmaceutical companies can't provide this so why should insurance companies provided I mean and that may be totally tiki and I get it but it's included in its language in this bill and I just I'm just asking the question you know by Mr Smith because I know he knows the laws really really well if he's familiar with that federal language and the sunshine laws that were passed two years ago you know it's it's not that big of a deal for me it's not a deal breaker I'm just asking a question because of the. In which is included in the bill. You senator I'll be honest I I do know a lot of the laws this your speak of in particular I'm not aware of why the federal government prohibits advertising items like this for people in the medical profession I don't know they don't prohibited for the insurance industry and the reason the insurance industry doesn't do it in some states is because it's deemed to be a rebate okay the I I appreciate that I was just asking the question is you have the language in the bill thanks Senator Johnson. Thank you. Mr chairman and I. The server I know why they did it with doctors and pharmaceutical companies because we got scandals point where pharmaceutical companies were taking doctors on junkets to Las Vegas and they have one thirty minute meeting and spend the rest of time in the show's of the golf course and and I'm not saying that was wrong certainly legal at that time and that's you know something a loophole they closed but this is about totally different industry and it's also going to the consumer and I. I know some Pitsch FOR the issue about the token gives the. It made me stop and think for a minute and Mister Smith you mentioned State Farm is one of the client you're representing on this my my wife's cousin was married to a State Farm agent of the state and. Every time I saw him he loaded me up on calendars and pens and pads and frankly I use a little bit silly of so much of it but I got to thinking that some of the things that give away like you said the glucose monitor there was a time when a pocket calculator little committee calculator the like when I was in college over three hundred fifty dollars and then they now they put the name of the company on the back and give you want me to do that anymore because we've got a mall owner phones so the value these things technologically. Changes but when you've got something that could potentially help a person get healthier or potentially save their life I mean that's Senator Johnson they're questioning the question I'm having is that the case of what you're talking about is what that would be and we need to by statute make sure that's not deemed as some kind of a of a rebate or or an. And evenly distributed benefits says so this one so what I would say is you have the nail on the head the difference is this gift goes to the consumer which it where it when you're talking about if I provide the gift to I incentivize someone to basically tell the consumer you need this right that's that's what's happening and medical practice where this is saying here something useful is beneficial to you and it's beneficial to the insurance company if you go home and use it right yes and so we're just updating it to make it clear that we can create a win win situation of the government doesn't get in the way okay that did answer my question thank you thank you Mr thank you senator Johnson. Any other questions. Seeing none center you're free nifty NO one else here to sign up for or against the bill Senator pretty close. Hi this this really you know I want to go back to this is model legislation passed by the national association of insurance commissioners there's no one here to speak against the bill I've there's no known opposition to the bill I would really appreciate a good vote and I make a motion to pass. Thank you Sir we have a motion by Senator boys sex by Senator Johnson any discussion. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed same sign. Send your bill failed did not get five votes. Yes. The motion X. to drive on the second. All tried again all those in favor say aye. All those opposed same sign centre your bill is passed. There to be in those to you. All of the other. Senator Penzo what bill number you health. Senate bill five five three five three you have an amendment to this bill correct I do thanks when passed amendment around. Hey centre Penzo please every step of record and presenter member. Clint Penzo district thirty one get the amendment to Senate bill five five three just the changes the title It currently says an act to add an exemption this just says an act to clarify the exemptions to rule state licensure. I have a motion. Posted up amendment by Senator Irvin second by Senator Boyd all those in favor of the members say aye opposed same sign centre your bill has been amended thank you committee please present your bill as amended. All right so so section one of the bill clarifies that a person or entity will not be able to claim the licensure exemption if they publicly market for sale and equitable interest in a contract for the purchase of residential real property between a property owner and a prospective purchaser this is clean up from an earlier change ACT eight ninety of two thousand seventeen that closed a loophole in our exemptions. Section to the technical moment to reference that the activity described in section one is considered real estate activity for the purposes of a are you seized jurisdiction over an licensed real estate activity. And then section three of. Is Arkansas rules to a wholesale consumer protection act this section creates a disclosure requirement for wholesalers dealing in residential real estate hello Sir will wholesalers will be required to disclose in writing with the sales contract either a seller or buyer that there are wholesaler wholesaler will also be required to disclose to buyers that they may not be able to convey title to the property failure to disclose. Entitles the buyer or seller to terminate the contract any time are you closing without penalty sellers will be able to retain earnest money paid by wholesale buyer and buyers would be able would be refunded all the earnest money they have paid to the wholesaler. Seller So if. If everybody is familiar with wholesaling that states when one person puts a property under contract for certain pricing goes to somebody else and sells it for a higher price all this is saying that is that they have to disclose that there are wholesaler and what their intent is because our marketing a property that they don't really. so dishes states did state they can't just states that they have to disclose to the both parties. First I want to stop for me or explain wholesaler. Well I mean I think I just be immune in layman's terms oh gosh okay so so to break it down further than that let's see Senator board has a property in and I go up to amend sale I'll buy this property for a hundred thousand dollars he's like okay and then I'll put it under contract and then I'll go out and start trying to sell the property to Senator Dismang say Hey DISMANG I got this great property it's a city for two hundred thousand dollars. And then so all make the hundred thousand dollar margin and I'll never on the property so that's that's what wholesaling is thank you Sir. The the second guessing Johnson thank you Mr so the point I'm it's it's not speculating as much as is you're flipping it for you actually have the title race that kind of what it is yeah because like about properties all the time and I'll go in and put some some pain on maybe replacing cabinets remodel to at the take ownership you take I take ownership yeah I don't it is a realtor it it really it wouldn't be right for me to do whole sailing because you know I'm passing moral judgment I'm not saying that I'm trying to understand the difference of what this is versus is somebody that bought some means follows ally but yet I'm I'm trying to think of a of a well I'm. Name to mine is you know Bill Gates was negotiating with the people that owned the guy that wrote the software that became MS dos at the same time he was turned around trying to sell it the IBM I'm here and I want to do speak to sell and submitted known yet is is kind of the same kind of thing that you you would he would have had to disclose that in the dealing in Scituate yeah because I mean you're kind of I mean yes you you never own the property you're just selling paper. So you don't really have any interest in the property other than you have a contract on it it's kind of interesting means a right to own it and therefore there implies a provincial right sell it but I'm not the Arkansas I'm not passing moral judgment is wondering your this is about you have to disclose isn't it this is strictly just a disclosure making a disclosure requirement and if they don't disclose it gives them a out from the contract if they find out what's going on all okay now I get all right thank you senator thank you Mr. Senate vote for must import most of these that I've done or been involved in I mean so you do a you do a. Purchase agreement or whatever contract you know that to purchase you know between the buyer and the seller. And I don't know that they'd be able to do that the ones that I hold that I have seen actually you know save you know basically that I'm the purchaser or my signs right so that's generally how you would sure right to contract right so what what what difference does it matter I mean if you if you've got if you sit in there and you know you all the way the deal. And you all did a written contract in the contract says you know or my signs. I don't know why that I would have to if I was the. Purchaser of that why would have to disclose and what I will do with it because if you agreed that I can assign it to whoever I wanted and that's that's shows to go she ation that's what Joe both signed off on on the on the contract. So I'm I don't I don't know I don't know about the having to disclose market when you're when you're probably doing a transaction like that you're I mean you're probably most people set up the indoor signs and they'll move it to their LLC or something a manner are you generally doing it to make a profit. I mean is it generally you mean is that saying that I that I have done in or outside of scenes doing no loss we've been involved in transactions were is done I mean it's a but yes I mean it could be done for a multitude of reasons would like you say transfer to a different LLC yeah you know something of that nature but by the same token if I'm in the contract right here in that you know I've made the deal and I've got in there that is my signs. You know looks like to me at that point is if. I can make that money it at that point the person entity contract is almost made of Arkansas mark will security to me I mean if they don't want that in there they should never never go along with the you know what the language of the contract. Okay I guess the I guess it's just the the difference I mean I guess my thoughts on that the average person you know you could go knock on granny's door and ask her to By our house and she has no idea what it's worth to you maker an offer I mean there's to the ability there to. Take advantage of people and that's kind of why you know it's more of a consumer protection to disclose I mean if somebody's going to sell it you know they got a for sale by owner out there that's you know arguably different story but that it's it's more of a I'm looking at it from a consumer protection standpoint manner best one more Mr yes Sir. Maybe I need to re just or where is this disclosure going to have to be made is going to have to be made in that same. The purchase agreement that we're discussion there you elsewhere with the where would they disclose that they're a wholesaler they were just disclose it in the same purchase agreement that we're talking about the it says it needs to be attached to the sales agreement. To the contract. Thank you Sir Senate is mine thank you okay so in in reading it I don't have a problem with I've entered into a contract and I'm going out and soliciting in trying to sell that piece property when we do that every day I mean we we bad bad for business we didn't I have a problem disclosing to the you know potential buyer that you know this has a closed meeting could within these earnest money anymore anyway too much but departments money that's when your what is it we moved past that yes no longer an issue Then that that that you would disclosed before they put up arms money that Hey I don't truly have titled the property what out what I'm not in favor of this is if I mean if I go out and I mean I hunt I mean that's what you do when you're in the real estate world you on for a deal because that's you're going to take that you're going to flip it you gonna turn something else and if I'm out there hunting and I find something I and and I think that I've got another buyer because people call every day asking you know what do you have or you know what we're is this for that man if. I should have to disclose to the guy that I'm buying it from that I've got another buyer you know coming up behind you know I should have the skills in disclose that person or that I've got a buyer which is I think what we're saying we would have to do it for in the market property before we go to closing and I don't mind it on the second phase if I've if I've gotten in the contract and I'm going down I'm trying to find buyers I'm fine with that we got as close as we don't have that because I would have to contract is binding and I don't really care if they know. But amend the flip side I do think what I'm doing is I'm telling the buyer I mean I'm still not. I'm time they were telling the original sailor I've got a I've got a better deal than objects to make on top of that and that this room that the I mean that they're gonna go try to figure out who I was going to sell the property to if that makes sense okay workers do you do you what I'm reading on thirty one page two a host so buyer shall disclose in writing attached to the contract to a seller that the buyer is a hoe so buyer is the buyer part that. I don't think we should do. The seller part makes what I do when I'm pivoting and I'm going to buy into the selling I get it that person should probably know I don't have anything but a contracted and at this point and if I were in a position of asking Ernest from minus the money for most people I don't think that the property because a massive top their money just on my contract not on my D. which is a two completely different deal but I I would not want to again go find a piece of property that someone else is looking for get in a contract and have to disclose what I'm buying up that contract that I'm gonna turn around and sell it I'll never close that you. So. I mean is it D. D. usually close on the properties prior to we had some tennis closes yes but I mean I'm saying is it is it is a common practice to wear when you when you do that. You're moving properties do you. It usually have it and or signs yeah and then so you I mean it's not common practice we don't do this every day but arrive if I find a piece of property in the event of iron mine I'm a solicit that that buyer at the moment that I'm able to get over the decision is up by a property from plan on flipping and I'm talking to people but I fully intend on closing it but if you book Senate. Turning it this changes that no it doesn't well if I get those people under contract no me if I close the property owner to put money in it back on market even if I don't put money in it back on the market this does not affect that. This is only if you just told the paper and you want to transfer. But it's a cheaper situation to be able to do that okay sure simultaneous servicing sure I'm not having to pay for child get title insurance twice again in may it's been it's beneficial both to me as the the first buyer into the next buyer to have a simultaneous close again I don't have an issue with any of it with the exception of. Having just to disclose. To the guy that I'm buying it from the original seller that I may put this try to get this under any contract is essentially you don't know if you've got a buyer not. You know when you when you when you make your your deal on the front end. And I would want to disclose them Hey I'm I've got full intent to try to sell this before we even make it out of closing. Are you gonna make two closing because if they do that then there's say who is it I mean you know I mean they're gonna start soliciting and into something different I just wouldn't want to. Anyway that I mean I see what you're doing in the second half I don't think there's anything wrong with that then I'm only selling papers which you know that I'm we got papers cell I should represent that I own and have the two accounts for title to the house that I don't understand I'm with you there is if the other part that. Makes me a little nervous because at the same time how do you define. That your host of our state never goes through so does that the titles came close at the same time but I've already had schools that I'm assigned and is. that I'm wholesale buyer. So so by our part thanks issue. Three nights to be defined earlier little in my Mr. Any other questions. Seeing none is there anyone here to speak for or against the bill. Center for close okay I just would like to say that you know if you're if you're right now contract and or assigns you know is if anybody that understands the market knows what you're doing and that's kind of a disclosure to what you're doing it's the it's the people that don't understand how real estate operates it tend to. Could could potentially be taken advantage of and you know I think this just protects public a little bit better I appreciate a good vote. So what is the will of committee. Saying No motion. It didn't. This is amended. Okay have a do pass as amended Senator Penzo thank you ms senator Johnson. Discussion. Okay so does mine examine I completely understand the the point of. What he's doing between the. For the second buyer minute makes perfectly good sense to me I don't think it is necessary for the first buyer in fact I think it you know. Could hamper some. Some deals Beyonce and on this as well on what we'll step farther that covers a lot of hand or Sanders do when you have a Bill Gates coming through longer Pulaski County buying up farmland that he does not want to know who he is. Hi my but yes I mean at the end I understand what you're saying and I know I heard you grantee comment but I mean you could take this split with basically any type of tangible property used cars I mean here's Caldwell yes yeah I mean the used car mean they go out I may not disclose that to their wholesale buyer you know they're just out purchasing cars in this different what they're gonna be doing for resale amounts to me it's almost like it's it's just a free market so. Thank you thanks any Hickey. Any other discussion. Johnson well I agree with this and I I. I don't see a problem with the bill actually think that it may be implicit. Senator Hickey will allow these people that's what they're doing I think what to Senator pens of me wants to do is make it explicit that that's what we're doing now I've you know I have no problem I certainly would to it in the the the grantee situation you want to be honest with granny but you know these are kind of two business people Vice wide open I am not worried about them they'll take care of their own situation but I think perhaps in this the situation the outline that maybe transparency would be a good thing but I'm I'm not is experienced in this particular market show are but again as you say it's free enterprise and I'm I'm a little more concerned about the I was thinking about Bill Gates as much as I was maybe the Chinese or a some kind of a hate to say an Afaria saying I had one case that it comes to mind and you mentioned cars Senator Hickey might be thank this is a a friend of that told me about another friend in another town that had a piece of property that the first friend that that second friend really wanted to buy it he was a card dealer and the the owner did not want to sell this guy for he had his reasons he just in like this got it on sale so he went to my friend to go do just what you're describing here he probably got offered acceptance and turn around and flipped it to the guy that the the owner really didn't want to go to an while I. I'm sorry that worked out but also maybe think it's disingenuous to the by the my my friend that did this to this okay I mean that the guy really didn't want the third party the I have the the property then at least you don't have that knowledge and I'm I'm not to maybe it's more a moral thing it is a legal thing I don't to there's a lot of things I think people do but I'm not quite ready to put everything in the codes that we we might come be nice such as speak so I'm looking flicked it on that for that reason thank you senator Johnson Mr chaired Sir Johnson sales of more. The Committee Turpin interview two different ways Senate. I make a comment as well as a member of the committee yes Sir you can't. Everyone else has okay you know it's not just the you know form consent when they're selling you know because they don't know that it's going to be flipped down the road it's not just that it's also that they're not aware that this person has no intention of buying their house yet they wrote a contract to buy their house they have no intention of buying it themselves so I think I think that's the big issue to consider as well because I mean you can argue that the there's damages for being off the market for certain amount of time and and you never had the intent if they can't make the margin they need to make then they'll just come back cancel the contract and and that person's out market that person's was misled so I mean that's the that's a huge component to wholesaling to it's not just that they might have. It that how would you know the different mean my question is how do you know the difference between I don't only know that the wholesaler knows he's sailing or keys you know buying something so months from that you know after close that and that's where I just don't know where that how do you make that determination of. But now I get what you're saying that and that makes sense ma'am if the if you're buying it on delusion that you can actually afford something you can't afford that it's a whole different ball game. But. I just don't know how you write that in the law you know to move because if it is going to be fluid every situation. Thank you Sir Dismang. Any other comments or questions our discussion. Being said we have a motion to approve by Senator Penzo as adopted by segment as as amended thank you as amended centre Johnson I have a second all those in favor say aye opposed same sign. The no seven thank you Committee thank you. That being said this we're not running anymore any controversial bills tonight only discuss one thing before we adjourn. No for. This be brought to everyone's attention is already come to being an insurance and commerce Committee and I mentioned it to Commission playing while ago I've already had one complaint on the siding issue or the House was. Damaged pretty heavily were the insurance department at the insurance company has said will replace half of it even though it doesn't match woods to the side that that to make them sides match. So they're wanting to do half up half way on the House maybe oversight may be newer no longer exist because supply chain manager we've got an issue here we need to step up and face after these disasters have just taking place in central Arkansas and throughout to put our foot down on that and say let's do what's right. It looked like it match before it needs to match after so I would really like someone to step up missed try to push something through on that because it came to my attention about seven o'clock tonight from a with a lady that's eighty years old. Thank you yes. It's not actually happen to me I had siting issues on my house and they would not cover the cost of replacing the siding and they don't make the siting anymore because it was involved in a class action lawsuit in this hunting was horrible and it deteriorated and fell apart and so I mean then you have siting that doesn't match or whatever I think that's a real issue because I think it's a major consumer issue they were me facing right now Senator Irvin would you take that on let's try to get some number of last okay thank you volunteers. Class would you really. I mean I think it's a consumer issue we're here for insurance and commerce we need to step up and do our job. Any other discussion on this one. We agree or disagree that. Yeah I mean I don't I don't know that that's going to be easy because you know. I understand this this bill does not that I'm sympathetic to what's happened but you know a bill like that you know there's going to have to be all types of this considered and you know in the end on things like that I mean it is a judicial branch that is available out there for those types of forms that are being done whatever things are not you know being being done correctly so I appreciate what I read that there were some people don't have the money for that and we're going to place that now to get a judicial system involves force attorneys go and we are here at the legislative body to try to get help consumers out as well. Our constituents I guess I'll look at any bill. Thank you senator John Merrett anything quick well I hope this will be I think Senator Hickey is point is very well taken we legislate we don't the. Adjudicate things that are basically contentious between a in this case an insurance company and I almost or of we set broad guidelines and then we have specific guidelines or sit and rule by the department and that's kind of a little bit of what we were talking about earlier in a different context so so I'm I trust that process but we may find you instances where we have to. Have to either come up with some broad legislation have the Department write something more specific but I'm open to that but if if we can come out of the we would never have come up here again so I guess we just keep working I mean one idea would be just to do like a Senate concurrent resolution or something like that just setting some expectations it's not the force of law but it we send the message. Okay thank you. I thank you just does not respond or stop signs out there and appreciate everyone's